"Endboss vs competitive combat"

[Figment]

In PS1, eventually the devs added BFRs and Galaxy Gunships and argued these were fine additions (at the time) amongst other reasons that players liked to play against major challenges.


I've often found that PS1 was eventually ran by people with more experience developing and managing RPGs than multiplayer shooters. Why?


We had two expansion sets and then some updates.

The first one, Core Combat, provided new maps. New maps are always a good thing as it brings really fresh content to a game, especially a shooter where you eventually work out how things "work" on a given map: where to go, where to sit, etc.

However, to play there you had to pay. That reduced the pop in the caves from the start. In a RPG or PvE game that's okay, because you don't need other players as much. In a pure PvP game, that's a huge oversight however.

Secondly, Core Combat brought new units to the game that had superior firepower in certain gameplay situations. So basically, people bought power. That's another no-no in competitive gameplay.

Another competitive no-no was the Flail, because you could not directly engage it and return fire. Making competing with it take a lot of effort and sadly, because they were so easy to defend and obtain again, trying to take them out, though possible, typically a waste of your time. This lesson it seems has been learned: no more long distance indirect fire units in PS2 and (new) content is free and in principle the goal is to keep everything competitive. That's good.


With the second expansion, Aftershock, which brought us BFRs and a few more maps, the first "Endboss"-units were introduced. The problem here is that players controlled the Endboss and were not very restricted in getting them, on top of being unbalanced towards other units, of course.

Again, in a PvE game the AI would have restricted the power of such a unit and in a single player game you'd be limited numerically. In a PvP, sandbox game however, rules are different: they are smarter and fastly more numerous.

This really upset players, because shooter players (both roles in infantry and ground vehicle combat in particular) was completely changed in favour of these new things. Competitive gameplay was upset to the extend that a lot of players left because their prefered units were now rendered non-competitive. Again, power was purchased and this time the argument was that "players love a challenge and endbosses". Sure, in a PvE RPG they do. But in a competitive PvP shooter, power balance and power distance must be far more subtle.

So then the new deployables and Phantasm and Galaxy Gunship were introduced. This time, no expansion was required to be bought. So power was not purchased. One lesson was learned.

Competition however often means a trade-off of advantages and disadvantages. The Galaxy Gunship (especially upon introduction) didn't really have that. Based on initial use, some people wanted more armour without realising the consequences, nor wanting to accept longer repair times. For some reason, downtime was severely reduced, which should have been a lesson learned from the Flail, BFR and even MAX units: downtime is needed if it's a very competitive unit. Vehicle timers in general were short, but even 20 minutes is very low in a continuous game like PS for "endboss"-units, especially if you can have multiple players who each have their own separate timers. Two to three hours would have made the whole "endboss"-units more acceptable, but the problem is that in that case, some people will want high endurance or other extra strengths to "compensate" for restrictions, rather than a strategic, short term impact (like calling in an OS).

Similarly, a lot of players thought that restrictions in getting aircraft simply to reduce the numbers, were actually there to reflect power and thus if they spend more certs on it, they should get "more" power. This is incompatible logic as it argues from two completely different design point of views. If your goal as a designer is to have more units of a certain kind, then you restrict access. This is likely because they're more powerful in some way or provides certain abilities that need to be restricted. It may even be done to make the roles and functions of other "lesser" units more prominent. Speed of relocation for instance: with less aircav, Galaxies and Sunderers would be more interesting for that. If you only focus on firepower and endurance like a lot of shortsighted players focused on direct competition will, then you won't be able to balance niche role issues as well.


However, the Galaxy Gunship again provided an unit that only specific types of gameplay could compete with. The Galaxy Gunship too, was added using the "endboss"-challenge argument, but now in combination with "outfit/group teamwork units".

The problem is that again, the endboss interfered significantly with competitive play on the ground and there wasn't a real counter provided. The already in-game units were not designed around taking these out and the power distance did not really fit with the fast majority of units as it wasn't exactly subtle. The teamwork element was relatively low and under-demanding for the amount of firepower you gained and again, multiple would be brought to the table. The main difference was that it took a little bit more effort to obtain one than BFRs (stricter acquisition rules: DSC + Tech or Sanc), but once obtained it had a lot of different advantages that in combination with things like Capital Base Shields could have an enormous impact on gameplay. Ceryshen for instance became impossible to capture from the north, simply because the developers threw in separate concepts without actually considering ALL the ramifications of the combination of these concepts.

An endboss that is very limited and restricted is relatively acceptable, but in a competitive sandbox game where people can obtain any units they like, simply cannot have a huge power distance. Not even if it costs a lot of resources, while at the same time you give everyone access to it and giving everyone locations where they can obtain them on continent and when there are far more players. This simply means there will be more available. This means they're not endbosses, but regular units.

I'm afraid this lesson might again be forgotten by the devs when units like a Galaxy Gunship are suggested and when there's significant jack-of-all-trades design implemented. You cannot have endbosses in a competitive PvP game and a jack-of-all-trades may be a bit too competitive as well if it has inherent other advantages too (like the capacity of flight, afterburners or for instance simply has a lot of armour).

Every unit should feel they have sufficient power to fulfill their job and their role should be relatively clear (hence why I don't mind infantry classes too much as I try to see them as different suits, I may well mind the ease of accessing each class however). You cannot treat infantry, tanks or aircraft as fodder, but neither can you treat them as pwnage machines. If you make something strong, give it huge exploitable weaknesses and require dependency on other (types of) units.

[Duddy]

That is a somewhat confusing title, you should consider calling it "Competitive Considerations" or something to that effect. I understand the narrative from a "designed like an RPG", but still an odd title choice.

Am I right in understanding your post as to be saying is that things need to be balanced?

I don't think anyone would have disagreed.

[Stardouser]

I don't agree that all units in the game have to be soloable by one player. Edit: Especially if they are large, slow, and multicrewed. Primarily this is an anticipatory defense of outfit airships and capital warships in the event we ever have space or naval combat.

Also, indirect fire is fine, this is a strategic game, not a duel simulator where you should expect to be able to return fire in a gun duel. The only problem with Flail was a 30 meter splash radius.

Since when is Planetside e-sports?

[Xyntech]

I generally agree with you, however I wouldn't agree that the potential inclusion of some sort of "Galaxy Gunship" in PS2 is necessarily a sign of them returning to some of those flawed design mentalities.

Similar discussions have been had about BFR's, that mechs could be well balanced if handled significantly differently than in PS1, although BFR's are an even sorer sticking point than GG's for most fans.

My point being that the concept of a Galaxy that is more designed as a mobile weapons platform isn't necessarily inherently broken.

I absolutely agree that all units should be based around competitive play though, not just being a "challenge" for other players to take down, or balanced against some difficulty in attaining them.

I believe that BFR's, GG's, and Orbital Strikes are all examples of extremely failed foresight of design and implementation. Hopefully the community can keep this in mind for Planetside 2 and react swiftly if the devs ever indicate they are going down this road for any unit or feature.

[SKYeXile]

Well SOE's faults have always been in their management. That was defiantly one of the problem with core combat, adding more zones in a game with decreasing populations, it doesn't work.

I'm glad that they have got rid of the flail, one of the faults many games make is been able to be killed by somebody you're not engaged with, or can even see., while i might be playing as a light assault I cant kill a tank, but i can see him and i can take measure's to avoid him. It is a problem i forsee with stealth snipers, not been able to see your enemy and he can shoot you, perhaps 1 shot you? i leads to problems, if people feel they could not avoid a death, they feel cheated by it and will certainly be a cause to rage quit the game.

[The noob]

Well SOE's faults have always been in their management. That was defiantly one of the problem with core combat, adding more zones in a game with decreasing populations, it doesn't work.

I'm glad that they have got rid of the flail, one of the faults many games make is been able to be killed by somebody you're not engaged with, or can even see., while i might be playing as a light assault I cant kill a tank, but i can see him and i can take measure's to avoid him. It is a problem i forsee with stealth snipers, not been able to see your enemy and he can shoot you, perhaps 1 shot you? i leads to problems, if people feel they could not avoid a death, they feel cheated by it and will certainly be a cause to rage quit the game.

Snipers need a minimum of 2 shots to kill you if you have shields up, and they lose the cloak when they attack. It should also bear mentioning, that in TB's night ops video, if you look at the scene where he is cloaked as a sniper, there is a bar that counts down as soon as he cloaks, so infiltrators may no longer be permeneatly cloaked like they were in the original. This may only apply to snipers, or it may even apply to close quaters infils.

[Xyntech]

Snipers need a minimum of 2 shots to kill you if you have shields up, and they lose the cloak when they attack.

I think this is more important than the issue of partially cloaked snipers. If snipers could OSK you from range, they could still kill you without you having any (realistic) chance of knowing where they were, or even that a threat of any kind was around.

Partially cloaked snipers who lose their cloak after the first shot should be a lot more manageable, since they will need at least 2 shots to kill you. It could be a bitch for other cloakers though, if they end up being able to be one shotted.

[kadrin]

I have never understood why people hated the flail so much. It's artillery, killing you over long distances without fear of retaliation is kind of what it's supposed to do. It helps break stalemates by allowing someone to do damage without the risk of being taken out in the process.

And it was very easily countered by air, hell I had fun popping Flails in my Liberator, either grabbing a friend and carpet bombing them or just going on my little A-10 wannabe runs. Most of the time when I saw Flail rounds coming in, it turned into a free kill for me a few minutes later.

EDIT: Not to mention the thing is a grief machine unless you have a second player spotting for it, so already it's requiring two players to use effectively in its main role. And even then you'll still wrack up grief because of friendlies moving into an area while your round you fired 10 seconds ago is still coming in.

[Stardouser]

I have never understood why people hated the flail so much. It's artillery, killing you over long distances without fear of retaliation is kind of what it's supposed to do. It helps break stalemates by allowing someone to do damage without the risk of being taken out in the process.

And it was very easily countered by air, hell I had fun popping Flails in my Liberator, either grabbing a friend and carpet bombing them or just going on my little A-10 wannabe runs. Most of the time when I saw Flail rounds coming in, it turned into a free kill for me a few minutes later.

This. And artillery can't see you and take measures to actively hit you without laser designation(I say this because proper game design should require lasing to be accurate for artillery). If you're staying in one spot where random fire can hit you that's not really the artillery's problem, and if he's using laser designation, then you can reach out and touch the person doing that.

My dream is for MMOFPS games to try to be more of strategic wargames than twitch skill gun duels. We've got a long way to go though, if indirect fire isn't accepted by players simply because they want to be able to instantly return fire like a duel. It's a strategic asset, strategically deployed and a faction should strategically deploy bombers to hunt them down.

Granted, of course, that the PS1 Flail had unacceptably long range(allowing it to fire from next to a base shield) and an unacceptably wide splash radius.

Reduce the splash, and reduce the range so that artillery can't deploy more than say, 1000 meters away, that it would be fine. And if they still fired that slow shot that can be seen and followed back to it? It can't get any easier than that.

[Figment]

The problem was not artillery, the problem was the spam frequency itself and that countering it had little effect. By the time you got to them their timer ran out.

A challenge to take out artillery would be fine, but the challenge would then also be to keep it running and both those challenges should be tuned to one another. That wasn't the case at all in PS1 for it was far easier to put up a new Flail after you killed one compared to the effort it took to take one out.

Killing a Flail is easy once you arrive there. Suppressing one has never been.

[Mechzz]

I have never understood why people hated the flail so much. It's artillery, killing you over long distances without fear of retaliation is kind of what it's supposed to do. It helps break stalemates by allowing someone to do damage without the risk of being taken out in the process.

And it was very easily countered by air, hell I had fun popping Flails in my Liberator, either grabbing a friend and carpet bombing them or just going on my little A-10 wannabe runs. Most of the time when I saw Flail rounds coming in, it turned into a free kill for me a few minutes later.

This "can-do" approach was not shown by the majority of the player base of this game, and we can't change human nature by force of will. If people think they have signed up to an infantry-centric game then having the crap shelled out of them by something they can't see and can't personally contemplate countering then they will go play a different game. Especially if they are not outfit players and don't know that peeps like you are willing to go bomb the crap out of the flail.

I agree with the vast majority of Figgy's points. A case well made, and something we should be wary of when we start agitating for our favourite mega weapon system. Most people won't argue with you when you propose something (I think even most visitors to this site don't actually post?) - if a unit goes in the game and breaks the game then the population will desert. And if that happens, the game will be dead as SOE won't get a second chance - there are too many other good games around.

Every unit with a guncrew of more than 2 presents a risk of this type.

[SKYeXile]

The problem was not artillery, the problem was the spam frequency itself and that countering it had little effect. By the time you got to them their timer ran out.

A challenge to take out artillery would be fine, but the challenge would then also be to keep it running and both those challenges should be tuned to one another. That wasn't the case at all in PS1 for it was far easier to put up a new Flail after you killed one compared to the effort it took to take one out.

Killing a Flail is easy once you arrive there. Suppressing one has never been.

not to mention, your probably cant pull aircraft because their is a fail pointed at your vehicle pad or every base door you have.

It does not matter what the point of artillery is meant to be in a game or in a real life war, the point is it should not have been added in the first place, because its a video game and it did not work in its implementation and likely wont work in any implementation.

[kadrin]

Granted, of course, that the PS1 Flail had unacceptably long range(allowing it to fire from next to a base shield) and an unacceptably wide splash radius.

Reduce the splash, and reduce the range so that artillery can't deploy more than say, 1000 meters away, that it would be fine. And if they still fired that slow shot that can be seen and followed back to it? It can't get any easier than that.

The range and splash weren't so bad imo. It needed both to really be effective, and I mean, it's pretty easy to hear those rounds coming in, look up for less than a second and get a good general idea of the impact area, then make sure you're no where near said area.

The only time I've ever died to a Flail round was when there were a few guys all using Flails (they had at least 5 or 6) and running from one impact zone generally had you running into 2 or 3 other impact zones. A brutal barrage that I give them credit for, they took the time to pull those, set them up, and coordinate, and no one on the opposing faction decided they wanted to go hunt them down. So they all reaped the benefits.

But yeah, firing next to a base shield, then retreating inside is pretty lame, though you could (and I did) do the same with warp gates.

[kadrin]

If people think they have signed up to an infantry-centric game then having the crap shelled out of them by something they can't see and can't personally contemplate countering then they will go play a different game.

I think it should be rather clear that neither Planetsides are infantry-centric, if they came in with that idea then they're already playing the wrong game, catering to them isn't what we should be doing.

[Stardouser]

The problem was not artillery, the problem was the spam frequency itself and that countering it had little effect. By the time you got to them their timer ran out.

A challenge to take out artillery would be fine, but the challenge would then also be to keep it running and both those challenges should be tuned to one another. That wasn't the case at all in PS1 for it was far easier to put up a new Flail after you killed one compared to the effort it took to take one out.

Killing a Flail is easy once you arrive there. Suppressing one has never been.

Ohhh that reminds me. If their unlimited range was part of the problem, then another thing that giving them say, a 750m, 1000m range would do, is encourage more fighting between bases. Flails would set up right nearby since they could no longer set up all the way across the continent, and this would lead to all manner of vehicles going after them, not just fast aircraft only. Even C4 infantry might run 1km to sneak up on them.

And this short range would lead to flails running with tank and infantry support to guard them (which again, they did not need support in PS1 since their range was so long that they could just sit next to a base with a shield). These tanks and infantry supporting them would then be juicy targets for roaming aircraft as well.

This "can-do" approach was not shown by the majority of the player base of this game, and we can't change human nature by force of will. If people think they have signed up to an infantry-centric game then having the crap shelled out of them by something they can't see and can't personally contemplate countering then they will go play a different game. Especially if they are not outfit players and don't know that peeps like you are willing to go bomb the crap out of the flail.


And this is the problem. We need the financial support that would come from gaining at least some CoD and BF converts, but, CoD especially, well...actually, it's not a question of they think they are signing up for an infantry-centric game, but they will expect it to be CHANGED to an infantry-centric game regardless of whether it is, and regardless of whether they knew it was or wasn't to begin with.

But we have dozens of infantry centric shooter games. Why can't we have 1 strategic war game that's not crippled by people wanting it to be reduced in scale to an infantry game?

But here is where another factor comes into play : When Planetside 2 proves the MMOFPS model, maybe someone else will make a game that does this. Only, I dread that it would be ArmA, simply because even if they did, and we had all the unit variety, ArmA would be realistic milsim gameplay. I guess that goes to show that the battle is never completely won.

[Mechzz]

I think it should be rather clear that neither Planetsides are infantry-centric, if they came in with that idea then they're already playing the wrong game, catering to them isn't what we should be doing.

I said "if people think" - I'm trying to interpret what happened to the game through the lens that Figgy has given us, and it makes a lot of sense to me. And to be clear, I include ground vehicles and one man fighters in my definition of "infantry". That probably wasn't clear, sorry for that.

Look at the graph of player numbers over time. That says it all. SOE borked the game totally over a year or two.

[Mechzz]

But we have dozens of infantry centric shooter games. Why can't we have 1 strategic war game that's not crippled by people wanting it to be reduced in scale to an infantry game?


A thought that depresses me in my darker moments is that most people who play computer games don't, when it comes down to it, actually want a game where they have to think to be able to play.

The original PS1's beauty was that it bridged the gap and gave the clever bods lots of "friends" to play with. In my opinion there is a strong inverse relationship between game complexity and potential player base. Drive away the ones who are not interested in coordinated game play at your peril. There are less people who want to "get organised" when they play a game than you might think.

[kadrin]

A thought that depresses me in my darker moments is that most people who play computer games don't, when it comes down to it, actually want a game where they have to think to be able to play.

The original PS1's beauty was that it bridged the gap and gave the clever bods lots of "friends" to play with. In my opinion there is a strong inverse relationship between game complexity and potential player base. Drive away the ones who are not interested in coordinated game play at your peril. There are less people who want to "get organised" when they play a game than you might think.

I thought PS1 handled this quite nicely as well, you could always just instant action (which needed some tuning, because spawning at the closest tower when it just happens to be on the other side of the continent was bad), and you had the HART which allowed you to pick any hotspot to go to. They even reduced it's timer from 15 minutes to 2, anyone remember those days? Made you want to cry when you missed it.

But this whole, play a game without thinking mentality is what creates issues. It's like if Blizzard balanced Starcraft 2 by looking at Bronze league games instead of looking at grandmasters or the GSL/MLG. You can't balance a game around those unwilling to think. Unfortunately those unwilling to think are the ones that spend their money blindly on any new shiny game, and greatly outnumbered the rest of us.

[Figment]

A thought that depresses me in my darker moments is that most people who play computer games don't, when it comes down to it, actually want a game where they have to think to be able to play.

The original PS1's beauty was that it bridged the gap and gave the clever bods lots of "friends" to play with. In my opinion there is a strong inverse relationship between game complexity and potential player base. Drive away the ones who are not interested in coordinated game play at your peril. There are less people who want to "get organised" when they play a game than you might think.

Sadly I agree.

The largest outfits were also the most "straightforward thinking" and "low treshold" outfits.

When suggesting alternative ways to attack when they were stuck, the minds of some of these people would implode. I once suggested Syndicate to attack Hvar (Interlink in the south of Extinction) from the opposite side as they were footzerging it from the tower and any vehicle they brought was brought in along with the rest of the units from the north by bridges. There was a lot of AA and strikers and their mossie attempts had failed. Ground vehicles they thought would be useless. For some reason nobody but my outfit ever used the many ramps on Extinction to attack through the canyons using amphibious Delis and Thundies either (we've often flanked snipers and bridges that way).

The south side of Hvar was undefended. There was next to no CE and all defenders were on the walls of the north side. A double Sunderer (single suicide sund ahead) would have been enough to breach it.

I got a lot of abuse from SynxBeerPirate then for suggesting they simply lacked the imagination to devise a plan to take the base and that - contrary to what they believed - they hadn't tried everything yet. Not by far. Instead, they gave up after a full 17 minutes of footzerg from the tower and went elsewhere because "drawing them off the map to Hossin was the only way to win Hvar).

Of course that plan failed too because it was too obvious. Oshur was lost by the time they reached Ghanon, since they forgot that they made up 40% of the NC pop on Extinction and were needed to keep TR contained in Hvar (which the TR had been content with due to low pop). After they left, TR took to the air, killed Bio Lab gen and left to resec Ghanon.

[Mechzz]

I thought PS1 handled this quite nicely as well, you could always just instant action (which needed some tuning, because spawning at the closest tower when it just happens to be on the other side of the continent was bad), and you had the HART which allowed you to pick any hotspot to go to. They even reduced it's timer from 15 minutes to 2, anyone remember those days? Made you want to cry when you missed it.

But this whole, play a game without thinking mentality is what creates issues. It's like if Blizzard balanced Starcraft 2 by looking at Bronze league games instead of looking at grandmasters or the GSL/MLG. You can't balance a game around those unwilling to think. Unfortunately those unwilling to think are the ones that spend their money blindly on any new shiny game, and greatly outnumbered the rest of us.

Sadly I agree.

The largest outfits were also the most "straightforward thinking" and "low treshold" outfits.

OK, now that we've got a bit more insight into the player base we will have if we want to have high pops over a 4-5 year timeframe, anyone who hasn't read Figgy's OP closely (Figgy, you're excused :lol: ) needs to go back and read it from the point of view of someone who's not interested in "getting organised" when they log in to play their favourite game, beyond maybe squadding up. And put yourselves in their shoes when the BFR/Flail/GG pwns them. Then pwns them. Then pwns them. They don't get organised - they go and play CoD. or BF. or TF2. or..... you get the picture.

So, and I think this is crucial and worth repeating, any vehicle with more than 2 gunner positions runs a risk of wrecking the game by driving away this type of player who tends to feel they can't counter such vehicles.

There is a place for a FPS that bridges the gap, but for it to succeed I believe it needs to cater more to the lowest common denominator than to the "organised". And it must provide enough fun for the "organised" too, because they are sometimes the movers and shakers on the battlefield, the clever ones, the ones who invent new strategies.

And "strategy" does not equal "omg I got 10 guns in this bus" :)

[Figment]

That's the thing, a lot of people design units out of how THEY want to use stuff. They look at what THEY want to do with it. Self-centered design won't work. If I was just thinking of my perspective, I'd not consider the zerg perspective too much, same for aircav. I realise however that these players are valuable to the game and it's vebry important to design the game such that they can play (without beocming too dominant). However, I fear the devs may be doing the opposite and underappreciate the unbalanced pop situations a bit by catering too much to zerg.

Providing stronger units to be more readily available with more territory (thus resources), next to more players reduces the competing strength of smaller pops. The resource system can indeed be a restriction, but to who? The larger pop or the smaller pop?

Normally with low power distance you can isolate and funnel enemies and change the odds that way: You can apply "Divide and Conquer", somehow cutting large enemy groups into smaller groups you can handle.

With huge "teamwork/endboss" units, this is however impossible as you cannot "Divide and Conquer" a Galaxy Gunship.

[JPalmer]

I think you all have to remember that PS2 will not be PS1 with updated graphics. It is not like they just ported the GG over from PS1. It will have different damage and health stats.

And if you hate them really bad either:

1. Take the resource that spawns them away from the enemy
2. Put AA on every vehicle you have

[Stardouser]

This talk of infantry-centric has given me an idea. And I KNOW you are all going to hate on it, and Elfailo is going to come into the thread and say it's a terrible idea and say I am a terrible terrible person for suggesting it. And it's slightly not focused on the main point of the the thread. But.

Higbee talks about "Variety is good". And Mechzz points out that some people will think they are signing up for an infantry-centric game, and I believe that CoD and some BF3 players will want to MAKE it into an infantry-centric game without caring about people who like vehicle play. Now, I admit, Category 1, SOME people just don't want vehicles to be overpowered...like Figment. But Category 2, SOME people want vehicles to be target practice, or they don't even like the idea of vehicles. These I will call CoD-like players. I believe that people who want vehicles to be nothing more than target practice with more hit points, or who won't even PLAY the game because of vehicles, are a BAD influence on the game and need to be segregated from the main Planetside 2 population.

The question is, how do you segregate these people from the main PS2 population without driving them off completely? We still want them to play so the game can succeed financially and reward SOE for giving us all the dream game we've been wanting, right?

So. I suggest that SOE consider what I will call infantry only servers. Mechzz said he considers infantry only to be ground vehicles and 1 man fighters. I won't go that far, instead, I suggest that there be one or more servers which only have Infantry, quad bikes, and Sunderers and Galaxy Transports that have been specially modified for use on a server where there are no bombers, tanks, etc(whether this means less hit points Sunderers and Galaxies, or whatever it means). The reason to have quad bikes, sund/galaxy is simple, you cannot have a game world this big with NO transport. But this takes away tank/air rape and gives the CoD players a place to go. An infantry only server could also have different spawn times and other adjustments.

Now. You guys are already flaming me at this point, so I should say what the benefits are of having a few infantry only servers. If the players who want extreme infantry superiority are in the general population, they will constantly lobby for vehicle nerfs and make a general nuisance of themselves. I don't mean the ones of you guys who want infantry AA to be able to 1 on 1 with an aircraft; no, CoD-like players will be WORSE than that. And so, providing infantry only servers where these players can congregate and be contained will do much to improve the harmony of the overall Auraxis community. It will be easier for them to choose an infantry-centric server than to lobby for vehicle nerfs. And it would save greatly on forum arguments after release, because the availability of infantry-centric servers would also make whining about vehicles seem silly.

And, there is precedent for this. I have only played Everquest out of all the SOE MMORPGs, but Everquest always provided PvP servers. Right now there's only one, but in the golden era, EQ had Rallos, Tallon, Vallon, and Sullon. They EVEN had a temporary PvP server, called Discord, in honor of the upcoming Gates of Discord expansion,where PvP death was permanent. So, SOE is NO STRANGER to providing specialized servers designed to a specific purpose. And I can confirm to you that the 4 PvP servers, during EQ's golden era, definitely did serve as a magnet to attract the scum and villainy of the EQ playerbase. I know, because I was a proud Rallos player from 1999 to 2004.

And Planetside 2 should have a much larger population than PS1 did, so the idea that infantry only servers will take too many people away from the proper game itself doesn't seem valid.

Flame on.

[Mechzz]

Figment's point is more general that, I believe!

I believe he is saying "beware putting individual strong units in a game where most players have a low level of organisation and are playing in relatively weak, low-crew configurations"

That warning applies to PS2 as much as it did to PS1, and they failed to "get it" in PS1. So a warning is warranted.

There's a thread going on just now where people are moaning that it will be too hard to take hexes outside of the zerg, so "just popping over to cap the 10 hexes the enemy is harvesting resources for their mega death machine" may be easier said than done.

If we have to put AA on every vehicle we have, then we will get pwned by AV-wielding grunts and tanks on the enemy side. And that is Figment's point when it boils down to it - single overly powerful units can seriously destabilise the game.

SOE need to be very careful on this.

[Stardouser]

Figment's point is more general that, I believe!

I believe he is saying "beware putting individual strong units in a game where most players have a low level of organisation and are playing in relatively weak, low-crew configurations"

That warning applies to PS2 as much as it did to PS1, and they failed to "get it" in PS1. So a warning is warranted.

There's a thread going on just now where people are moaning that it will be too hard to take hexes outside of the zerg, so "just popping over to cap the 10 hexes the enemy is harvesting resources for their mega death machine" may be easier said than done.

If we have to put AA on every vehicle we have, then we will get pwned by AV-wielding grunts and tanks on the enemy side. And that is Figment's point when it boils down to it - single overly powerful units can seriously destabilise the game.

SOE need to be very careful on this.

I have often thought that powerful multicrew assets show be slow, less maneuverable, and BIG. The problem, then, with a Galaxy Gunship, is not that it has multiple gunners, allowing it to deliver deadly concentrated fire, but that it's the same size as a Galaxy. I would think that something which performs the GG's role should be physically a lot larger, which would make it sluggish to turn, climb, dive and accelerate, as well as providing a big target to shoot at, which means that you don't necessarily need AA weapons, but that if it flies too low it will easily be hit by every tank gun for 600 meters.

And that's why I've always thought outfit airships with multiple gunners would be fine. They would be so big tanks can hit them with their regular gun despite bullet drop, and easily swarmed by mosquitoes who attack them from directly above or below(where their gun blind spots are).

[JPalmer]

Figment's point is more general that, I believe!

I believe he is saying "beware putting individual strong units in a game where most players have a low level of organisation and are playing in relatively weak, low-crew configurations"

That warning applies to PS2 as much as it did to PS1, and they failed to "get it" in PS1. So a warning is warranted.

There's a thread going on just now where people are moaning that it will be too hard to take hexes outside of the zerg, so "just popping over to cap the 10 hexes the enemy is harvesting resources for their mega death machine" may be easier said than done.

If we have to put AA on every vehicle we have, then we will get pwned by AV-wielding grunts and tanks on the enemy side. And that is Figment's point when it boils down to it - single overly powerful units can seriously destabilise the game.

SOE need to be very careful on this.


The mission system can work out your first point. Or whatever changes we see at beta will.

If you hate vehicles with a lower team work ratio to power ratio show them who is boss by having a balance of AA, AI, and AV in your outfit and wreck shit up.

And for all we know the GG will have long reload times, little ammo, and less heath than a normal Galaxy.

I see the GG currently really one step above the Lib. I can see 20 of those with a 2 man crew having a very low team to power ratio.

[Ieyasu]

this thread gave me visions of Ubermenchen sitting in a flail spamming a base door from across the map... all day long. that guy easily spent 90% of his ingame time spamming flail at bases.

[ringring]

Did anyone say BFR's weren't able to be killed solo? I've done it (with jammers and an mcg) and I'm sure many others have too.

[Semisel]

(As qualification, I fully intend to become a member of a more structured/organized outfit or tactical/strategic unit for the sake of not being a slave to the zerg. However, I've had the lone-wolf mindset in other games in the past which had vehicles and similar power/counter imbalances, so I'll attempt to bring that experience into application below.)


I'll try to answer Mechzz's call for a newbie perspective on this, if I may:

If I log on as a standard BF/CoD player, disorganized and relatively mindless, my first act is to grab a gun and run to where the fight is. I might squad up, but I might not. I arrive at the front, ready to run-and-gun my way to glory and prestige. I see whatever enemy is directly across the field, bring up my irons, line up, and sh-...-IT A TANK JUST KILLED ME IN ONE SHOT WTF!1!!1 I CAN'T KILL A TANK! *Lather, rinse, repeat until ragequit or whinefest.*

The player type described above will hate tanks with a passion, not just in-game, but as a game mechanic. This leads to the aforementioned infantry-only lobby from a vocal minority, and to players of that type leaving the game/community.

It's also not even so much the matter that the tank can kill the player in an arbitrary period of time, but that the player can't, while alone and unorganized, without the necessary equipment, reciprocate. I believe this is what Figment was touching on, in concept, with his post: for the advanced, veteran player; things are overpowered based on analysis (and generally quantitative in some way) of what their power and influence is in the context of some level of organization, coordination, and knowledge; for the novice, things are overpowered based on impulsive reaction (purely qualitative) against that which kills the player faster than the player can in turn, in the context of no/little knowledge, thinking, and planning.

The challenge with the above implies that, in order to keep as many of those novice players as possible, 1) all frequently seen weapons/vehicles/etc. must be balanced both quantitatively and qualitatively, so as to permit the broad catering mentioned by Mechzz; 2) infantry-only servers should be provided to keep the typified players in their own little world; 3) the typified players should be given no concession and be allowed to leave the game freely without attempt at encouragement to stay in the game; 4) active efforts must be made to move players from the qualitative class to the quantitative class through outfit recruitment and such; 5) significant consideration and resources go into the development of map elements which cater to the typified players' style of play (such a thing could be a more urban region, for example, with narrow streets and block-to-block/building-to-building/room-to-room combat).


That's my newbie read on it (and I hope it's not totally wrong on all accounts).

[Mechzz]

Sorry, work got in the way, but I think Figment has hit on something here, at least in terms of vocalising issues in the way PS1 was managed and which SOE need to beware for PS2. I'll do my best to catch up now!


And that's why I've always thought outfit airships with multiple gunners would be fine. They would be so big tanks can hit them with their regular gun despite bullet drop, and easily swarmed by mosquitoes who attack them from directly above or below(where their gun blind spots are).

Stardouser, you've shown yourself as an imaginative, intelligent poster. I trust you would be prepared to accept the downsides you describe for the outfit airship. But I ask you to consider, how many others would? My own feeling is that such a "powerful" but "weak" vehicle would spawn interminable whinge fests about "balance" on these and the official forums leading to discontent, followed by the buff/nerf cycle as the rest of the game tried to cope.


If you hate vehicles with a lower team work ratio to power ratio show them who is boss by having a balance of AA, AI, and AV in your outfit and wreck shit up.

This thread isn't about what I, or Figment, hate. It's about the risks involved in having too big a range of vehicle powers in a single game where most of the players can't/don't want to achieve the levels of organisation needed to take on the bigger units. And what % of the player base will be in an outfit that actually thinks and reacts?


And for all we know the GG will have long reload times, little ammo, and less heath than a normal Galaxy.

Let's hope so, or players will become sick of the sight of them


I see the GG currently really one step above the Lib. I can see 20 of those with a 2 man crew having a very low team to power ratio.

The Lib (3 man crew, each with a gun) is already dangerous in its new configuration to the grunt/vehicle power balance. Obviously none of us know yet what the "truth" will be, but can you accept the idea that to be successful (i.e. gather a large and growing player base) the game needs to make solo or at least minimally-organised players feel competitive?

He still does. :lol:
Someone who wants to do the same thing for what, 8 years? isn't a guide to how to design a game. Worse, a game that lets him do it is doomed to (financial) failure.





...lots of well reasoned words!...
That's my newbie read on it (and I hope it's not totally wrong on all accounts).

Semisel, you may have been reading some of my posts. Thanks for making similar points, albeit more eloquently than I did. For what it's worth, the thing that made Planetside amazing for me was exactly the fact that I could be on a battlefield where tanks, trucks, buggies, reavers, mosquitos, liberators et al were all around me. I don't like the idea of instancing for infantry/light units just because some peeps want to play with the big toys.

Also, someone with more recent knowledge could say better, but I think the battle islands in PS1 were a failed attempt to do just that. So not a great track record for that idea. Who knows, maybe the different continent designs will help? Indar looks very unfriendly to infantry, whereas Amerish looks great, for example. But I would prefer if the Devs didn't have to segregate the player base. If they do, LOTRO will seem attractive again since I can go into zones which were designed for my "level"!

[Stardouser]

Stardouser, you've shown yourself as an imaginative, intelligent poster. I trust you would be prepared to accept the downsides you describe for the outfit airship. But I ask you to consider, how many others would? My own feeling is that such a "powerful" but "weak" vehicle would spawn interminable whinge fests about "balance" on these and the official forums leading to discontent, followed by the buff/nerf cycle as the rest of the game tried to cope.

Well, don't forget, there is no situation where an outfit airship would be required to win any engagement. So if some people would not accept these downsides, it's not like they are forced to use it. On the flip side, if it does NOT have these downsides, it cannot exist, and so even the people who would use it, wouldn't be able to use it, and everyone loses.

As for balance, if you pull up an outfit airship next to a base and try to rape it, yes, you will get some kills, but if you do that, every tank for 500 meters will be able to hit you, not to mention AA turrets and infantry. So if there is whining, it surely would not be because a solo airship or two is raping bases unstoppably.

Compare that to a GG in the form that we already know of, and due to GG's relative mobility, if we can have a GG that's mobile like that, surely we can have a bigger outfit airship.

Personally, I envision outfit airships as being so weak to a small squad of mosquitoes(or reavers doing rocket dive attacks, or attacks straight up from the ground) that they have no choice but to fly around with their own air support. Hell, even a liberator should be able match speed with an outfit airship, hover on top(blind spot) and blast your roof in. Or, imagine an inverted Liberator sneaking underneath you, blasting your guts out(assuming Liberators can fly inverted).

That being the case, OK, so it's not that hard to get 8 guys to staff an airship - but considering you also need another 10 guys minimum flying air to air support with air to air weapons, that ends up being a lot of guys required.

[Mechzz]

Really?

Well, I think so. That's why I wrote it. Do you question both parts of the statement?

[IMMentat]

A well constructed thread opening, nice work Figment.

I agree with pretty much everything said there in terms of analysis of Planetside (the first).

The current dev-team seems to be working fairly hard at providing a balance for PS2 mechanics and the flexibility of customisation seems to allow anyone to have credible threat against a specific target type (such as a near suicidal run in the open to plant some C4), but at a trade off against something else (Guesswork. if you take C4, you can't take the ammo dispenser?).

Between the current updates to the community and maintaining an unusually fan-facing persona I am going to trust that the devs will make carefuly weighted decisions before introducing anything like a power/boss option.
Everything will have a downside to counter the good, else no fun will be had from fighting againt it.

[Purple]

inderect fire works. the issue with the flail was that it was too tanky. if balanced right artillery in PS2 could do good damage but still be taken out with just a few air units unloading on it. indirect fire could work if people would have the patience with them while they are being balanced.

[IMMentat]

indirect fire could work if people would have the patience with them while they are being balanced.
The problem is scale.
Massed indirect fire means a persistent area saturation which tends to hard-counter a lot of things (vehicles? spam the spawnpoint/exit, troops? spam the entrances and battlements, aircraft? get some dedicated AA backup)

It's the same problem Orbital Strikes suffered from in Planetside, eventually the long cooldown was negated by the number of people who had access to them.