Forums » General
Obviously, the ec-89 is completely unbalanced, and it's price should be doubled, or even tripled. That point aside...
The Centurion MkII gaining the number 6 spot took me by surprise. Perhaps the pricing issue can not simply be solved by some simplistic formula.
Still, I am curious. Do you also have a list of casualties by type (versus being sold), and percentage of those casualties due to pvp (also by type)?
The Centurion MkII gaining the number 6 spot took me by surprise. Perhaps the pricing issue can not simply be solved by some simplistic formula.
Still, I am curious. Do you also have a list of casualties by type (versus being sold), and percentage of those casualties due to pvp (also by type)?
Or, you know, the pricing issue could be solved by someone in charge making a subjective but qualified and educated guess as to what the pricing should be...
Those numbers are surprising. Not at all what I would expect from what I've seen by playing the game and encountering players.
Anywho, on the topic of valk and SCP pricing, I think it would be okay if they were similarly priced. Yeah, the SCP has a large combat advantage in 1 on 1, but the valk doesn't have to stick around if it doesn't want to (an ability that many people have come to exercise frequently). IMHO, the ability of the valk to engage and disengage virtually at will balances with the Prom's ability to dominate 1 on 1 combat.
Anywho, on the topic of valk and SCP pricing, I think it would be okay if they were similarly priced. Yeah, the SCP has a large combat advantage in 1 on 1, but the valk doesn't have to stick around if it doesn't want to (an ability that many people have come to exercise frequently). IMHO, the ability of the valk to engage and disengage virtually at will balances with the Prom's ability to dominate 1 on 1 combat.
So Ghost, in your opinion (and please don't mistake this as some sort of attack, I am earnestly curious), is it okay for VO to change so that running is common?
If that's the direction we're heading, then yeah let's keep valk and prom at the same price. Also the Valk should be made better at chasing. It can already run easily, so it wouldn't really hurt anything by making it a "runner ship" (since it already is)
If that's the direction we're heading, then yeah let's keep valk and prom at the same price. Also the Valk should be made better at chasing. It can already run easily, so it wouldn't really hurt anything by making it a "runner ship" (since it already is)
Roda: if the pricing issue could be solved by a simplistic formula, I would have done that. Yes, some measure of ship effectiveness could be calculated by factoring together all recorded game statistics, combat success/failure ratios, the mass of the moon and the price of mangoes in Peru, but I'm not going to be doing that right now. So I opted for the arbitrary, seat-of-the-pants make-it-work-right-now solution, since a lot of other economic areas are still going to change. Or, as genka puts it, a subjective but qualified and educated guess.
Which brings me back to my other response.
Smit: I'm not sure why you think that having the two be the same price will cause "running to be common". I totally fail to see how any 10k-30k price variation will suddenly bring about a change in player behaviour over what we currently have.
Which brings me back to my other response.
Smit: I'm not sure why you think that having the two be the same price will cause "running to be common". I totally fail to see how any 10k-30k price variation will suddenly bring about a change in player behaviour over what we currently have.
People still don't seem to understand that repairing with 30% left twice costs more than buying new once. The only new 'running' that will occur due to higher prices will be those who never turn and engage to begin with- which quite frankly was reality for most players before the change already.
Sorry to step on any toes incarnate. Thank you for the numbers. I hope to see more numbers like this, to add perspective to subjective arguments of this and other issues.
I still argue that some players would pay just about any price for a valk.
I still argue that some players would pay just about any price for a valk.
It would be really interesting to see those numbers after purchases from pilots under combat 6 or 7 have been culled from the list.
What I'm saying is that the mechanic is there. It doesn't mean that it's okay for VO to change so that running is common, I agree with you wholeheartedly about that. But if the mechanic is there, there are people who will use it as Arolte so kindly demonstrated. The only thing keeping people from running is the fact that a lot of people choose not to run. We can't always rely on that. But IMHO, the problem of running has to be solved by variables other than ship pricing.
But no matter what the stats, the Valk will most likely always be able to flee from a prom and most every other ship whenever it wants. It's the nature of the ship. The quickest ship in the game is always going to be able to run or flat out not engage at all. As long as the valk has that ability, its price should be about equal to a prom IMHO. Now if some other mechanics become added to discourage running, like the slipstream idea or something else to that effect, then we could probably bump the price of the valk down as its ability would become less useful. But until then, I think the prices should be relatively close. I always believed that the ability to dictate whether an engagement happens at all was equal to or even superior to the ability to dominate an engagement.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I think it should be harder to run, but it currently isn't. And I think that ship prices, which are pretty simple to adjust, should be based on the current variables of the game even if they aren't yet ideal. When/if they change, the price can be adjusted accordingly.
One day (I hope) with conquerable territory, PKs won't count for everything and leaving a sector will be just as much of a loss as getting destroyed. Then running won't be so much of a viable option and forcing your enemy to retreat will be considered just as much of a victory. The solution to the issue of running isn't in ship stats or prices, it's in giving players a need to remain in the sector.
But no matter what the stats, the Valk will most likely always be able to flee from a prom and most every other ship whenever it wants. It's the nature of the ship. The quickest ship in the game is always going to be able to run or flat out not engage at all. As long as the valk has that ability, its price should be about equal to a prom IMHO. Now if some other mechanics become added to discourage running, like the slipstream idea or something else to that effect, then we could probably bump the price of the valk down as its ability would become less useful. But until then, I think the prices should be relatively close. I always believed that the ability to dictate whether an engagement happens at all was equal to or even superior to the ability to dominate an engagement.
I guess what I'm saying is, yes, I think it should be harder to run, but it currently isn't. And I think that ship prices, which are pretty simple to adjust, should be based on the current variables of the game even if they aren't yet ideal. When/if they change, the price can be adjusted accordingly.
One day (I hope) with conquerable territory, PKs won't count for everything and leaving a sector will be just as much of a loss as getting destroyed. Then running won't be so much of a viable option and forcing your enemy to retreat will be considered just as much of a victory. The solution to the issue of running isn't in ship stats or prices, it's in giving players a need to remain in the sector.
Ghost, we seem to be totally on the same page.
Inc: Sorry I wasn't clear, Ghost basically summed up what I was trying to say. To rephrase what he said in a much more convoluted manner... It's not that the increased price would be a cause for running, but quite the opposite. If running becomes common, which isn't necessarily the end of the world (especially if there are things like territory captures so that it doesn't matter if you run or die), then the valk, as the best running ship, should cost the same amount of the prom. However, if measure are going to be taken (IE the slipstream idea) to discourage running or make it harder, then the valk loses it's 10,000 credit advantage and should have it's price lowered.
Does that make more sense? It's basically looking at what makes the valk and the prom the best at what they're for. If the prom lost some armor, it would be deserving of a price cut, and if the valk lost some of it's advantage in running (which again, not a bad thing!), it should have a price drop.
I hope that's clearer.
And I know it takes away from development time to be in such constant communication with us (and you seem to have been getting more involved more frequently over the past few months, which is awesome), but I really appreciate getting a window into what's going on and what you guys are thinking, and occasionally getting to voice my mostly ignorant opinion. So, thanks for the posts!
Inc: Sorry I wasn't clear, Ghost basically summed up what I was trying to say. To rephrase what he said in a much more convoluted manner... It's not that the increased price would be a cause for running, but quite the opposite. If running becomes common, which isn't necessarily the end of the world (especially if there are things like territory captures so that it doesn't matter if you run or die), then the valk, as the best running ship, should cost the same amount of the prom. However, if measure are going to be taken (IE the slipstream idea) to discourage running or make it harder, then the valk loses it's 10,000 credit advantage and should have it's price lowered.
Does that make more sense? It's basically looking at what makes the valk and the prom the best at what they're for. If the prom lost some armor, it would be deserving of a price cut, and if the valk lost some of it's advantage in running (which again, not a bad thing!), it should have a price drop.
I hope that's clearer.
And I know it takes away from development time to be in such constant communication with us (and you seem to have been getting more involved more frequently over the past few months, which is awesome), but I really appreciate getting a window into what's going on and what you guys are thinking, and occasionally getting to voice my mostly ignorant opinion. So, thanks for the posts!