***WEAPON PRICING POLL***

[Vovik]

I officially HATE IT starting today. Today prices for guns skyrocketed. You have to basically wait 3 rounds if you win and 4 rounds if you lose to buy a gun and an armor.....then, if you die again it's another 2 rounds.....what is this? ridiculous....and NO, I don't really wanna play with a crappy gun with which you can only kill by a random luck (ie. p90, uzi, tmp, ump or even famas or galil), i want to be able to afford a real gun.

[Cranky Bullfrog]

My vote for Mayhem is turn it off.

 

I dont' think it really adds to the "fairness" of the game. It seems to just add difficulty and frustration to a game that is aging and already losing subscribers due to its age. I see no reason to make it more difficult. Tonight, it is only 10:42 PM (CST) and already everyone has signed off of Mayhem - many voicing frustration with this mod just before they left.

 

Just something to consider. - Cranky

[Fatty]

Where's the "don't care" choice!?!?

 

Dynamic pricing doesn't affect me....type priceline in mm1 and you get to name your own price.

 

Sure, you have to wait an extra couple rounds for your stuff, but you save money.

 

I officially HATE IT starting today. Today prices for guns skyrocketed. You have to basically wait 3 rounds if you win and 4 rounds if you lose to buy a gun and an armor.....then, if you die again it's another 2 rounds.....what is this? ridiculous....and NO, I don't really wanna play with a crappy gun with which you can only kill by a random luck (ie. p90, uzi, tmp, ump or even famas or galil), i want to be able to afford a real gun.

 

 

Dynamic pricing must have hit you hard, vov. I'm sorry that you let your GC membership expire.

[BS.HELLBOUND]

Hey all i wrote in earlyer post that i would need more time to see about this. Well after playing on west for a while with I have found that it really doesn't seem to work main reason is the losing team never seems to be able to get enough money up to become competative. Once u start losing it is really difficult to turn it around. I would like to see it turned off in west i think it would make the server more competative.

 

JUST MY OPINION I COULD BE WRONG

LOL

[[LaW]Maverick]

bunch of freakin women. never even gave it a chance.

 

i just convinced the other 19 girls out west why it is good.

- forces you to use weapons you normally wouldn't

- forces you to think more about spending money

- economically limits the number of awpers (over time)

- changes every week

 

server is staying full

shrug03.gif

 

 

I'm with SJ on this one...

 

Seriously, what's wrong with adding a little more thought to the game?

[Fatty]

It's not the thought that counts, it's the change. Or maybe it's the thought of change. Hmm, could be changing how we think. I thought change was good?

[discom]

Maverick' date='Nov 7 2006, 03:00 PM' post='375241']

- forces you to use weapons you normally wouldn't

Why is this a good thing? The thing is, it doesnt force anyone to do anything. There are a lot of ppl out there, including me, that will buy only an AK, M4, deagle, or awp regardless of the price. I would rather wait 3 rounds for an AK than buy a mac10. So IMO, this DWP thing is like a test-your-patience mod.

[it3llig3nc3]

I posted this in another thread - sorry for the repetition but I see arguments here that I would want to argue with - in my long way.

So here it is:

 

Counter Strike Dynamic Weapon Pricing

 

A few thoughts.

 

I have to note the following things:

1. I gave chance to this concept so I played the game with DWP feature enabled

2. I'm a massive "hater" of this function.

 

Basically all the visible issues have been listed around this update including:

- unbalancing the weapon strenght / price

- radically forcing weapon buying habbits to change which is for competitive players terrible

- bug that gives "free" ammo for everybody at the beginning of each round

- bug that they replaced non configurable keyboard buy-menu shortcuts (equipment moved from 8 to 6)

 

After all this is looks like a terrible mess, but what I want to write about is the fundamentals why I believe CONCEPTUALLY this is a terrible approach to this game.

 

The dynamic weapon pricing tries to "imitate" some economy but a rather simple one. If I understood correctly the algorithm that VALVE programmed, it is basically saying that the more people buy a weapon the more it will cost. While this "rule" looks like a healthy one for the first view if you think about it is seriously sick.

 

In a normal economy what determines price is NOT ONLY how much of the given product the consumers buy. It is seriously influenced by the demand-supply balance that is derived from a zillion factors such as production capacity, wealth of consumers, advertisement, etc.

It is absolutely not true that if you buy MORE from something it will become more expensive. Basic economy principles might suggest: in a simplified model if demand is over supply it is RATIONAL to sell it for more.

 

However.

Real world works differently. Take an example - if for example pricing of DVD players had followed VALVE's rule implemented in CS:S, by today those prices would skyrocket. Instead where at the beginning, DVD players were expensive (in the time of VCRs few years ago) today you can buy one for a few bucks. And they sell a lot!

Economy is more clever than watching out only for one rule.

 

In CS:S the dynamic pricing is "stupid" as there are no real weapon manufacturers behind the price with their rational and cometitive thinking, not to talk about manufacturing capacity for example.

The supply is plainly unlimited!

 

AK47 and M4 prices are skyrocketing because that's the most commonly used weapon in CS:S. Their price in the original game were set reasonably. Now it's costing almost like an AWP.

Desert eagle also. It was a strong weapon with 7 bullets in the magazine. A fair balance of power-price-usability. Now this logic is gone.

There is very little motivation not to buy them since they're the most effective in the game and people will rather suffer a round more and buy one or pick up on the field than start thinking about what else to buy. If I rush I buy an MP5 or P90, if I snipe I buy desert + AWP, if I just want a normal round I buy AK or M4, or if I have less money I buy the "4-1" weapon. CS:S is not an economy game, why would I bother to deal with ever changing prices when it's not the objective of the game?

 

In the real world I doubt that AK47 pricing would increase just because everybody is buying it.

Manufacturing can reach optimal level making it CHEAPER! Manufacturer of AK47 competes with somebody for a sale pushing the price DOWN! for the customers. Where is this in CS:S? What is pushing the price down?

If I don't buy it?

In a real world a product not selling might get a lower price tag but also for a short period of time it might go up - since the manufacturer needs to maintain profit levels.

Or the seller might run advertisement to push sales.

Or explore new markets.

Or alter the product to make it more appealing (Version 2,3 - IMPROVED, etc...)

 

 

Parts supply might also generate pricig variations up and down.

 

 

Also the CS:S implementation is sick as the INCOME part does not follow the inflation of the weapon pricing. Startmoney is still $800, you still get $300 for a kill, and the winning team's money reward is still the same. Just the weapons got more EXPENSIVE.

 

It might have been a good idea to make sure the whole system does not OVER-INFLATE. If one weapon's price goes up by $600 another one should go down by $600 so the BALANCE of all price changes are always ZERO. By doing this it would be something more reasonable for simulation purposes - still not for gameplay of course.

 

-----

In summary my opinion is that the major issue with this pricing implementation is not that VALVE actually raised the idea. The problem is that they don't understand what they are doing and the concept is full of flaws. VALVE should have talked to some guys who actually DO economy simulations.

This update is killing the game, the concept, everything.

It is plainly stupid.

NOT because of the IDEA but because of the BRAINLESS IMPLEMENTATION.

[stutters]

In summary my opinion is that the major issue with this pricing implementation is not that VALVE actually raised the idea. The problem is that they don't understand what they are doing and the concept is full of flaws. VALVE should have talked to some guys who actually DO economy simulations.

This update is killing the game, the concept, everything.

It is plainly stupid.

NOT because of the IDEA but because of the BRAINLESS IMPLEMENTATION.

this was in beta testing for a while. not all variables are going to be found in beta testing....like $16k startmoney servers, or restricted servers, etc. valve continues to work on and improve the algorithm (see: m4 projection 24k, m4 projection now 6k).

 

this update is not killing the game. i have personally witnessed people who go as far as saying "they like it." there are a majority that are against change, and any positive comment is quickly washed out/ignored by any "it sucks" comment.

 

"it is plainly stupid." i guess this is one of those comments that gets the mob going, and washes out any positive comments about it.

 

maybe we should just revert back to 1.6, call it a day, and stand our ground against change.

[w8t4time]

my only gripe is the full ammo it takes a big part of strategy out of the game

 

<edit>

 

a good camper will never have to buy a gun they are fully loaded laying on the ground everywhere

Edited November 7, 2006 by w8t4time

[Raw-C]

Looking at the weapons market page at valve, deagle is projected to be 3,800 next week. Thats just savage. I give it 1 more week and deagle will cost more than awps and we'll have mac10's and tmp's during the pistol rounds.

[it3llig3nc3]

In summary my opinion is that the major issue with this pricing implementation is not that VALVE actually raised the idea. The problem is that they don't understand what they are doing and the concept is full of flaws. VALVE should have talked to some guys who actually DO economy simulations.

This update is killing the game, the concept, everything.

It is plainly stupid.

NOT because of the IDEA but because of the BRAINLESS IMPLEMENTATION.

this was in beta testing for a while. not all variables are going to be found in beta testing....like $16k startmoney servers, or restricted servers, etc. valve continues to work on and improve the algorithm (see: m4 projection 24k, m4 projection now 6k).

 

this update is not killing the game. i have personally witnessed people who go as far as saying "they like it." there are a majority that are against change, and any positive comment is quickly washed out/ignored by any "it sucks" comment.

 

"it is plainly stupid." i guess this is one of those comments that gets the mob going, and washes out any positive comments about it.

 

maybe we should just revert back to 1.6, call it a day, and stand our ground against change.

 

Well I have a feeling that I'm being misunderstood.

I think I gave a very strong argumentation what makes me say, that this new change is not good, therefore I don't like it. My conclusion could be a bit "harash" saying it's stupid but the bottom line is: this is how I feel. and more importantly I can explain WHY.

 

I hear you saying that if we deny every change the game won't evolve.

It is true.

However not every change is a GOOD change - I hope you agree with this.

 

The RADAR change for example was on the borderline.

I did not like it but I gave time and managed to utilize it. Do I really like it? Not really. However I can live with it, since it makes the gameplay a bit different in a POSITIVE WAY. (the reason I don't like it because it discourages teamwork... radar gives out a lot, even if players in the team does not communicate - CS is about teams after all...)

 

The weapon pricing thing has severe flaws as I pointed out, that results in unreasonable gameplay changes.

 

My problem is that even if you can LIVE with this change it is not strengthening what should matter in CS:S.

Let's take an example: I don't know if you're hockey or baseball fan so here is an option:

if we would modify the game rules for hockey to say: let's take the stick away from the players and have them play "box match" and the winner can grab the stick - doing this after each game break. Or same with baseball BAT.

It would still be hockey and baseball after all but the focus from the real game would have been shifting to something which is IRRELEVANT. (players beating each other for the stick/bat)

Weapon pricing in CS:S is not a main factor - it's an enabler for the gameplay. Messing with it is not a good idea - my opinion.

 

What I said to VALVE about changes is the following:

"If you [VALVE] want to improve CS:S here are some ideas:

1. Improve VAC! Rampant cheating is commonplace. You can buy subscription for cheats that never gets detected! Figure out something there!! That would help!

2. Try to revitalize the VIP type maps. Or figure out some other "new" gamestyle scenario.

3. Make weapons and gameplay even more realistic. It is still possible that a player can bunny hop all way long in kevlar+helmet+grenades+sniper gun on him. There were some efforts in CS1.5 - not too successful but on the right track.... Work on this!

4. Create new maps

5. Fix engine bugs (shadows through walls, etc...)

6. Improve network connection ping/lag issues.

 

And last: if you want to re-define what Counter Strike is it would be much more fair and better to issue it under a different title!!!"

 

As I said earlier - if I want to play with economy simulation I'd rather fire up a game that has this as a MAJOR objective.

You are right in saying resisting change is typical behavior stopping even positive changes live long.

But we should not mistake this by resisting against something that is truly wrong.

It might be difficult to decide, but just plainly say: "change is good" is a huge mistake!

Edited November 7, 2006 by it3llig3nc3

[Laz.e.rus]

projected M4: $4900

projected AWP: $4700

proj Krieg/pup: $3400

proj Clarion: $2100

projected Deagle: $3800

 

Valve having to change weapon structures when LongRifles are the cheap secondary and Pistols are the expensive Primary weapons: **PRICELESS**

[stutters]

if we major components of a game were never modified, we'd still be without foul line poles in baseball. the sluggers hit fewer home runs, the pitchers have an advantage, and the game goes on.

 

i think that's analagous to DWP. the sluggers (M2), who know exactly what to buy at a given amount, now have to look at it and buy smart. the pitchers (non league CSS players) have to look and buy smart. it levels the playing field. and it changes weekly. when it comes to buying, at most, you'll have a week's advantage over joe noober.

 

it's not perfect yet, and if i knew valve weren't working on it, i'd be all over pulling the plug. has it even been a week yet?

[Raw-C]

It has been a week. Thats why the newly updated prices caused a more recent surge of anti-DWP posting.

 

Last week, deagle was 1300, m4 was 3500, ak was 2600. I believe.

Last week, I'd still buy those guns if I had saved enough for them since it was only a little more expensive than normal.

 

This week, I buy nades, smgs, and AWPS. DWP has completely changed my buying habits. (Whether this is a good or bad thing, thats for everyone to decide for themselves.) I'm liking that I'm using other weapons, but in all reality, I could have done this before without feeling like I'm being forced into buying an mp5 every round. This only gets worse when your team is losing since the "good" weapons are so expensive only the winners can reasonably afford them on a consistent enough basis to make a difference in gameplay.

 

Does all that mean I want DWP disabled immediately? No. I'm still willing to give it a chance for a week or so more until it gets completely and totally out of hand where you save up for a Deagle and pickup an AWP to back it up.

Edited November 7, 2006 by Raw-C

[Lord Chip Douglas]

It's pretty clear that the people who don't want it on the servers are in the majority. Why not turn it off for now, and if/when they ever work the kinks out turn it on at that point?

[it3llig3nc3]

stuttering.john,

 

I'm not skilled enough in baseball to argue with your "contra-example".

However one thing is for sure: I hear what you say.

 

I might agree that it would be a good idea to revise weapon pricing - however I'm still not convinced that this is the way CS:S improvements should go.

 

Bigger problem is that the DWP in its current format does not seem to be sustainable. VALVE should work to improve it if they want it to live long.

 

I do not seem to get the point through that the biggest problem now is the "side-effect" of the algorithm VALVE has choosen: Dynamic Pricing seems to mean OVER INFLATING the system.

 

My vote is still to pull the plug. Let VALVE fix this thing and when they come up with the improved version we should try again.

[mookie]

Maverick' date='Nov 7 2006, 03:00 PM' post='375241']

- forces you to use weapons you normally wouldn't

Why is this a good thing? The thing is, it doesnt force anyone to do anything. There are a lot of ppl out there, including me, that will buy only an AK, M4, deagle, or awp regardless of the price. I would rather wait 3 rounds for an AK than buy a mac10. So IMO, this DWP thing is like a test-your-patience mod.

Sounds like nobody learned to appreciate the mac-10. I have HS people (while aiming at them!) with the mac-10 from a considerable distance, although not nearly as far as with a carbine.

[it3llig3nc3]

Maverick' date='Nov 7 2006, 03:00 PM' post='375241']

- forces you to use weapons you normally wouldn't

Why is this a good thing? The thing is, it doesnt force anyone to do anything. There are a lot of ppl out there, including me, that will buy only an AK, M4, deagle, or awp regardless of the price. I would rather wait 3 rounds for an AK than buy a mac10. So IMO, this DWP thing is like a test-your-patience mod.

Sounds like nobody learned to appreciate the mac-10. I have HS people (while aiming at them!) with the mac-10 from a considerable distance, although not nearly as far as with a carbine.

 

Personally I don't like to be FORCED into these kind of things administratively. This is fun and entertainment.

Besides nobody stops admins and map developers to create maps where weapons are limited to show players how to deal with them in a fun environment. Think about ALIVEMETAL. A lot of people love that map where only shotguns and pistols can be used. That is a good way. Or sniper maps.

 

DWP's objective can't be that. There MUCH BETTER WAYS to achieve "weapon awareness".

 

Also - some side-effects such as to get full ammo at the beginning of each round is alone a terrible idea - and I don't even know how it comes with DWP...?

[stutters]

this might be one of the best civil-yet-opposed conversation i've witnessed around .gc.

 

fwiw (for whatever its worth?) disabling DWP does NOT disable the full supply of ammo "feature."

 

personally i think it's fun having to change my buying habits. this is fun and entertaining. for a while, at least personally, i was getting bored with css.

...and it sure as hell wasn't because i was getting too good at css. i still can't hit the barn.

[EbilDustBunny]

the ump and tmp were on sale... it was happy

 

but serously this new feature hasn't really affected me much... besides trying to buy fictionary primary bullets every round...

 

i wonder why they took that away...

[Peckles]

Yeah, you guys have fun with DWP. I'll check back every now and then to see if it's been turned off, but for now, don't expect to see me around.

 

Bye

[Demoner]

I say this again PLEASE TURN IT OFF!!! NOSCOPE especially!

[it3llig3nc3]

I really enjoy the discussion around this topic, however I'm still suggesting to turn it off as well.

 

I appreciate the GC management's approach being patient, however in this very topic we have a vote that says (when I type this) that 68% of voters want it OFF. With 2/3 qualified majority even constitution can be changed.

 

If GC admins want to debate the vote results that's another topic...

 

...but until then isn't this community should serve what the majority would like?

[Lord Chip Douglas]

It would be turned off on Mayhem, by now, if the Lead admins weren't so busy playing WoW.