The Good ole Balance Debate

[Logit]

This quote rubs me the wrong way.

"The cert system is really, really free-form. You can be as specialized or generalized as you want to be. If you want to put all your advancement time into Reavers you can do that, and you'll have a more maneuverable, durable and powerful vehicle with plenty of options for secondary weapons and fun gadgets. If you want to spread your certification across lots of different things and be more of a jack of all trades, go for it."

Planetside had a lot of problems, no doubt. But one of the it's best qualities was the fact that anyone who pulled a vehicle or a gun had the same capabilities, and the same chance to kill anyone else.

People who have more time to put towards the game seem like they are going to have significant advantages over the casual gamer, which makes for an imbalanced battlefield.

I know the game needs bells and whistles and I definitely don't want Planetside 1 with better graphics. I'm hoping that these advantages aren't enough to discourage new players, or people who simply don't have the time to play everyday.

[DaddyTickles]

I think we all need to think of this as a FPS version of Eve - the classes are analogous to shiptypes that you can train up specific skills for to enhance your effectiveness and fit a variety of modules for specific purposes.

As such its both a skill-based and a rock-paper-scissors game, so that a badly set up, poorly skill-developed vet will be at a disadvantage to a well set-up and trained relative noob.

To a large extent it will still be a context based outcome to encounters such that a noob with HA may be at an advantage to a vet with MA in a base hallway fight in PS. But even in PS you can finesse that by using the right implants.

Personally, I'm okay with what I've read and heard so far.

[Lunarchild]

They have also stated that they have a maximum difference in power between a newbie with nothing and a veteran with everything unlocked. As it is an FPS, the newbie should be able to kill the vet if he is better skillwise!

The options will likely give you a bit more power, but it will come at an expense!

[Volw]

THey've stated fully upgarded character will have at most 20% more power. Which is probably less than BR25(40) vs BR1 now.

Balance in PlanetSide doesn't matter much, battles are almost never 1v1 and end of the day, it's the smarter opponent that wins. There's plenty of decent outfits out there that are able to come in and decimate the opposition even when faced with 3v1 odds (if not higher). No other MMO or even FPS allows that.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Also, it seems they are basing it on EVE, so even if you don't have the time to play, you can level offline and specialise.

[Tikuto]

Regardless what is said here, may I just point out fairness of an MMOFPS is key for persistence, acceptance and generally all-round enjoyment.


Where balance contributes to fairness through statistics, control also contributes to fairness through distribution. Think about that.

[Malorn]

I too dislike the idea of any form of power differential being added in.

The only thing I think it's acceptable to do that would be for squad-leader bonuses. That one is predictable, fairly easy to balance provided its the only modifiers, and you as a player can do something about that bonus by killing the squad leader. Also that is a bonus that extends to everyone - even the non-high rank players can benefit from a squad leader bonus so that one won't hurt newbies much (if at all) and encourage squad teamwork.

I like the idea of having alternate characteristics where you have tradeoffs. For example, trading top speed for more maneuverability. Or trading rate of fire for damage. Those are acceptable provided the changes aren't drastic and the effective dps remains the same.

Its a very slippery slope when you start giving advanced players more combat bonuses than non-advanced players. It's easy to over-do it and it creates a balancing nightmare.

The other thing I dislike about it is the multiplicative nature of these things. They might say they only want a 15-20% power differential, but in order for that to be the case the bonuses would need to be insignificant because many will multiply with each other.

For example, 5% more health from a squad leader, 5% more damage, 5% more speed, and 5% more rate of fire. How much of a power differential is that? Way more than 20%. Even if you sum up all the bonuses of the same type they still interact with each other. You can't easily quantify the effects of 5% more health or 5% more speed because both will lead to increased survivability, while any dps bonuses will lead to increased lethality. Combine them both and you have a huge advantage over someone else. The only way they could retain their desired goal of 15-20% is if those power bonuses were on the order of 1% or less across the board.

I would really like them to scrap all concept of power differential apart from leadership-related effects. The idea of morale and leadership bonus is great and you can keep all the numbers from mulitplying so you can provide significant and a tangible benefit to the squad leader and encourage players to stay near them and support their objectives.

[Volw]

quote

They won't scrap it because players do want to feel progression.

Pshield, rexo and HA with med+eng certs is certinaly more than 20% when compared against BR5 player.

Also, don't forget new players will ALWAYS be wiped, even if given the same gear as they are inexperienced. Luckily, PS is not about 1v1, so even 'gimped' noobs should be able to do well if they teamwork.

[Logit]

THey've stated fully upgarded character will have at most 20% more power. Which is probably less than BR25(40) vs BR1 now.

Balance in PlanetSide doesn't matter much, battles are almost never 1v1 and end of the day, it's the smarter opponent that wins. There's plenty of decent outfits out there that are able to come in and decimate the opposition even when faced with 3v1 odds (if not higher). No other MMO or even FPS allows that.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Also, it seems they are basing it on EVE, so even if you don't have the time to play, you can level offline and specialise.

I think balance in Planetside is key to be honest. If 10 players have bad-ass reavers, vs 10 players who do not, it's hard to believe that we have a level playing field.

Leveling offline is great, but they've also said people who are logged in will be receiving a faster bonus towards their class. Which brings back my point that people with more time to play are going to be more powerful. Which I really believe is detrimental to the game.

[Logit]

They won't scrap it because players do want to feel progression.

Pshield, rexo and HA with med+eng certs is certinaly more than 20% when compared against BR5 player.

Also, don't forget new players will ALWAYS be wiped, even if given the same gear as they are inexperienced. Luckily, PS is not about 1v1, so even 'gimped' noobs should be able to do well if they teamwork.

I'm not saying the idea needs to be scrapped. I'm well aware that the game is going to need more content to stay at a massive scale.

My main concern is that the progression is going to be too much of an advantage to the point where seasoned players will be simply too strong at some point, which is going to create problems.

Having tons of cert points in the original meant you could have more stuff on you, but it certainly didn't make your gun faster, stronger, or give your vehicles more armor and speed.

[Baneblade]

Which brings back my point that people with more time to play are going to be more powerful.

Which is going to change how?

Even if you make everything equal statwise, the people who play more will most likely be more powerful. Pretty much an unavoidable scenario.

[Sirisian]

Pshield, rexo and HA with med+eng certs is certinaly more than 20% when compared against BR5 player.

To be fair battle rank in PS1 was like a training system to slowly bring the player into the game. It only took a few weeks to hit the max battle rank. (Not 40... 40 was a joke to give people something to do). I think comparing a BR23 vs a BR5 is kind of odd. A BR5 will be BR5 for like what? A few hours maybe less if they're in a squad.

I'm amazed you can jump to conclusions about balance so fast. I really don't think it's going to take years to build a character like it does in EVE. (If it does then my bad). I'm imagining more of a gradual introduction phase so new players aren't thrown a thousand upgrades to decide what do with them.


I know the game needs bells and whistles and I definitely don't want Planetside 1 with better graphics. I'm hoping that these advantages aren't enough to discourage new players, or people who simply don't have the time to play everyday.
You might have missed it, but there's an off-line training system. People who play a lot are only at a slight advantage I believe.

[Logit]

Which is going to change how?

Even if you make everything equal statwise, the people who play more will most likely be more powerful. Pretty much an unavoidable scenario.

I think this is exactly my point brotha.

Player skill should control the outcome, not time spent in the game. Such is the case in WoW where people who have more time are higher level and thus a lot stronger.

I'm not sure how it can change, I don't make the big bucks. Ultimately I don't make the decisions, but you never know who is reading :groovy:

[Volw]

Yeah, but as I said - progression is there already. Pshield, rexo and HA. You need at least BR12 (guessing here) to match that. Also adding med and eng certs increases the chances of BR25 being fully repaired and healed up.


Also we have specialisations this time around.

So a new player will be able to specialise into, say MAX tree fairly quickly - they are using EVE as an inspiration and it's quite common in there to have a fairly new player perform critical functions in battles when specialised properly.

There is no way to balance the game to prevent noobs from being farmed. Smart newbie will join an outfit, learn the game and I can promise you, he won't be farmed even with vastly inferior gear.

[morf]

I think its fine. It adds much needed progression to the game to keep it from getting stale. And it works both ways. If you have a br5 who is a week old and he puts all of his skills into flying abilities, he can have an advantage in air to air combat vs. a br20 who has invested only minimally in piloting.

[artifice]

As far as I am concerned, classes, vehicles, and weapons don't need to be balanced. What needs balanced are the three teams. Easiest way to do that is just give all three sides every weapon and vehicle.

[Gandhi]

As far as I am concerned, classes, vehicles, and weapons don't need to be balanced. What needs balanced are the three teams. Easiest way to do that is just give all three sides every weapon and vehicle.
Eh, but that wouldn't be Planetside anymore. :confused:

[artifice]

Eh, but that wouldn't be Planetside anymore. :confused:

Of course it isn't, it's Planetside 2.

[Rbstr]

Having tons of cert points in the original meant you could have more stuff on you, but it certainly didn't make your gun faster, stronger, or give your vehicles more armor and speed.

But it did mean you could have self healing capability, situational weapons and implants that provide and enormous advantage compared to the poor noob that can only take HA + agile + basic medic or something with one of no implants (and I do forget the exact cert costs)

Personally I prefer the skills that directly effect weapons/hp and the like to mostly require tradeoffs. You get a more powerful rocket but lose the tracking capability. A longer range, higher damage rifle but lose ROF and ammo capacity.
I think then the command skills should be mostly secondary effects, radar rbonuses or enemy radar obfuscation. Orbital supply drops. Enhanced support class functionality. Perhaps minor combat bonuses.

Experienced players should hold certain advantages...but, just like EVE, a couple of noobs in 100million isk of ships can down a billion isk ship piloted by an old player with proper planning and coordination. It happens every day.

[Rbstr]

As far as I am concerned, classes, vehicles, and weapons don't need to be balanced. What needs balanced are the three teams. Easiest way to do that is just give all three sides every weapon and vehicle.

Then there's no point to even having the three factions to begin with. I'd rather minor imbalances than boring homogenization.

[Soothsayer]

one of the big concepts of EVE Online's skill system as it relates to characters with or without large amounts of trained skillpoints is "you can only fly one ship at a time".

This key concept means that a character who is new can spec into a single ship, focus on that ship and fly it really well in a relatively short timeframe (that is to say, within the timeframe you might expect from EVE Online).

The character that has been training skillpoints nonstop for 6 years will have a lot of options (ships weapons and mods) available to them but receives diminishing returns on the time they invest into higher ranks of skills (rank 1 of a skill might take 10 minutes and give a 5% bonus... rank 5 of the same skill will take 25 days and only give an additional 5% bonus).

I think that introducing set classes into Planetside 2 will further reduce the skillpoint gap because it could be set up so that the skills you've trained in the heavy assault tree won't give you bonuses when you're playing as an engineer.

You can only fly one ship at a time in EVE, you can only play one class at a time in PS2.

[Gandhi]

Of course it isn't, it's Planetside 2.
:rolleyes:

[Sirisian]

As far as I am concerned, classes, vehicles, and weapons don't need to be balanced. What needs balanced are the three teams. Easiest way to do that is just give all three sides every weapon and vehicle.
yeah this is a discussion we had in the IRC chat. With damage locations on every vehicle the idea of balancing the striker, phoenix, or lancer type weapons becomes an almost absurd idea with insane complexity. (Headshots in a way play into this). I do not envy the person who has to balance all these weapons in a giant table especially if there are faction specific weapons.

Also I agree with you. I'd prefer no faction specific weapons, but we've already seen faction specific tanks with supposedly drastically different weapons so it's no surprise we'll see the return of faction specific weapons. (Unless they just reskin them all).

[Logit]

But it did mean you could have self healing capability, situational weapons and implants that provide and enormous advantage compared to the poor noob that can only take HA + agile + basic medic or something with one of no implants (and I do forget the exact cert costs)

Personally I prefer the skills that directly effect weapons/hp and the like to mostly require tradeoffs. You get a more powerful rocket but lose the tracking capability. A longer range, higher damage rifle but lose ROF and ammo capacity.
I think then the command skills should be mostly secondary effects, radar rbonuses or enemy radar obfuscation. Orbital supply drops. Enhanced support class functionality. Perhaps minor combat bonuses.

Experienced players should hold certain advantages...but, just like EVE, a couple of noobs in 100million isk of ships can down a billion isk ship piloted by an old player with proper planning and coordination. It happens every day.

I have zero experience with EVE, so I'm having a hard time comparing it to Planetside.

Again, obviously progression needs to be in the game. If these kind of trade-offs are the only bonuses than it would be fine. But I don't believe thats how it is with the way the quote is worded in the original post.

[Logit]

Then there's no point to even having the three factions to begin with. I'd rather minor imbalances than boring homogenization.

This.

I'm sad they took hacking vehicles out of the game. If anything I thought that was a feature that helped out with balance, at least a little bit.

[Rbstr]

I have zero experience with EVE, so I'm having a hard time comparing it to Planetside.


You've got two routes of equipment access balance: Skills needed to fly the things and the cash needed to buy it.
A noob can very easily be as skilled as a vet in a number of useful ship classes, they can also fairly readily make tons and tons of money. And buy fancy rare crap...that's where the majority of EVE imbalance comes from, fancy expensive shit (besides the ship/weaponry balance itself...but everyone can train everything).
Many many noobs have more money than I have ever had. I don't care for that part as much.

So, I, being a old player with 90million skill points, go out in my ship that cost a few months of play time, can easily be destroyed by two noobs, nearly fresh out of the gate with a couple of ships that cost a tenth of mine.
I may be unprepared, my ship may simply be crappy for shooing their type of ships. They may have a really good plan.
If I'm prepared for the fight, I might also simply slaughter them in an instant. But then I might be unprepared for a mid level guy in the same ship-class as me.
All of these can happen.

[2coolforu]

Removing all the variety of the empires isn't fixing the probem it's just removing everything. That's like setting your car on fire when the radio doesn't tune correctly then walking in and thinking you are a mechanical genius - or killing your spouse because you forgot your anniversary gift then boasting about it to your mates.

[CutterJohn]

Removing all the variety of the empires isn't fixing the probem it's just removing everything. That's like setting your car on fire when the radio doesn't tune correctly then walking in and thinking you are a mechanical genius - or killing your spouse because you forgot your anniversary gift then boasting about it to your mates.

Its nothing like that, but thanks for playing.

Removing all the variety of the empires gives everyone everything. You'd get more variety, since every time you go up against an empire you have no clue what they are going to use. There are 50% more weapons to fight against, and 200% more weapons to fight with.

And you aren't stuck with a specific set of weapons for ever because you can never switch sides with your character.

And your team can never again bitch about how the other side has all the best weapons.

At any rate, pointless to bitch about. That at least will never change, its pretty core to their ideals of PS, even if I think its pretty silly. Maybe one day we can convince them to have an alternate rules server. :D

[xcel]

THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE PLAYERS WITH MORE TIME ON THERE HANDS THAN OTHERS. THERE IS NO ESCAPING IT, trying to fix that to a point of super balance and super fairness is a bit ignorant and naive...

[Hamma]

The skill system trains offline, I don't see how someone plays more has a major advantage. Their skills will train a bit quicker than someone offline but I can't imagine there will be a massive difference.

While I am skeptical about increasing damage with skills it's likely something we will have to learn to deal with. Hopefully its balanced enough someone feels like they are getting their time worth and someone on the other end doesn't feel powerless against them.

[Soothsayer]

Someone who puts more time in should have something to show for it at the end of any given time period.

Its not about hardcore or casual, its more about a return on the investment of time and effort.

The offline training is fine with me, but if I'm logging serious hours I want to see that pay off more so than the person who queues up their skills ten minutes a day.

[Logit]

The skill system trains offline, I don't see how someone plays more has a major advantage. Their skills will train a bit quicker than someone offline but I can't imagine there will be a massive difference.

While I am skeptical about increasing damage with skills it's likely something we will have to learn to deal with. Hopefully its balanced enough someone feels like they are getting their time worth and someone on the other end doesn't feel powerless against them.

This is my major problem, we have no way of knowing obviously until we can actually play the game.

I can agree the people who invest more into the game should have more of the content available to them, but not so much as to create super characters that dominate the battlefield. Even BR40 doesn't make your guns better, it just gives you more options.

[Malorn]

I'll elaborate on why power through cert tree learning is a bad idea.

In order to understand why and how it is bad you need to look not at release, but 1+ years down the road. In this environment you will have a lot of veterans, many of which will have some set of maxed out trees. What this means is that long-term, players converge to have the same power level if power is gained through skill trees. Veterans vs Veterans becomes an even playing field becuase they both have the same trees maxed out and so they are both getting the same bonus.

This is bad for a number of reasons.

1) Those 'perks' from specialization are only relevant when playing against newer players.
Newer players are the ones who don't have the specialization maxed out and so those are the players to which the specialization has advantage. This makes it harder for new players to compete with veterans long-term.

2) The value of the specialization is lost over time.
Because veterans will have some of the same maxed out trees, they will all have the same specialization bonus. Meaning veteran reaver vs veteran reaver is an even playing field. That defeats the purpose of the specialization. Eventually enough time will pass that a significant portion of players all have that specialization. Thus the benefits of specialization decrease over time.

3) Time itself becomse a hurdle for new players.
In order to match up to the veterans the only thing new players can do is play the game for a long time. This will turn off new players in the future, just as it turns off many would-be EVE players - they don't want to have to play the game for two years to be competitive so they don't even try.

4) The relative value decrease will lead to demand for more differentiation.
Due to 2) above, players who have those specializations into specific areas will start to see their investment isn't providing the differentiation that it once did as their active opponents have also maxed out their trees as well as others. They will demand deeper specialization and more differentiation. Since PS2 already went that far and already provided differentiation in the first place their most likely solution would be to release new content that deepens the trees and adds greater differentiation. This makes the cycle worse and exacerbates the problem with new players. This is the 'slippery slope' I mentioned before. Once they go down this path they are committed to it.

This is effectively the same thing as releasing new tiers of raid gear in MMORPGs. At some point players "max out" their gear, even though it may take months and years to acquire. Once everyone has the same power level they want more power and so they demand more gear. This is a bad model. PS did not have such progression and it wasn't needed.

EVE also has this in many of their skill trees and it turns off new players. Whether it's 15-20% or 100% doesn't really matter because the effect is still a significant advantage and the perception from new customers is going to be that playing the game more gives you an unfair advantage. The really crappy part is that playing the game more already gives an advantage over someone who doesn't play the game - player skill development & player experience. When you magnify it with a power bonus it's not only unnecessary but it is detrimental to the game.


Given these negative consequences to future growth of the game for benefits that decrease over time and only lead to demand for more stratification I have to ask - why the hell are they doing this? It does not benefit the game or the players and only makes their job of balancing the game harder.


Customization & Specialization != Progression

You do not need to add power progression to give players customization and specialization. What they should do is instead of power and progression they do customization & specialization via tweaking and options, just as PS did (higher BR & more specialization = more options, not power above and beyond that).

Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs are the key to customization and specialization - not power increases. Simple examples would be agumenting a rifle with new sight options or increasing its damage in exchange for lowering its fire rate. The key here is that you are getting a benefit, but you are giving something up in order to achieve it. As long as the benefits are in the same category then its a worthwhile tradeoff.

Consider the tradeoff of having a red-dot gunsight vs ironsights. For many-players a red-dot is a great improvement and they will see a performance increase just by using a different sight. However, for players that learned to use ironsights they can instead have a different tradeoff, such as add less deviation to the gun. In both cases the result is better accurancy, either by improving the sight or changing the characteristics. But the tradeoff is still there. The player can either use the crappier sights but have a more accurate gun, or they can keep the normal accuracy and add a better sight.

Other tradeoffs would be increasing the damage of the gun but lowering the rate-of-fire, or vice-versa. The idea is that the net dps of the gun does not change, but the way the operator uses it does change. In the case of increasing the damage the gun ends up behaving more like a battle-rifle and relies on the operator being accurate. Generally this will make it a better medium-long range gun suitable for distant engagements. In the case of increasing RoF and lowering damage it will make the gun better for close-quarters fighting where you make up for movement inacurracy by having a higher rate of fire.

Since damage usually degrades over distance in FPS games (including both the battlefield games and PS1), being able to customize the rifle in this way is a for a player who wants to specialize in infantry combat to custom tailor his weapon to his play style and optimize it. This is advantage, but it isn't an artificial advantage. It requires player skill and good decision making.

Since PS2 devs & Smed love Battlefield games (I do too and have no problem borrowing from BF concepts...DICE has good designs), I'll use BFBC2 as an example. In BFBC2 as you rank up you get access to different weapon attachments.

You had upgrade slots where you can swap out different weapon sights. The guns in the BF games were also designed to be roughly equal but not clearly better than one another. They just had different characteristics. Some characteristics were more beneficial than others which led to some guns having a more preferred balance than others. You also had the option of either increasing your footspeed, your damage, or your armor. You could also do other tweaks such as carry more ammo or grenades, have an expanded magazine, and provide a specific benefit to any vehicle that you entered.

This is the style of customization & specialization I would like to see in PS2 via the certification tree. I'd like to certify in assault rifle modifications and gain access to gun sights, expanded magazines, and ROF/Damage tradeoff options.

Now if you compare a new player to a veteran - yes the veteran has advantages of player expeirence and more options available to them. The veteran can custom tailor his rifle to his typical engagement conditions while the new player cannot. However, the new player is not fundamentally at any disadvantage. His bullets and his weapon are still fairly balanced with the veteran. The veteran's might be better for his style but he's not enjoying more damage or more survivability simply for being a veteran.


More customization. Less artificial power and bonuses.


(note: I think squad leader bonuses are an entirely different animal and those are OK because they are part of the gameplay and new players can benefit as much as veterans. The squad leader can also be killed, removing the benefit and adding more tactical depth to the game.)

[Manitou]

Excellent breakdown, and I agree.

[Rbstr]

The fact they they say they're looking to Battlefield in some ways implies that they're looking at a mostly trade-off situation. So your primary worry is that they aren't going to do what they said they are going to do. That's fine, but their word is the only thing to go on right now.

They say a maximum of 20% different. I take that to be an all inclusive brand new hypothetical "HA class" player vs. a maxed "HA class" player.

Don't forget that in BC2 a brand-noob doesn't get the choice between armour and damage...He gets neither.

Sometimes being a simply better by a small amount is acceptable when you start dealing with games that are supposed to hang around persistently for a while. If all is simply tradeoff that has a completely equalising effect, that's not worth while, tradeoff has to create situations where making the trade is beneficial rather than superficial.
A BF:BC2 vet may still make the choice between health and damage, at no point does he get to use all three.

We have no idea what the training curve is going to be like.
It's a good guess that, like EVE (and nearly ever other character progression based game), skills will take longer as you work up the tree. That's the critical part.
A brand-noob in 2 months may easily be within 5% instead of 20% of that year long vet.

When you combine that with a class system that means you can't bring all skills from other classes to bear things work out exceptionally easy.
The dangers of a system are not inherently expressed. They don't happen just because the mechanic exists, the designers actively work against the poor outcomes.

To continue to use EVE and an example: I fly interceptors at 100% max skills in 3 races and Battleships at that in one race...but my interceptor skills don't apply to battleships, nor to the BS skills or the other races' inty skills apply when I'm in any given interceptor. Someone with in two or three months has more than a fighting chance of taking me out in the same shipclass by using a better set of weapons and whatnot. Sure I've got a couple of 5% in things over him, but that's more than made up for by being better at the game itself, or simply making the wrong tradeoffs in equipment between speed, damage, health and other things (almost exactly like BC2, in the premise).

Finally: Why add more depth in the future, why allow X% difference and these other things?
It works to keep a game going.
Look at EVE again, all of those terrible disadvantages for a noobs have somehow lead to a game that has had continual growth like no other MMO.

[Redshift]

As far as I am concerned, classes, vehicles, and weapons don't need to be balanced. What needs balanced are the three teams. Easiest way to do that is just give all three sides every weapon and vehicle.

Eh, but that wouldn't be Planetside anymore. :confused:
Of course it isn't, it's Planetside 2.

I'm afraid that is definatly one place where "it wouldn't be planetside" holds true, you literally can not have planetside without three distinct empires, the devs know this hence why they've said they're trying to really push the differences

[Bags]

Someone who puts more time in should have something to show for it at the end of any given time period.

Its not about hardcore or casual, its more about a return on the investment of time and effort.

The offline training is fine with me, but if I'm logging serious hours I want to see that pay off more so than the person who queues up their skills ten minutes a day.

You have skill, merits, and fun to show. You get more of those than someone who plays ten minutes aday.

[Logit]

More customization. Less artificial power and bonuses.



Nail on head. Bonuses to power and effectiveness are simply going to create an imbalance.

This is what made Planetside a great game. Every person who pulled a reaver, had the same advantages/disadvantages. Creating bonuses to one's weopons/vehicles that make it more powerful separates veterans from noobs and the imbalance worsens.

At release it won't be an issue, but people are going to be discouraged by veteran players owning them with the same vehicle they have only with mods on it's armor, guns etc...

[Volw]

@Malorn,

EVE requires 2-3 approx 2 months (since they made it easier for noobs, it's probably down to 1 month or less) of training to be able to PVP effectively. While at it, mind the devs already said the longest training will be 24hrs - compared with EVEs max timer 3-4 weeks or so, it's not a lot. So we could assume, it's going to take approx a week for a player to get fairly competetive gear. That's about as long as it takes to lvl to BR12 IIRC and it can be done offline.

The purpose of specialisation is to allow more diverse gameplay between classes. At the moment, in planetside, at least 90% of people pack the same certs and I'm willing to bet, 50%+ carries exactly the same loadout.

Eve's been around for 8 years and you can still 'catch' up fairly quickly, so your point regarding skill trees getting deeper and not allowing new players to catch up is also invalid.

In fact, one of the faults of PS1 was lack of progression, which A LOT of people complained about. Here we have progression at a fairly low costs and people are also complaining about it. It so happens everyone can't be made happy.

[Malorn]

The fact they they say they're looking to Battlefield in some ways implies that they're looking at a mostly trade-off situation.
I would prefer they look exclusively at trade-off situations. Even going a little bit into the power increase situations is bad.


So your primary worry is that they aren't going to do what they said they are going to do. That's fine, but their word is the only thing to go on right now.

My primary concern is in fact rooted in what they have said they are going to do. I saw the bit aobut tradeoffs and liked that a lot. However, they also stated there would be a 15-20% difference between fresh characters and maxed out characters, including outfit bonuses & squad leader bonuses. I think that should be 0% as it was in PS1.

However I admit that the statement could be interpreted in different ways. When he said 15-20% he could have been referring to modification from tradeoffs, but that's very different from a 15-20% power difference in players. Its possible the messaging was unlcear leading us to this discussion, but a clarification one way or the other would be nice (help us here if you're reading this Matt!).

Don't forget that in BC2 a brand-noob doesn't get the choice between armour and damage...He gets neither.
That is true, and in PS the noob didn't have access to implants either and those can help a ton. I generally let that one go for two very good reasons:

1) because the time to acquire a specific customization is relatively short - they will not have those things, but they do get access to other options very quickly, and it isn't much time to unlock all of those benefits in BFBC2. They dont' get the magnum rounds for a while but they do get the weapon accuracy, the run speed, and other options that are alternative tradeoffs quite quickly. I would expect the same thing from PS2 specialization - the most useful tradeoffs might take a while to acquire, but you should have something to fill-the-slot.

2) from a learning-curve standpoint its actually a good thing not to throw too many concepts at new players right out of the gate. That's why ramp-up on the customization is OK, even if it does provide a small and short-lived disadvantage. Once the player gets the hang of the game and are ready to absorb that concept they'll be at the point where they acquire that tool and they dont' get overwhelmed and confused.

New players have a lot to learn about planetside, so its good to stretch it out over a few days, even if that means they won't have a few of the necessary tools right away.

This is differnet from bonuses that may take weeks, months or years to acquire.

BC2's system is also a little different becuase they provided a raw bonus and the 'tradeoff' was not getting any of the other bonuses. it was a 'choose 1 of the following' implementations instead of 'trade this for that'. But I digress...

Sometimes being a simply better by a small amount is acceptable when you start dealing with games that are supposed to hang around persistently for a while. If all is simply tradeoff that has a completely equalising effect, that's not worth while, tradeoff has to create situations where making the trade is beneficial rather than superficial.

Not looking for equalization. The fact that specialization exists and one can tailor weapons to specific encounters and engagement ranges is itself an advantage, but it is derived and a result of player skill, not a passive bonus that gives an advantage just becuase a person played longer and 'learned it' via the cert tree.


We have no idea what the training curve is going to be like.
It's a good guess that, like EVE (and nearly ever other character progression based game), skills will take longer as you work up the tree. That's the critical part.
A brand-noob in 2 months may easily be within 5% instead of 20% of that year long vet.
Why even have the 20% difference? What's the point?


Finally: Why add more depth in the future, why allow X% difference and these other things?
It works to keep a game going.

How so? As I've described above the benefits become less significant over time as veterans all converge on the same set of specialization and they are detrimental to the game.

That doesn't keep a game going; that's a hinderance to its growth.


Look at EVE again, all of those terrible disadvantages for a noobs have somehow lead to a game that has had continual growth like no other MMO.

Correlation != Causation. WoW is a very successful MMO. WoW has sparklehorses and pets. Therefore, Planetside 2 should have sparklehorses and pets if it wants to be successful, right?

Did EVE succeed because of their skill system design or in spite of it? There is no definitive answer becuase we do not know the causal inferences. I do have some personal data points however.

I know many players who did not play EVE because they felt it was dumb that they couldn't compete without investing years into the game AND that they could never catch up to someone who started playing before they did no matter what. I think EVE succeeded in spite of this and it could have been more successful with a different model that was more appealing to new players.

[Malorn]

@Malorn,

EVE requires 2-3 approx 2 months (since they made it easier for noobs, it's probably down to 1 month or less) of training to be able to PVP effectively. While at it, mind the devs already said the longest training will be 24hrs - compared with EVEs max timer 3-4 weeks or so, it's not a lot. So we could assume, it's going to take approx a week for a player to get fairly competetive gear. That's about as long as it takes to lvl to BR12 IIRC and it can be done offline.

The purpose of specialisation is to allow more diverse gameplay between classes. At the moment, in planetside, at least 90% of people pack the same certs and I'm willing to bet, 50%+ carries exactly the same loadout.

Eve's been around for 8 years and you can still 'catch' up fairly quickly, so your point regarding skill trees getting deeper and not allowing new players to catch up is also invalid.

In fact, one of the faults of PS1 was lack of progression, which A LOT of people complained about. Here we have progression at a fairly low costs and people are also complaining about it. It so happens everyone can't be made happy.

Really? Only 2 months before I can PvP effectively? How many players are seriously going to put up with that? They aren't, they're going to look for a game that isnt' based on something that dumb.

In the early days of PS before the cert creep problem anyone could be effective in PvP on Day 1. Within a few days they were usually BR 8-12 and had a few implants and a cert pool big enough to fill a few roles. That's really awesome for the game and great for growth. The idea that we can switch roles in PS2 and have access to different classes is even better for new players. But this % power growth thing...not good.

The fact that EVE devs has had to address the issue underscores the detrimental effect it has had on their game. We don't want to be in their position with PS 2 years from now.

[Volw]

Why even have the 20% difference? What's the point?


You ALREADY have it in planetside.

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20. *Every* single MMO and vast majority of FPSes offer progression. In fact, I can't think of many multiplayer games that don't offer progression.

There's also influx of new players to all MMOs. Sure, over time they will have to make it easier for new players to catch up, but that's how it's being done. By CCP, by Blizzard, by any mmo developer.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you're trying to re-develop a wheel by removing any tangible benefits of levelling.

[Bags]

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20.


As strange as this may sound, some people play games because they are fun.

[Volw]

Really? Only 2 months before I can PvP effectively? How many players are seriously going to put up with that? They aren't, they're going to look for a game that isnt' based on something that dumb.

In the early days of PS before the cert creep problem anyone could be effective in PvP on Day 1. Within a few days they were usually BR 8-12 and had a few implants and a cert pool big enough to fill a few roles. That's really awesome for the game and great for growth. The idea that we can switch roles in PS2 and have access to different classes is even better for new players. But this % power growth thing...not good.

The fact that EVE devs has had to address the issue underscores the detrimental effect it has had on their game. We don't want to be in their position with PS 2 years from now.

If you want to jump straight in to PVP that's less than a month - 2 months is if you plan ahead and train learning skills. They did a large revamp of the system a while ago so I'm not sure how long it takes now.

Hell, I even seen people PVP quite well (non fleet obviously) with 2 weeks trial accounts.

In any case a month to be able to effectively compete against someone who's been in for 8 years is not that bad, is it? Especially that you don't have to play the game at all, just set the training and periodically change it.

Also, look how many subscribers EVE has and how many PlanetSide has. Game dosn't have to cater for noobs to have a large subscription base.

[Hamma]

As strange as this may sound, some people play games because they are fun.

While this is true of course (no way to dispute that haha) one thing that we have to consider in an MMO is people need a reason to dedicate the time. That means that those people will almost certainly end up with some advantages over new characters it's the nature of the beast.

[Logit]

You ALREADY have it in planetside.

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20. *Every* single MMO and vast majority of FPSes offer progression. In fact, I can't think of many multiplayer games that don't offer progression.

There's also influx of new players to all MMOs. Sure, over time they will have to make it easier for new players to catch up, but that's how it's being done. By CCP, by Blizzard, by any mmo developer.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you're trying to re-develop a wheel by removing any tangible benefits of levelling.

The tangible benefits should be more options, not more power. Which is how the original was made. Sure someone with higher ranks have more at their disposal, but that isn't making the 1 on 1 battle scewed toward the side with more time to play.

If PS2 plays out they way it seems, people are going to be stronger because they have more time to put towards the game. Which isn't a good thing.

[Malorn]

You ALREADY have it in planetside.

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20. *Every* single MMO and vast majority of FPSes offer progression. In fact, I can't think of many multiplayer games that don't offer progression.

There's also influx of new players to all MMOs. Sure, over time they will have to make it easier for new players to catch up, but that's how it's being done. By CCP, by Blizzard, by any mmo developer.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you're trying to re-develop a wheel by removing any tangible benefits of levelling.

I asked what the point of it was, not whether the problem already existed in some form in PS.

That BR 5's HA was just as lethal as the BR 25's HA. It was not 20% better simply because that BR 25 had played the game longer.

Yes, the vet had more tools available to him, but most of those aren't useful in the few seconds of the firefight that determine who is going to win. (I explained why the Implants were generally OK up above, though I think they can improve upon that also).

The fact that all the best certs could be mixed together to create a super-grunt is well-known and that's one of the reasons PS2 is moving to a class system. I'm not particularly concerned about that problem, but I am glad they addressed it in a simple and elegant way.

[Bags]

I asked what the point of it was, not whether the problem already existed in some form in PS.

That BR 5's HA was just as lethal as the BR 25's HA. It was not 20% better simply because that BR 25 had played the game longer.

Yes, the vet had more tools available to him, but most of those aren't useful in the few seconds of the firefight that determine who is going to win. (I explained why the Implants were generally OK up above, though I think they can improve upon that also).

The fact that all the best certs could be mixed together to create a super-grunt is well-known and that's one of the reasons PS2 is moving to a class system. I'm not particularly concerned about that problem, but I am glad they addressed it in a simple and elegant way.

This.

I love trade offs, but not pure upgrades:

Want 10% more damage? 10% less accurate. Want 10% more range? 10% slower rof. Etc.

[Volw]

As strange as this may sound, some people play games because they are fun.

'Some'. That's why every MMO on the market has progression along with most multiplayer games.

Also, why do you think PS devs added 'unlockable' vehicles? (Gunship etc) Because people want progression and you could as well whine that PS1 doesn't offer noobs to have the Gunship. Same argument.

[MgFalcon]

They better give me my Lasher with door penetrating lash-blasts, otherwise everything else is OP.

#Totallyserious

[Redshift]

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.



No, the BR25 is just going to be able to repair after the fight, during the fight the difference is agile Vs rexo which can go either way
(pshield can be taken out with a emp so again it's down to skill not lvl)

[Bags]

'Some'. That's why every MMO on the market has progression along with most multiplayer games.

Also, why do you think PS devs added 'unlockable' vehicles? (Gunship etc) Because people want progression and you could as well whine that PS1 doesn't offer noobs to have the Gunship. Same argument.

I don't like the gunship.

And this isn't an RPG, this is an FPS. People like even playing fields in FPS.

[Redshift]

'Some'. That's why every MMO on the market has progression along with most multiplayer games.


and also PS is the only MMO that is comparable to PS2 so there is no precident set for progression, it's a pure pvp game people won't much like being at a huge disadvantage against vets

[Volw]

I asked what the point of it was, not whether the problem already existed in some form in PS.

That BR 5's HA was just as lethal as the BR 25's HA. It was not 20% better simply because that BR 25 had played the game longer.

Yes, the vet had more tools available to him, but most of those aren't useful in the few seconds of the firefight that determine who is going to win. (I explained why the Implants were generally OK up above, though I think they can improve upon that also).

The fact that all the best certs could be mixed together to create a super-grunt is well-known and that's one of the reasons PS2 is moving to a class system. I'm not particularly concerned about that problem, but I am glad they addressed it in a simple and elegant way.

Can you please do me the courtesy of not misquoting?

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.

I'm not comparing weapons. I'm comparing the whole 'package'. BR5 vs BR25.

Cause I do have a strange feeling rexo + pshield + HA is more powerful than agile + HA. Unless we're playing different games.

[Volw]

Ok, so so far, I understand having extra 100 HP via Pshield, extra armor via rexo is not advantageous at all.

Yet, upgrading your character in PS2 is going to be OP and will drive nabs away.


I'm confused. What's the difference between the two?

[Malorn]

Effective counterpoints are not misquotes.

I'm not going to argue the fact that options themselves are advantage - they are, but the options in your scenario are not the key things of consideration.

All the extra support certs a player has doesn't really matter until after the fight is over. In the end it was Rexo HA +implants vs Agile HA + no implants. Speed HA vs Armor HA. That has natural balance built into the gear. There is no 20% modifier to either player.

(implants are a separate discussion really, as I've already stated in two posts now) Extra options being advantage isn't the topic of the discussion nor was it the context of the dev quote that we are concerned about.

Options are advantage, but they aren't flat modifiers to a player's performance, which is the topic of the discussion.

And you still haven't answered the question as to why such flat modifiers are beneficial to the game.

[Bags]

You are implying that we think pshield is good and balanced when we don't.

Stop strawmaning.

[Volw]

and also PS is the only MMO that is comparable to PS2 so there is no precident set for progression, it's a pure pvp game people won't much like being at a huge disadvantage against vets

I remember a lot of massive threads over at PS1 forums of people asking for some sort of progression. That's why BR20+ were added. That's why 'unlockables' were added.

Oh, another good argument for you guys ;-)

CR5 - are you not going to complain CR5 is able to nuke dozens of people from the orbit. Yet a poor BR1 doesn't have this option? ;-)

[Redshift]

ok put it this way, i could build a new char lvl 1, run to a tower lob a jammer at the first rexo i see shove a sweeper up his arse and blow him to bits, and that would be me being better than him, his lvl would not give him more of a chance, i could do exactly the same on my main char the only difference is i'd be able to repair AFTER the fight

[Redshift]

CR5 - are you not going to complain CR5 is able to nuke dozens of people from the orbit. Yet a poor BR1 doesn't have this option? ;-)

If the OS was his main weapon yes...... but luckily it's not, his main weapon is exactly the same as the lvl 1 as is everything else, if the level 1 couldn't beat a lvl 25 (20% is enough of a difference not to lose a fight imo) then they simply would not play

[Malorn]

ok put it this way, i could build a new char lvl 1, run to a tower lob a jammer at the first rexo i see shove a sweeper up his arse and blow him to bits, and that would be me being better than him, his lvl would not give him more of a chance, i could do exactly the same on my main char the only difference is i'd be able to repair AFTER the fight

This is a much more concise and entertaining version of my rambling posts.

[Rbstr]

Malorn: (posting something for your reply to me ealier, skipping everything else)
Yeah, they've continually made it easier for noobs. Why is that not a valid strategy?
It's not simply because old players are ahead but because the number of things available to do has increased dramatically. There are many, many, more skills now than when I started. I still can't even build a single ship, a feature that's existed since before I started. Players have NOT homogenized to all specializations, they do what they want.

Not being initially able to compete at the top level and having to chose a specialty is simply not detrimental to the game. It's part of the game's atmosphere, an intended "Jesus, this galaxy will tear me to pieces and shit on my grave. I need to figure out what I'm going to do.". EVE is a long term game. If you go in expecting to be handed anything at all you're playing the wrong game.
If you insist it creates some kind of insurmountable gap you are simply wrong.

At the same time I don't insist that PS2 conforms to the exact specifications of EVE's system, which is rooted in a time-based RPG combat system where leveling is always a large part. Simply that it works in one implementation and could easily be organized to work well in PS2.

There is absolutely no reason that some "Enhanced armor" skill doesn't give you access to an armor tradeoff situation between mobility and protection. When you combine protection and a similar tradeoff on a weapon for close range and on and on, Yeah you'll have you'll have a 20% advantage at 20m range against noob that doesn't have the options. But the more important things is that, maybe, you have a 40% against some guy that made the opposite tradeoffs indoors, but would decimate you out doors.
And 1000% against the AV trooper that specialized in killing tanks instead of meatbags.
These advantages are not simply products of levels or time but of choices you make on the type of engagement you hope to prevail in.

[Malorn]

I still haven't heard any convincing reason on why the game should have even a 15-20% difference in power of players.

[Bags]

I still haven't heard any convincing reason on why the game should have even a 15-20% difference in power of players.

It's magic, I ain't gotta 'splain shit.

[Lunarchild]

I still haven't heard any convincing reason on why the game should have even a 15-20% difference in power of players.

Overall though, I have less problem with power added through leadership abilities. There will be outfits and squads available for newbies, with that power difference as well. That, however, would mean that a solo player is off worse than someone in a squad and an outfit.

Would still be a personal choice though ;) With the right tactics you should still be able to take them down!

[Volw]

Effective counterpoints are not misquotes.

I'm not going to argue the fact that options themselves are advantage - they are, but the options in your scenario are not the key things of consideration.

All the extra support certs a player has doesn't really matter until after the fight is over. In the end it was Rexo HA +implants vs Agile HA + no implants. Speed HA vs Armor HA. That has natural balance built into the gear. There is no 20% modifier to either player.

(implants are a separate discussion really, as I've already stated in two posts now) Extra options being advantage isn't the topic of the discussion nor was it the context of the dev quote that we are concerned about.

Options are advantage, but they aren't flat modifiers to a player's performance, which is the topic of the discussion.

And you still haven't answered the question as to why such flat modifiers are beneficial to the game.

What I'm trying to point out is that PlanetSide BR1 is not equal to BR25 and in any real combat scenario, even with equally skilled players, BR25 will almost always come out on top. I think we both agree with that statement.

Sure there's no item/skill saying +20% damage but it's fairly obvious BR25 has far more options available. There's no way to do it otherwise, unless removing BR altogether and have everyone start with the same gear.

I'm not saying flat modifiers are beneficial - but any upgrades even with trade-offs are easy to quantify and 20% doesn't sounds like a whole lot. To me it sounds like less than the example I've brought previously.

So to clarify - I do want trade-offs to be there. Yet gear upgrades will traditionally be more focused and a fairly 'all round' BR1 will get wiped if the specialised player is playing to his strengths.

So where I'm going with this - unlocks will have disadvantages but they will never be greater than advantages nor 100% equal. There will always be a better, more focused gear out there and BR1 player will always be worse off. After all, what would be the point of gaining BR if BR1 player would be as versatile as BR20.

End of the day more options = more flexibility = more power. PS2 bring in specialisation straight away so the disproportions between BR1 and BR25 in PS2 should be lower than they are in PS1.

[Volw]

ok put it this way, i could build a new char lvl 1, run to a tower lob a jammer at the first rexo i see shove a sweeper up his arse and blow him to bits, and that would be me being better than him, his lvl would not give him more of a chance, i could do exactly the same on my main char the only difference is i'd be able to repair AFTER the fight

Ok, so you've killed a player with more HP/AP than you have.

What exactly is the problem with doing the same in PS2, if the same person is packing ONLY 20% more AP than you do?


Also, if we assumed same skill level - then you 'should' wipe, as Sweeper close range takes (obviously) less TTK Agile than Rexo. All you did was disable his Pshield with the jammer...

So again. Please tell me how this is equal.

(Won't even go into how BR25 could already know about your presence before you knew about his via deployables or implants and welcome you with a nice burst of anything really as you open the door)

[Malorn]

Volw, i think you're preaching to the choir. We all know PS1 had problems, that's why PS2 isn't just a reskinning.

But from what infromation we have, they appear to have a power difference as part of cert advancement, which is time-based. The reason this thread exists is because we disagree that such a power difference should exist.

We're not claiming equality and any form of advancement will provide advantages over those who have not attained it, even if those advantages are just options.

What we are talking about is that they should not go beyond that and provide reaver specialists with "more durable" and "more maneuverable" reavers just because they specialize in reavers. If the SOE devs really mean they have the option to trade durability for speed and vice versa, then great, that's awesome. But if they are implying a straight bonus (which they cited 15-20% as a number to us), that' snot cool and has bad implications on the game which I've already described in great detail.

If its a misunderstanding it'll get cleared up in time. If it isn't I would like the developers to get the feedback that we don't like that and have sound reasons for not liking it. There is greater risk in assuming it is a misunderstanding and not providing that feedback. The devs lurk here becuase they want our feedback and I think this thread has a wealth of good discussion here for them.

[Tlacatecatl]

I think this a clash of game design philosophy. While FPS usually go for the pure tradeoff progression (like BFBC2 for example), MMOs always aim for some kind of power creep to give the player a feeling of becoming stronger for their time investment.

We now have a hybrid between those two. I think one important point here is that normal FPS don’t intend to bind the player for years. In BFBC2 I can unlock all tradeoff options in a short amount of time, after that I doesn’t matter if I am BR 25 or 50. But after the initial purchase of BFBC2 they don’t expect me to keep paying them. (DLC excluded) And after just 1,5 years the next installment of BF will be released. Or let’s say it this way and you can unlock most options in Planetside 2 within a short period of time, then the only thing that’s binds you to the game is the community and the permanence of the Territorial Control System. Don’t get me wrong I think that’s sufficient for a lot of players to stay and keep playing/paying (including myself), but I guess they want to give the players another motivation to stay. People just like it when they "level up" and get stronger.

So I guess it’s a balancing act. Should I alienate a part of my customer base with giving long time player a (small) advantage or shout I risk losing customers faster because they feel like they “archived” everything in the game.

I personally think the mild power creep with 20% power increase is a practicable solution. If that means I need 12 hits instead of 10 Hits to kill a player that spend way more time than me that’s fine with me. That’s something I can circumvent using my personal skills, especially in an open environment like Planetside, where you can always shovel in a few more people to balance things out or break the balance of a fight altogether. It is not like BFBC2 where there is always an equal number of players, meaning the balance is shifted anyway.

I also think the Eve System would be a good idea here. Let’s say it takes about a week to get to 15%-17% additional damage for my Lasher and the last 3-5% takes a month of training time to unlock. That would mean that I can catch up to a reasonable level pretty quick and can then decide if I want to maximize this weapon or if I should get to a reasonable level with something else (like my Reinforced Exosuit or something). With this simple skill system it would take years to maximize absolutely every skill, giving the veterans something to archive while letting the new players catch up in a reasonable time (at least for the equipment they prefer).

But of course this doesn’t disprove any of the arguments that where broad up here, but I think thats the reason why this system is planned for Planetside 2, and why I thinks it’s bearable. I just guess that SOE wants this kind of progression to attract more players and bind them to the game for a longer time, even if it’s making balancing the game harder. But until SOE says what there actually plans are it’s all a guessing game.

[Volw]

Volw, i think you're preaching to the choir. We all know PS1 had problems, that's why PS2 isn't just a reskinning.

But from what infromation we have, they appear to have a power difference as part of cert advancement, which is time-based. The reason this thread exists is because we disagree that such a power difference should exist.

We're not claiming equality and any form of advancement will provide advantages over those who have not attained it, even if those advantages are just options.

What we are talking about is that they should not go beyond that and provide reaver specialists with "more durable" and "more maneuverable" reavers just because they specialize in reavers. If the SOE devs really mean they have the option to trade durability for speed and vice versa, then great, that's awesome. But if they are implying a straight bonus (which they cited 15-20% as a number to us), that' snot cool and has bad implications on the game which I've already described in great detail.

If its a misunderstanding it'll get cleared up in time. If it isn't I would like the developers to get the feedback that we don't like that and have sound reasons for not liking it. There is greater risk in assuming it is a misunderstanding and not providing that feedback. The devs lurk here becuase they want our feedback and I think this thread has a wealth of good discussion here for them.

Ah, I think we misunderstood each other.

You are going to by the '15%-20%' quote, I'm going by the one where they've explained rifles will have an upgrade where more damage will cause higher CoF (or lower RoF? can't find the quote) and I'm deducting, that a character going deep into the tree, while using his strengths will have 15%-20% advantage over the non-specced player.


I'm against numerical bonus (with exception of utility skills) as it's an FPS, after all and pure numerical bonuses are going to make it less diverse. Yet, I wouldn't mind very slight imbalances, say 20% more AP for 10% less speed etc against BR1 player.

[Bags]

@Tlacatecatl:

Thing is, you don't feel stronger when everyone else is becoming strong, too. You become stronger versus PVE elements, and PS has none.

Power creep in PSide will not result in the players feeling more powerful, but veterans feeling more powerful than noobs.

[Malorn]

@Tlacatecatl:

Thing is, you don't feel stronger when everyone else is becoming strong, too. You become stronger versus PVE elements, and PS has none.

Power creep in PSide will not result in the players feeling more powerful, but veterans feeling more powerful than noobs.

I need to work on my precision-posting skills. Well-stated.

[Tlacatecatl]

@Tlacatecatl:

Thing is, you don't feel stronger when everyone else is becoming strong, too. You become stronger versus PVE elements, and PS has none.

Power creep in PSide will not result in the players feeling more powerful, but veterans feeling more powerful than noobs.
It’s mainly a psychological aspect. The PVE enemies in other MMO also get stronger as you progress through the game. Sure you can travel back and one hit some low level monster but it doesn’t really matter. It’s not intended that you overpower the monster you are supposed to fight. One could say that the power progression in those MMOs is also merely an illusion to keep you interested. You train your skill and get a little bit stronger. Of course the other veteran you fight has probably skilled his weapon and armor to a comparable degree but just maybe you have the last 3-5% skill step he doesn’t have or he does play with gear he hasn’t skilled until now. It’s the same thing in Eve Online those last 5% hardly make a different in most fights, but you still have the feeling of progression.
Again it’s not my opinion that we absolutely need this form of power progress but I see the psychological appeal it offers.

[Bags]

No, actually the PVE elements in end game content don't get stronger as you get more gear. I don't know how it works in other MMOs, but as you geared up in WoW the content you were clearing does not get harder. You get more powerful in comparison.

Whether you were in greens or end game epics, Arthas had the same amount of health and damage and abilities.

[Volw]

It’s mainly a psychological aspect. The PVE enemies in other MMO also get stronger as you progress through the game. Sure you can travel back and one hit some low level monster but it doesn’t really matter. It’s not intended that you overpower the monster you are supposed to fight. One could say that the power progression in those MMOs is also merely an illusion to keep you interested. You train your skill and get a little bit stronger. Of course the other veteran you fight has probably skilled his weapon and armor to a comparable degree but just maybe you have the last 3-5% skill step he doesn’t have or he does play with gear he hasn’t skilled until now. It’s the same thing in Eve Online those last 5% hardly make a different in most fights, but you still have the feeling of progression.
Again it’s not my opinion that we absolutely need this form of power progress but I see the psychological appeal it offers.

Agree with the psychological effect, the same (arguably a lesser stimuli) can be achieved by giving players visual awards. Badges etc.

I think the most extreme case is CoD, which allows players to grind levels, how many times over? To get a golden gun. Doesn't make much logical sense to do, yet people do it! Same with different badges in games, where people are willing to do absolutely useless things in order to get a pretty useless recognition.

Edit: Should L2Read. I meant psychological effect that's causing players to grind countless amount of hours to get an Epix, which is not necessary to complete the raid content.

[Bags]

There's nothing psychological about it; you have power creep in WoW related to PVE units

"No, actually the PVE elements in end game content don't get stronger as you get more gear. I don't know how it works in other MMOs, but as you geared up in WoW the content you were clearing does not get harder. You get more powerful in comparison.

Whether you were in greens or end game epics, Arthas had the same amount of health and damage and abilities. "

[Malorn]

Recognition and status is powerful in social games. It's the carrot that drives the sales for vanity items. People get them as a status symbol. Some get them just to show that they have the money to spend. Others just becuase they want to not be "like everyone else" in their quest to be a unique snowflake.

You don't need to provide actual power to people. I believe tradeoffs & options are a far better alternative, and merits, achievements, and vanity items also go a long way to showing recognition and status. Giving actual combat bonuses is not only detrimental - its entirely unnecessary.

I think vanity items will probalby be a significant revenue maker for PS2 and by itself, along with initial purchase of the game would allow it to sustain a fair amount of non-subscribers and keep the game alive.

[Volw]

Recognition and status is powerful in social games. It's the carrot that drives the sales for vanity items. People get them as a status symbol. Some get them just to show that they have the money to spend. Others just becuase they want to not be "like everyone else" in their quest to be a unique snowflake.

You don't need to provide actual power to people. I believe tradeoffs & options are a far better alternative, and merits, achievements, and vanity items also go a long way to showing recognition and status. Giving actual combat bonuses is not only detrimental - its entirely unnecessary.

I think vanity items will probalby be a significant revenue maker for PS2 and by itself, along with initial purchase of the game would allow it to sustain a fair amount of non-subscribers and keep the game alive.

Obviously as long as the game is at least to some extent subscription based. I think all of the successful business models which are based on selling vanity items only (hats!) are based on non-MMO games, where all of the costs associated with running servers are not present.

Ah, there's also a noticeable percentile of people who are simply buying stuff to support developers. Can't remember exactly, would have to dig through my papers and I cba.

Bleh, I'm starting to write as if I'm at work. Enough. Off to bed. NN.

[CutterJohn]

I think this a clash of game design philosophy. While FPS usually go for the pure tradeoff progression (like BFBC2 for example)

BC2 perks unambiguously increase power. The only downside to them is you can only pick 2. But its still more than the newb gets to pick.



I'm not seeing the big deal though. Unless they carry it to an extreme, a 5% damage/rof/accuracy boost here and there isn't going to make a whole lot of difference. Frankly, from the sounds of it, the PS2 system will be far more newb friendly than PS1, at least so far as infantry combat is concerned(there were few things you could do to give yourself an edge in vehicle combats). Want to play a role? You just unlock it, and you'll do it 80% as well as a vet.

Assuming they are even locked in the first place. Might be that, like the battlefield games, a player can do all things right off the bat, to a greater or lesser degree, which they then augment with training based on their gameplay preferences.

Seems fair enough to me.

[Logit]

BC2 perks unambiguously increase power. The only downside to them is you can only pick 2. But its still more than the newb gets to pick.



I'm not seeing the big deal though. Unless they carry it to an extreme, a 5% damage/rof/accuracy boost here and there isn't going to make a whole lot of difference. Frankly, from the sounds of it, the PS2 system will be far more newb friendly than PS1, at least so far as infantry combat is concerned(there were few things you could do to give yourself an edge in vehicle combats). Want to play a role? You just unlock it, and you'll do it 80% as well as a vet.

Assuming they are even locked in the first place. Might be that, like the battlefield games, a player can do all things right off the bat, to a greater or lesser degree, which they then augment with training based on their gameplay preferences.

Seems fair enough to me.

I think it's been said multiple times that it's 15-20% stronger...which in a video game is more than enough for a veteran to own a new player every single time.

If a veteran reaver is more maneuverable, and has more armor the player with less time spent in the game is clearly going to be at a disadvantage. Yes, day 1, it's not going to be a problem, but down the line it's going to be an issue, because the imbalance between new players and Veterans will grow little by little each day.

The argument that implants have this same effect is ridiculous in my eyes. You can't "jam" maneuverability or armor. In the example from the original quote, they are saying a Vets plane will flat out be stronger in more than 1 aspect of the battle. Fairly large aspects at that.

PShield and second wind are the only advantages during a fight, which can be countered quite easily, and aren't making the gun in your hands better.