Factional Weapons Cause Faction Pop Imbalance?

[Pyreal]

There are Two Main questions that are underlined.

Vanu Sovereignty Weapons:
Accuracy: High
Recoil: High (Burst and Sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: Medium

Terran Republic Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium
Recoil: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
ROF: High
DPShot: Low

New Conglomerate Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
Recoil:Medium (Low burst, High sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: High


There will be numerous trade-offs for Vehicles as well.

Look at the NC: High accuracy, low initial recoil and high damage. Its the Holy Grail for players who like to aim for the head!
If a player wants to be a Sniper or focus on CQC, will he be labeled a scrub because they aren't playing the side that offers the factional weapon bonuses most well suited to the task?

Will my personal skill make the difference in winning a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

If I am quicker and more accurate than my opponent, but I die because of a difference in counterpart weapons, I don't see how I won't be pissed off.

I am not a proponent of homogenization (particularly in RPGs), but I don't see how faction based mechanical differences in weapons will work in a modern styled MMOFPS.

I've played a few FPS and one thing that is always formost in players minds is fairness and balance in weapons. You can't give one side a weapon that is situationally better and not have the other side in an uproar.

PS1 vets will likely expect factional weapon differences, however, your average FPS player will expect a level playing field as regards weapons.

I can't seem to realized the piece of the puzzle that I'm sure I am missing, it must be there because there are a lot of intelligent people Developing this game who know a lot more than I do...


So saying that, help me solve this dilemma...

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?


TL;DR= Factional weapon differences will cause players to (QQ) gravitate to factions based on weapon performance.

[metziih]

If enemies aren't dying fast enough, then you and your friends aren't shooting fast enough.

Solution for any possibly balance issue; TR needs more dakka.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Aside from the HA weapons and Scatt Max, there wasn't much unbalanced about the faction specific stuff in the first game. Also this time with the side grades you can make your TR/VS weapon similar, but not all the way, to an NC weapon.

[Fek]

Did you know PS1 existed successfully for about 7 years before MW2 came out and all fps developers suddenly lost the skill of creating asymmetric balance?

[Littleman]

Depends...

If the first few rounds from any weapon remain tight, I imagine they all would be effective at head shots when firing in bursts. As far as I know, shielding might not have locational damage values though.

We need to play first. What is put down on paper more often than not is very different in practice, especially when the values we have to go by are as vague as low, medium, and high.

The concept of the cycler in PS1 was sound, RoF over power, but between the rexo buff and only firing a single extra round over the Pulsar and Gauss before bloom kicked in, it fell behind the other two in short term killing power, though it's long term killing power was unmatched. It tore up Maxes, mosquitoes and reavers faster than the other two rifles with AP rounds.

In the Pulsar's defense, it was ultra efficient switching between AP and AI rounds. As for the gauss rifle, only those with nothing else to fill the extra space would carry gold ammo.

Thing is, most infantry engagements required short term killing power.

This time around however, armor works differently and the weapons are deadlier. Just watching the videos, faster as well. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Pyreal]

Did you know PS1 existed successfully for about 7 years before MW2 came out and all fps developers suddenly lost the skill of creating asymmetric balance?

Successful is subjective.
If you are stating it was successful as any game may be successful (good reviews, good sales, playerbase and persistence), I would ask why does Higby refer to PS2 as a 'reboot' of PS?
It's because it was ahead of its time and did not reach its potential of success, that is, it wasn't truly successful.

Do you understand the term 'modern day FPS'?

Assuming that balance within a three way x four factors is even possible, please define 'asymmetric balance' as it applies to PS1 and more importantly, modern day FPSs and their playerbase.

[Pyreal]

If enemies aren't dying fast enough, then you and your friends aren't shooting fast enough.




You have failed to comprehend what was written.

[Akadios]

I totally agree with OP. They did say that they wanted each faction to almost feel like you were playing a different game. I think that people will definitely switch empire based on weapon performance.

My entire outfit and our related clans in bf3 and halo are planning on making a final empire choice when we see what weapons fit our needs. This equates into 42 people currently in limbo to choose sides for this exact reason.

(I'm not saying if I think it is good or not just that I think it will happen)

[Destroyeron]

You have failed to comprehend what was written.

And your coming off as a bit of an ass.

[Littleman]

What Metziih said was pretty much true though:

Going up against the TR is much akin playing a Bullet-Hell arcade game.

Aiming helps, but their weapons really were designed to pepper an area and kill people with a LOT of rounds to spare in the magazine. Over half of the Republic's army graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy. The rest from Selection.

[Electrofreak]

I totally agree with OP. They did say that they wanted each faction to almost feel like you were playing a different game. I think that people will definitely switch empire based on weapon performance.

My entire outfit and our related clans in bf3 and halo are planning on making a final empire choice when we see what weapons fit our needs. This equates into 42 people currently in limbo to choose sides for this exact reason.

(I'm not saying if I think it is good or not just that I think it will happen)

I think it's funny how people can worry over this when it never really was an issue in 9 years of PlanetSide.

People have all sorts of play styles, but there's also room in every faction for people of any play style because of the existence of common pool weapons and vehicles. Also, a surprising number of people adapt to the play style of their empire.

[Pyreal]

What Metziih said was pretty much true though:

Going up against the TR is much akin playing a Bullet-Hell arcade game.

Aiming helps, but their weapons really were designed to pepper an area and kill people with a LOT of rounds to spare in the magazine. Over half of the Republic's army graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy. The rest from Selection.


Metziih failed to read and/or understand for the simple reason that you can't 'shoot faster' when your weapon has a ROF limit. :rolleyes:

I asked a serious question in the clearest manner I could. He flapped his yap.
He may be a fine fellow, but his post was asinine.


Can we please focus on the two underlined questions?

Will personal skill make the difference in a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?

[Electrofreak]

Metziih failed to read and/or understand for the simple reason that you can't 'shoot faster' when your weapon has a ROF limit. :rolleyes:

I asked a serious question in the clearest manner I could. He flapped his yap.
He may be a fine fellow, but his post was asinine.


Can we please focus on the two underlined questions?

Will personal skill make the difference in a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?

Controlling OP alert. :huh:

[Pyreal]

I totally agree with OP. They did say that they wanted each faction to almost feel like you were playing a different game. I think that people will definitely switch empire based on weapon performance.

My entire outfit and our related clans in bf3 and halo are planning on making a final empire choice when we see what weapons fit our needs. This equates into 42 people currently in limbo to choose sides for this exact reason.

(I'm not saying if I think it is good or not just that I think it will happen)


For my part I have chosen VS because of their advanced nature. I'm a syfy buff and I like shooting lasers. :D

[Akadios]

I think it's funny how people can worry over this when it never really was an issue in 9 years of PlanetSide.

Honestly I agree that it wasn't an issue when you consider the overall battlefield. However that is different than the personal combat experience issue.
Take a Vanu and an NC in this situation. They round the corner are face to face and both react just as fast. The NC has the Jackhammer setup for 3 shot burst and the Vanu has the Lasher. Who wins if they both aim just as well? The NC every time.

It is these little things that exist throughout Planetside 1 that make certain people "match-up" better with certain empires. It isn't about unbalanced or overpowered just different. (If they were looking at each other from 50 meters down a hall the lasher should win (unless the NC had a Gauss too but that is a different issue)).

[GreatMazinkaise]

Well, it's been mentioned that TR have greater "hip-firing" (misnomer) accuracy than the other two factions, so one could assume that those who favor moving while shooting will primarily play TR.

The stationary turret players will of course prefer NC for better headshots. Those who favor versatility and interesting vehicle movement over an illusion of masculinity will prefer the VS.

So to the OPs questions:
1. Only if you're playing TR /troll
2. Almost certainly.

[Absentis]

The first question depends more on how well weapons are balanced, such as a TR and NC firing at each other and both dying at the same time if all rounds hit. This is something that will more or less have to be based on beta and if the devs want to make each faction have their niche strong point (ie. TR for long range, VS for medium range, NC for short range). Essentially, you choose between specializing or being a jack of all trades but a master of none.

As for population imbalance, qualities of each faction will make a difference based on the individual's playstyle. Just like how in games like BF3 you can end up with a team of mostly recons, you will end up with a lot of snipers on the faction that specializes in long range. So to answer your question, yes, empires will tend to pigeonhole people based on playstyles.

I wouldn't be too worried about population imbalances though since there will be a system to give under-populated empires an advantage; thus giving a motive for people to end up balancing empires out based on people wanting those advantages given to the underdog.

[Littleman]

Metziih failed to read and/or understand for the simple reason that you can't 'shoot faster' when your weapon has a ROF limit. :rolleyes:

I asked a serious question in the clearest manner I could. He flapped his yap.
He may be a fine fellow, but his post was asinine.


Can we please focus on the two underlined questions?

Will personal skill make the difference in a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?

We don't know. Low, medium, and high tell us nothing of how precisely the weaponry performs in actual practice, and I'm not going to gauge each weapon's worth by what we see in videos. Furthermore, each weapon has a different modifier on head shots last I heard. Chainguns and shotguns for example won't have any head shot modifiers.

And for the record (to those whom it may concern,) head shot capability wasn't a concern in PS1 because there was no existence of head shots in PS1, and the Gauss was only beast compared to the cycler because of the rexo armor buff during PS1's early days. The MA were all very balanced vs rexo armors before that update.

[Greenthy]

Balance in an asymmetric way is fairy tail though.

It's all just perceptions. For example:
Can you deal with being fodder up close and very lethal long range ?

I'm not pleading to make symmetric games, as those are just boring.
I'm merely hoping the community will accept the fact that assymetric means one or the other will be better at one or the other situation. And it is these moments that people will come to a forum and call: "NERF, i just got splattered up close, i got a 70% loss rate in that situation" while at long range it turns around.

[Xyntech]

Based on the first Planetside, I'm not too worried about this. The VS were often underpopulated, but it never was really a problem, and the population imbalances were rarely very drastic.

If there are obvious problems in beta, I'm sure some things can be tweaked around, but I don't see this being too problematic.

Remember also that there will be customization options. My guess is that the NC and VS will be able to push their customization options to the extreme and make their guns perform very similarly to the default TR guns, while the TR will only be able to slightly improve the TR specific aspects of their base guns. So the TR will still always have the potential for the highest rate of fire and the NC will always have the highest potential for shot for shot damage, but through customization the other empires will be able to get close enough that it won't be that big of a deal.

It will just be easier for a TR gun to have high rates of fire, and it will be easier for NC guns to pack a larger initial punch. You will get those styles by default and wont have to work to modify them that way.

The only area where I'm not sure how well this will translate are the faction specific vehicles like the Magrider and Scythe controlling so differently or the Prowler and Vanguard being such different sizes. In the end, I think there will always be a certain amount of inescapable faction uniqueness, but I don't think it will extend too far into things like head shots with sniper rifles.

[ThermalReaper]

I don't think anyone but the E3 players(Even then that information could be wrong) would have the right answers. So the only point of reference is Planetside 1, which some people claim that it was balanced.

[DarkChiron]

If enemies aren't dying fast enough, then you and your friends aren't shooting fast enough.

Solution for any possibly balance issue; TR needs more dakka.

^^^^^
That was obviously not being serious. Those of you treating it as such are morons.

I think the factions will be fairly easily balanced, when you're choosing a faction you just have to know what kind of player you are in terms of the guns you like using. It requires a little bit of self awareness that many probably not possess.

Hopefully what they'll do in that regard is allow for certs that enhance certain aspects of how your gun functions, so that if you find you're playing NC and the guns just don't fire quite fast enough for you, that you can help your gun along with that (at the cost of them doing more damage, or having less recoil, or a better scope, etc).

[Forsaken One]

I think it's funny how people can worry over this when it never really was an issue in 9 years of PlanetSide.


Main problem. There is now headshots.

When you add headshots the weapon that can kill the fastest via headshots is the auto winner.

NC gauss will have high power+high accuracy = best for killing with headshots.= best midrange gun.

Fun fact is most of you will brush this off but its the truth.

Go play any F2P FPS. what is pretty much everyone who has items useing? (counting guns only not explosives.) is it the p90? or is it the high power+high accuracy guns?

combat arms= g36 and sniper rifles
^^ just to name one as an example.


Then to add to this the NC get the "high powered sniper" and super powered shotgun for CQC

[Destroyeron]

Those who favor versatility and interesting vehicle movement over an illusion of masculinity will prefer the VS.

I argue against it being an "illusion."

[WVoneseven]

If you're in TF2 playing scout and run into a small room with an enemy pyro chances are you're cooked. Yes in TF2 you can have another pyro on your team but that's hardly a counter.
Afghanistan today you have US, AUS, UK forces with 5.56×45mm M16, AUG, SA80 in combat with Taliban mostly carting Kalashnikovs in a larger caliber. The NATO force arms are more accurate with less punch and the AK varients have a larger round but are more brutish. Only real source of imbalance between forces has more to do with armor, training and circumstance.
PS2 can be just like that with no problems at all. If NC find it harder to aim due to power (AK variant) they will miss their important high damage shots if they aren't good. While if a TR doesn't learn how to manage his ammo (5.56NATO) he'll run out just at the wrong time and end up dead. Same goes for Vanu as if they can't learn to aim for the chest and allow recoil to put shots through the center of mass they will just not do the damage they need (remember so far they can rely on recoil like this as their weaps are more accurate where as if NC relied on recoil to carry their cross hair they would spray wildly.)

TL/DR: It'll be fine. Chill yo beans. Easier to go asymmetrical than you might think.

[Vydofnir]

If the first few rounds from any weapon remain tight, I imagine they all would be effective at head shots when firing in bursts. As far as I know, shielding might not have locational damage values though.

We need to play first. What is put down on paper more often than not is very different in practice, especially when the values we have to go by are as vague as low, medium, and high.

Littleman is right. having not played the game yet, the best we can do is discuss the various aspects of faction specific weapons in relative and overly simplified terms. We have no idea how drastically each of these values varies from faction to faction, nor do we fully grasp the subtleties of how these values will interact with other game mechanics.

We know very little about how game mechanics like regenerative shields and headshots will ultimately work in this game, and what we do know is subject to change at any time. Considering that there are 6 classes ranging from LA to MAX and all the different combat situations you could find yourself involved in, you have a better chance of looking out your window to predict what the weather will be like in a year from today than you do of predicting exactly how the weapons will behave when we get our hands on them in beta. Let alone the fact that by the time we finish beta testing, the exact mechanics of any given weapon are likely to have changed significantly from when we started, and will be tweaked through updates even after release.

We have just enough information about the differences between factional weapons to make a relatively informed decision about what faction fits our preferred playstyle. Not everyone is solely interested in dominating. Some of us are looking for a challenge, and some of us will look to make our playstyles fit our weapons choices rather than the other way around.

I'm very happy that the developers have made the choice to create three factions with distinct weapons, and I can't help but think of the design challenges presented by the original Starcraft. Putting an emphasis on asymmetrical balancing makes a game designer's job that much harder, but I have no doubt that the development team is up for the challenge.

[Moofasah]

Wait....This game isn't about 1v1 encounters. If you're caught with your pants down 1v1, you lose.

If you're trying to ninja a tower and you're VS, and the other guy who just spawned is NC, then you should know that he may have a jackhammer. Keep your distance.

Alternatively, that NC has to be right in your face for that jackhammer to be effective.

Assuming you both know what your minimap is and both use it, you are on fair terms.

THAT is the balance. You adapt your play style to suit the situation you are in.

With that said, this game is NOT about YOU. This game is about your EMPIRE. Your power comes with your numbers and your teamwork. None of that 1v1 shit matters if you are coordinating with a group of people.

[Spiritbeast]

it's like playing starcaft 2, each race in SC2 has different tricks/abilities/units (tossincebirth) but they all play the game with the same goal...kill the other dude. In PS2 it's similair, u choose an empire and recieve all the ups and downs that come with it. So YES u have to choose your empire based on what type of gameplay each offers.

The only difference is in PS2 u can tweak your standard empire weapons, by purchasing different weapon variants, and switching weapon components. I think this will just be a bonus though, allowing u to build on your empires strengths or lessen their weaknesses, but still wont allow u to reach the performance of your enemy empire's standard weapons... A TR weapon is always going to perform within 20% range of the base TR weapon model, and a VS weapon will always perform within 20% range of a base VS weapon model.
...choose wisely ; P

[SergeantNubins]

Also the stuff above about high damage v rate of fire etc etc It makes no difference, the first shot out the barrel is accurate, and thats the one thats going to be headshotting for skilled players, after that its down to even higher levels of skill to get the 2nd, 3rd, 4th on target etc.

It's like in counterstrike - Ct's & Ts have different weapons.. AK47 Vs M4 - m4 is weaker per shot damage, faster rate of fire and less recoil, ak47 is high damage, lower rate of fire and more recoil, but i dont think anyone say that game was imbalanced? people just adapted their style to suit the gun they were using.

You also seem to be looking at this from the relatively small fps games that are the current flavour.. in those games its easier for a skilled layer to control the engagement and the environment, the maps are smaller and there are less oponents to worry about. That's not likely to be the case in ps2, with 2000 players on the map, you will find it very hard to control your environment and choose your engagements, other people will find you, either by accident or on purpose and so you will need to be versatile and not just rely on mid distance headshots all the time.

It's also amazing that people are already claiming the NC are imbalanced before anyone has even played the bloody game!

[maradine]

Wait....This game isn't about 1v1 encounters. If you're caught with your pants down 1v1, you lose.

Quoted for blindingly obvious truth. There will be circumstances where your skill, whatever you think that might be, will carry you through. There will be circumstances where you are in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong weapon. This is designed to be true across all factions. Whether they hit it or not, we'll just have to see.

[noxious]

It's not like PlanetSide 2 is the first game to feature faction-unique items. Even ignoring the fact that PlanetSide featured them (and was generally considered balanced), there are myriad examples of games with faction-unique items that are perfectly balanced. In fact, the most popular competitive game of all time, Startcraft, features three factions that are substantially more unique than the factions in PlanetSide 2 are going to be.

[bpostal]

I'm putting my faith in the sidegrade system. My Cycler won't be the same as a Gauss rifle but it should be accurate and have enough DPS(hot) to work.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

So 2 NCs with Jackhammers pop around a corner and see 2 TRs with MCGs.

If they all start shooting (focus fire) I'd expect the NC to win because of the higher alpha strike. 1 TR will drop basically instantly, and then it's 2 vs 1.

[Bags]

PS1 had more imbalances than PS2 will likely have, due to much fewer ES weapons.

For example, every faction can have the burster max, shield, no jump jets for VS max, and you can tweak weapons to be more like the other factions.

It wasn't a problem in the first, how can it be a problem in the second?

[Pyreal]

We don't know. Low, medium, and high tell us nothing of how precisely the weaponry performs in actual practice, and I'm not going to gauge each weapon's worth by what we see in videos. Furthermore, each weapon has a different modifier on head shots last I heard. Chainguns and shotguns for example won't have any head shot modifiers.

Just so you know those vague High, Med, Low labels came from the Apr issue of PC Gamer, I didn't make them up.

[ODonnell]

I hate games that try to do a Rock,Paper, Scissor balance. I hate that approach to design. Every faction should have its strengths and weaknesses. Avoid situations that allow an enemy to exploit your weakness and allow your strengths to excel. If a weapon makes someone choose another faction than that weapon most likely is obvious unbalanced to the extreme. For me planetside faction choice is a personal thing based on faction lore, belief, style, and outfit allegiance.

Update: And you have to remember that higby said weapons/vehicles will be customizable to the point that they can get close to their factions opposition.

[Pyreal]

PS1 had more imbalances than PS2 will likely have, due to much fewer ES weapons.

For example, every faction can have the burster max, shield, no jump jets for VS max, and you can tweak weapons to be more like the other factions.

It wasn't a problem in the first, how can it be a problem in the second?


Because the games are quite a bit different in execution.

The fact of no locational damage in PS1 makes a big difference by itself.
Higher TTK, better netcode and faster connections, and there is a heavier emphasis on twitch play.

PS1 is old. The overall structure of the game is great (MMOFPS) but I've been playing it for a few days and let me tell you, this thing is a dino!

If I had to wrap it into one word it would be Sloppy (player and vehicle control, lack of feedback). It's just how it feels to me. I've been playing with my outfit mates from GOTR and that's fun in itself, but as PS1 lives I would not stay with it.

[AzK]

So 2 NCs with Jackhammers pop around a corner and see 2 TRs with MCGs.

If they all start shooting (focus fire) I'd expect the NC to win because of the higher alpha strike. 1 TR will drop basically instantly, and then it's 2 vs 1.

Except that when those 2 nc pop, the 2 tr are at the bottom of the stairs rather than around the corner, and the 2 nc stand no chance.

What now?

[Bags]

Because the games are quite a bit different in execution.

The fact of no locational damage in PS1 makes a big difference by itself.
Higher TTK, better netcode and faster connections, and there is a heavier emphasis on twitch play.

PS1 is old. The overall structure of the game is great (MMOFPS) but I've been playing it for a few days and let me tell you, this thing is a dino!

If I had to wrap it into one word it would be Sloppy (player and vehicle control, lack of feedback). It's just how it feels to me. I've been playing with my outfit mates from GOTR and that's fun in itself, but as PS1 lives I would not stay with it.

Yes, but from the E3 footage all of the guns are virtually identical. I think the guns even all had the same size clip. If huge difference didn't affect PS1, tiny difference shouldn't affect Ps2.

[Pyreal]

I hate games that try to do a Rock,Paper, Scissor balance. I hate that approach to design. Every faction should have its strengths and weaknesses. Avoid situations that allow an enemy to exploit your weakness and allow your strengths to excel. If a weapon makes someone choose another faction than that weapon most likely is obvious unbalanced to the extreme. For me planetside faction choice is a personal thing based on faction lore, belief, style, and outfit allegiance.

Update: And you have to remember that higby said weapons/vehicles will be customizable to the point that they can get close to their factions opposition.


Thank you, ODonnell!

That's the missing piece of the puzzle right there. I had the idea that the weapons were hardlocked within their factional flavor.

[Bags]

Thank you, ODonnell!

That's the missing piece of the puzzle right there. I had the idea that the weapons were hardlocked within their factional flavor.

... but I said that and you told me I was wrong :doh:

you can tweak weapons to be more like the other factions.

[TheRandomAmiba]

Metziih failed to read and/or understand for the simple reason that you can't 'shoot faster' when your weapon has a ROF limit. :rolleyes:

I asked a serious question in the clearest manner I could. He flapped his yap.
He may be a fine fellow, but his post was asinine.


Can we please focus on the two underlined questions?

Will personal skill make the difference in a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?

since i have not played ps2 i don't know but im guessing its a bit of both. depending on the situation. i know i suck with fast firing weps so a faction like vanu have a slower shoot rate than tr i could take slower more precise shots thats a faction trade off. i also know as long as vanu use plasma weapons we will have lots of snipers but few good ones. its easy to aim no drop but looses damage over time. an nc on the other hand will have less good snipers but will have a few great ones who take time on their shots and do heavy damage or insta-kills. tr on the other hand will have snipers that can afford to miss. meaning they will not have many good or great snipers but at close-er range they will mess you up. so its a bit of where you are as well. over all factions will have advantages in some situations.if their on a completely even playing field then vanu prefer: kill em at range. New con prefer: shoot em when you know you can hit. TR: dont shoot till you can step on their toes

[ODonnell]

... but I said that and you told me I was wrong :doh:

How is your forhead feeling from that face plant to the desk? Don't sweat it man. It's all theory crafting and they didn't even have all the weapons in yet for the e3 show.

[moosepoop]

in battlefield 3 the guns have vastly different ROF, recoil, and dmg, and they are perfectly balanced. this is not a problem in planetside 2 because it has already been resolved numerous times in other games.



how are different guns in bf3 balanced? they are situtational. each gun are best suited for a certain distance.
why was this a problem in planetside 1? because the indoor combat was too crowed, too small. planetside 2 facilities are much larger and you can take advantage of different ranges.

[MrMorton]

There are Two Main questions that are underlined.

Vanu Sovereignty Weapons:
Accuracy: High
Recoil: High (Burst and Sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: Medium

Terran Republic Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium
Recoil: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
ROF: High
DPShot: Low

New Conglomerate Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
Recoil:Medium (Low burst, High sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: High


There will be numerous trade-offs for Vehicles as well.

Look at the NC: High accuracy, low initial recoil and high damage. Its the Holy Grail for players who like to aim for the head!
If a player wants to be a Sniper or focus on CQC, will he be labeled a scrub because they aren't playing the side that offers the factional weapon bonuses most well suited to the task?

Will my personal skill make the difference in winning a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

If I am quicker and more accurate than my opponent, but I die because of a difference in counterpart weapons, I don't see how I won't be pissed off.

I am not a proponent of homogenization (particularly in RPGs), but I don't see how faction based mechanical differences in weapons will work in a modern styled MMOFPS.

I've played a few FPS and one thing that is always formost in players minds is fairness and balance in weapons. You can't give one side a weapon that is situationally better and not have the other side in an uproar.

PS1 vets will likely expect factional weapon differences, however, your average FPS player will expect a level playing field as regards weapons.

I can't seem to realized the piece of the puzzle that I'm sure I am missing, it must be there because there are a lot of intelligent people Developing this game who know a lot more than I do...


So saying that, help me solve this dilemma...

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?


TL;DR= Factional weapon differences will cause players to (QQ) gravitate to factions based on weapon performance.

almost positive that this is the exact reason they implemented customization

so your concerns are completely valid, but SOE has already taken care of it (at least they appear to)

[Sirisian]

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?
Probably. In order to try to solve this they are allowing customization to essentially "sidegrade" any weapon into the other factions to make up for situational advantages.

Personally I said this like a year ago that their whole design is a bit flawed for allowing balance. We had this problem in PS1 where the developers and designers were fixated on creating RTS type balance. However, RTS balance assumes multiple class of units fighting together to even out differences in the system without respect toward any 1v1 balance, which is an admirable system. I don't believe the game needs to be balanced 1v1 across classes. However, we have a problem when the same class for different factions are so asymmetric for situations. Also using the customization system with certs so that players can match another faction's class is kind of awkward. Especially when one faction might have a situational advantage that is far more common.

Also I'm not sure if we'll see it in PS2, but we had suppressive fire in PS1 with the CoF system that favored fast firing weapons. That is someone getting shot once would have their CoF spike a little bit. Luckily it didn't come up much, but if the fire rates are too disproportionate then we might start seeing problems with spray based weapons.

My ideal system, as much as some other vets would hate it, would honestly just be to scrap all the situational weapon balance across factions and make each faction a reskin of the NS to ensure players are choosing their faction based on lore and not a playstyle. The concept that somehow each faction is missing out on 2/3rds of the playstyles is sure to cause imbalance issues in the future. We saw this in PS1 with the heavy weapons which were impossible to balance because they were specifically designed to be balanced situationally. For anyone that hasn't played PS1 this meant the NC were amazing at defending and camping, TR were amazing at medium to close range (which made them good at mossy dropping), and VS were good at spamming (so good in fact doorways could be blocked with orbs).

Needless to say if every faction was balanced such that every paired weapon across factions was identical except for skins (on the weapon and projectiles), including HA by converting them to a MCG variant, we'd see a huge balance in gameplay. One that would allow the cert system to be utilized such that everyone could move into different playstyles without getting stuck with a default one.

The chance of seeing this kind of balance? None. We probably have years worth of patches to balance weapons, or developers that hope people won't realize the problems because of how complex the battles are. Or they think that if someone feels unbalanced in a situation they'll work toward getting certs to balance their weapon with the other faction's weapon.

Right now the developers have made some key changes that will help with overall balance. Giving the burster flak MAX weapons to all the factions was one of the best starts seeing as that was one of the most situationally advantageous weapons in PS1. If they can extrapolate that with all the weapons we'd be in good shape.

edit, was just talking someone in IRC about this. Some of the situational inbalance totally changed how much people enjoyed battles. As a VS bridge battles on Esamir and outdoor battles on Ishundar are some of my most memorable because of the lancer and sniper combo. Other factions have totally different viewpoints on what was fun. If we could allow all factions to access to every playstyle you'd see some very varied soldiers in such a way that the game would be enjoyable for everyone in every situation.

edit, I wonder if the weapon customization to mimic other weapons is to replace the weapon looting. Kind of odd switch really.

[kaffis]

There are a couple ways to approach this:

Factions will favor certain playstyles and situations. Asymmetric balance kind of makes this obvious.

The point of asymmetric balance, though, is that the overall result is balanced.

If you're NC, you learn to burst fire or die, and you stay away from long-range shootouts. If you're TR, you learn to maneuver for close range engagements and lay on the trigger for sustained DPS. If you're VS, you learn to favor longer ranges to press your accuracy advantage.

Conversely, for people who come into the game with stronger playstyle preferences than faction preferences, they'll gravitate towards the playstyle they enjoy most.

So, I guess the answer to your second question, "Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?" is -- "Yes, but I wouldn't use 'pigeonholing' since it's loaded language, and there's no evidence that favored playstyles will necessarily yield imbalanced populations, as playstyle IS an individual preference with a broad range over a large population."


Moving onto your second question, "Will my personal skill make the difference in winning a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?"

The answer is simple: "Personal skill will win UNLESS you consistently insist on taking your ES weapons into situations in which they're heavily disadvantaged."

I could make a comment here about knowing how to be effective with your weaponry (instead of deluded thinking about how you WISH you could be effective with a given weapon) being the hallmark of "personal skill," but that seems a bit harsh. I do have to admit, though, that this entire thread seems to be a bit "Wah, the fluffy theme I like doesn't match up with the weapon feel I'd prefer" -- and to that, well, you can't please everybody, and I'm sorry you fall into the segment of the population that has to choose between theme and feel, but somebody has to.

[Yago]

Old players will likely choose the same empire .
New players choose for lots of reasons , some like scifi :vanu , some like the "power" NC , some like the colour red TR(Rus & China) .....
Many strange reasons IDK .

Not something I would worry about at all .

[RSphil]

as far as iv read and seen all the weapons across the factions do the same amount of damage but in different ways. so it all comes down to how you play. fast firing but low damage or slow firing and high damage ect.

im going NC cus i like the look of the faction and other stuff. how the weapons handle i will see in beta but it wont really bother me as i can adapt. i will play the other factions but NC will be my main.

i think they have weapon balance sorted, as people have said they never really had any problems in the first planetside so i dont think they will cock it up in the second.

[Mongo]

Different weapons are fine, suited for different playstyles. There wasnt ever any super weapon that a side had that won in all situations. Like a Jackhammer usually wins up close and a Lasher at a further distance.

It also gives you something else to cement your hatred for the other factions.

No Skilll Jack Hammer NUBS!
Chain Gun Spamming Retards!

Lasher is fine though ^^

Or as that old saying goes:

Scissors: Nerf Rock, Paper is fine.

[Stew]

There are Two Main questions that are underlined.

Vanu Sovereignty Weapons:
Accuracy: High
Recoil: High (Burst and Sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: Medium

Terran Republic Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium
Recoil: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
ROF: High
DPShot: Low

New Conglomerate Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
Recoil:Medium (Low burst, High sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: High


There will be numerous trade-offs for Vehicles as well.

Look at the NC: High accuracy, low initial recoil and high damage. Its the Holy Grail for players who like to aim for the head!
If a player wants to be a Sniper or focus on CQC, will he be labeled a scrub because they aren't playing the side that offers the factional weapon bonuses most well suited to the task?

Will my personal skill make the difference in winning a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

If I am quicker and more accurate than my opponent, but I die because of a difference in counterpart weapons, I don't see how I won't be pissed off.

I am not a proponent of homogenization (particularly in RPGs), but I don't see how faction based mechanical differences in weapons will work in a modern styled MMOFPS.

I've played a few FPS and one thing that is always formost in players minds is fairness and balance in weapons. You can't give one side a weapon that is situationally better and not have the other side in an uproar.

PS1 vets will likely expect factional weapon differences, however, your average FPS player will expect a level playing field as regards weapons.

I can't seem to realized the piece of the puzzle that I'm sure I am missing, it must be there because there are a lot of intelligent people Developing this game who know a lot more than I do...


So saying that, help me solve this dilemma...

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?


TL;DR= Factional weapon differences will cause players to (QQ) gravitate to factions based on weapon performance.

The ROF of the vanu is not corect on this OP

the vanu rate of fire is Beetween low and medium Its a Medium Low rate of fire not LOW

the Pc MAG graphics show it perfectly

the most important thing is the DPS Damage Per second ! not damage per shot if a wepon make like 10 % damage on each shot but shot 10 bullet in 2 sec so it will be equal as a weapon who make 20 % but have a rate of fire of 5 bullet in 2 sec

damage per shot means nothing exept thats better aiming is required in less damage pershot since every bullet count and the magazine are smallers each shot you miss its a 20 % damage loss

[outsider]

nah weapons don't determine population sizes because most of the time you will be carrying the wrong weapon to deal with the problem that kills you anyway.

you got a shotgun the reaver pilot kills you with a missile. you got anti vehicle the infiltrator stabs you to death. you got a sniper rifle and a max lands on your face.

population sizes will be determined by the actions of smaller groups within that empire managing to meet their objectives, as more people tend to stay on longer when their side is winning, over time increasing that empires population on the map.

Talking about weapon selection, these smaller groups will all be carrying alot of different weapons so at least a couple of them will always have the right weapon to overcome whatever obstacle they are facing.

If you are concerned about pigeonholing playstyles, that won't be a result of the weapons at your empires disposal but the class you are playing.