"Specialisation" == tuning.

[Figment]

Can we just call what it is and call it "(fine-)tuning" please? The reason is that the term "specialist" gives off the vibe that you get to do something others can't do at all, rather than adapt a playstyle everyone has access to slightly to different situations. Some people have used this in a multitude of debates to defend dev concepts by suggesting you won't be that effective in a role untill you cert things and become a "specialist". Which then according to them takes years and therefore warrants generalist setups, because it would take years to get everything within that role and therefore you couldn't somehow... use... that role? Ehrm... Great... Just that you don't need those certs because they don't give you a general advantage, but specific situation advantages (meaning, you're not the optimal thing for that role, but fine tuned for specific ways of handling that role).

Meaning within a niche, you might set yourself up as a "specialist" for particular situations, but the question is if that makes a difference on the whole if someone else is best tuned for his or her playstyle with an (almost) standard setup.


There's nothing to specialise in if it doesn't mean not having access at all to something else. You have access to all classes. You are all classes. You are thus a generalist by definition. Just like how a BR40 is a unimax noob, even if they never use MAXes. A BR40 CANNOT be a specialist if you look at certs. A player's specialism comes from the ability to play a class well, not about gaining access to options within a class that said player may not even want to use, because they're sidegrade choices.

Meaning you just have a more finely tuned class that fits your playstyle and that DOES NOT require you to invest heavily in every single cert of that class.

You will just be cherry picking the ones you like best and whatever prerequesits there are for it. But since they're predominantly sidegrades and don't give you enhanced combat power, they're just variations on the standard play style for that class.



To illustrate, it's like tuning an existing race car for the Indy 500 and calling it a specialist race car because it turns left faster because the wheels and suspension been off-set a bit. In a sense yes, it's more adapt to that specific situation, but other race cars can also turn left and still compete in the same class. Hell, they might beat you in your own game because you forgot the driving direction for this race goes the other way (!). So much for being the "specialist".

So you can get outtuned ('out-specialised by the standard'), by tuning yourself. Great specialism? No, tuning options for specific situations. Meaning you're tuning to be a situational specialist, not a class specialist.

Or if it's just a dumpster truck and you can select manual garbage delivery or automated with someone rolling the cart to your truck... Eh. Big deal. You're still both specialised at taking out the garbage and at least the one who is not fitted with an automated pick up system can deal with more various forms of trash. So again, it's a "specialism" that's more about limiting your general effectiveness towards a specific effectiveness. Again, that's tuning as it's not something that you don't necessarily need to do in order to be effective in the general role.



Now if you had a choice between a dumpster truck and a race car okay. Then you'd specialise your car into a role the other can't by a longshot. THEN you're a specialist, regardless of how you fill in the specialty.



I know this may sound like semantics to some people, but there's two different definitions of this word in use. There's a distinct difference in how it communicates to people and therefore how it is used in debate on design context. A lot of people for instance took "specialization" as meaning you won't be effective in a class until you specialised in it.

No... It's about tuning your character's gear to your prefered way of fighting that role, or adapt it to specific situations. That's all.

[SUBARU]

specialist-picking one class your going to put alot of time and excell at
Tuning - Finding out what loadout works best for you in said class-what weapon,what side grades,what grenades

If I am driving an Indy car, Im Specializing in Indy car .Just because I am a great Indy car driver does mean i can drive Nascar or Grand-am and be good at it

You are so way off

[Figment]

specialist-picking one class your going to put alot of time and excell at
Tuning - Finding out what loadout works best for you in said class-what weapon,what side grades,what grenades

Agreed, just note that you're still a generalist because you CAN use other classes, be it less fine tuned to your liking.

If I am driving an Indy car, Im Specializing in Indy car .Just because I am a great Indy car driver does mean i can drive Nascar or Grand-am and be good at it

You are so way off

How can I be off if that's exactly what I said, I made this the distinction between two types of specialists, which are confused a lot:

Someone who is fined tuned within a class is a SITUATIONAL specialist, not a CLASS specialist. A class specialist is someone who can do something entirely different.

Read it again, it's exactly what I said. :/ I even stated that though you might be excellent at indy racing, you would not be setup as properly for any other niche (rally, nascar, GP etc) that also fills that class' general role (racing). By which I'm saying that doesn't make it intrinsically more valuable, just more valuable in specific contexts.

Hence you don't get a general class benefit that would make that class intrinsically valid where it would not have been before, which is something a lot of people attest and simply isn't true.

As you say, you get an advantage on a specific situation and context within a class, but that doesn't stop anyone else from participating in that context with another setup of the same class. It's for many situations going to be like using wet or dry tires. There's a small difference, but my main point is not that there's no difference, it's questioning if it's enough to warrant people saying you can't really use a class well at all (which again, a lot of people do). A question to which my answer is no, so it's better to use the word tuning than specialising.


Meaning we inherently agree.

[PredatorFour]

I think true specialization in Planetside 2 would be to give up classes and let people custom build their loadouts like in PS 1.

[Dart]

I'm not saying it's a slow news day.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics) :doh:

[SUBARU]

I'm not saying it's a slow news day.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics) :doh:

Its a no news day:)

[Figment]

I'm not saying it's a slow news day.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics) :doh:

*points people at lexical and conceptual semantics*

<3

It's indeed about "definition within context" vs "general or personal definition(s)" of the word 'specialist'. :)

The devs refer to situational specialisms, or contextual specialisms simply as specialisms. A lot of people seem to confuse that with their personal definitions of specialisms (regardless what side of a debate they're on and even within groups different definitions are used, adding to the confusion).

[Littleman]

I think true specialization in Planetside 2 would be to give up classes and let people custom build their loadouts like in PS 1.

Yeah, then everyone can have the exact same specialization: HA/AV/Med/Engi :rolleyes:

[Figment]

I think true specialization in Planetside 2 would be to give up classes and let people custom build their loadouts like in PS 1.

Yeah, then everyone can have the exact same specialization: HA/AV/Med/Engi :rolleyes:

"True" specialisation would be somewhere in the middle between PS1 and PS2: where you'd have to pick a select few classes to be available to you and THEN specialize further within those classes.

That way you'd both be a class AND situational specialist.


If you can switch to any class on the fly after each death, you can't really claim to be a class specialist, can you? That's why people refer to it as BR40, although that's not exactly the case.


PredatorFour prefers to define class as "infantry". As such Littleman provides the image of a generalist infantry setup, who combines a lot of infantry specailizations. But under Predator's definition of specialist, he gave up a lot of other tools and vehicles to be able to do that. Meanwhile, Littleman defines specialist as separate infantry roles.


Now think back on why I said this thread was needed in the past few posts and realise these two provide perfect examples of different definitions.

[PredatorFour]

Yeah, then everyone can have the exact same specialization: HA/AV/Med/Engi :rolleyes:

Not if you only have so many cert points to spend so you cant unlock everything. I dunno why having a custom loadout is so bad compared to classes. With the TTK being short it changes alot to the original PS, when you run up to a guy with jh/av and shoot with your cycler he aint going to turn round and kill you he will be dead.

I think if we had only a certain amount of certs to spend, like in the original, it would create specialization because it would be forced. Although Higby said we can unlock everything if im not mistaken?

[Figment]

I think if we had only a certain amount of certs to spend, like in the original, it would create specialization because it would be forced. Although Higby said we can unlock everything if im not mistaken?

He did. He gave a timeline of a few years for a new player to have all certs.

In fact, from what I understood, even if you don't play a character, it will still progress off-line as long as you log into it daily and tell it what to research.

[Accuser]

He did. He gave a timeline of a few years for a new player to have all certs.

In fact, from what I understood, even if you don't play a character, it will still progress off-line as long as you log into it daily and tell it what to research.

Oh hell no your character doesn't "research" anything. You just build up more generic "Cert thingies" just as you would with experience, which eventually add up to "Cert Points" that can be spent to unlock any cert.

[ArmedZealot]

Why is this even a thread? Why is it so important to distinguish between the two? Why do you have a problem if people call it specialization, rather than tuning?


Personally I think the two only differ when talking about people or equipment. Both mean the same thing really, to clarify or define the focus of something.

A person is specialized to suite a role.
A gun is tuned to suite a role.

But again it isn't that big of a deal to distinguish it in an argument. When the real theory crafting gets here after the game matures this will come more naturally to forum whores.

[Figment]

Why is this even a thread? Why is it so important to distinguish between the two?

For clarity of debate as right now it confuses debates needlessly. It's not just this word though...

Why do you have a problem if people call it specialization, rather than tuning?

Because I tire of seeing 50 different definitions of 'specialist' and people having no idea what other people mean and then going of on tangents that are irrelevant to the context of the other's definition, often completely missing the point.

[ArmedZealot]

For clarity of debate as right now it confuses debates needlessly. It's not just this word though...



Because I tire of seeing 50 different definitions of 'specialist' and people having no idea what other people mean and then going of on tangents that are irrelevant to the context of the other's definition, often completely missing the point.

Eh, like I said, when people actually have a chance to play the game and we are relying on more than screenshots and hearsay to fulfill our imaginations of the game these things will become more clarified in debates.

Debates themselves will end up moving from "What do you plan on specializing in?" to "Sniper Cert Build + Sidegrades v6.5". Until then we will just have to deal with the weird stuff for now.

[Figment]

Eh, like I said, when people actually have a chance to play the game and we are relying on more than screenshots and hearsay to fulfill our imaginations of the game these things will become more clarified in debates.

Debates themselves will end up moving from "What do you plan on specializing in?" to "Sniper Cert Build + Sidegrades v6.5". Until then we will just have to deal with the weird stuff for now.

Probably.

Problem is we're discussing here how we'd like things to be. Not just to describe how it "is", but "what do we prefer". If there's no concensus on definitions of words, feedback that is provided now won't communicate clearly to devs.


Meaning by the time we get to clearly communicate, it's probably too late to fundamentally change systems or even make large general system changes.

Especially not if there's a group that's "used to" doing something the "new way", even if this isn't the best way. Plus devs are people, people are always reluctant to change something that they've come up with first because it means they wasted time developing something else. Regardless if it's better or not.

[Baneblade]

We do know that certs will unlock special abilities. So Specialist isn't really a misnomer.

[ArmedZealot]

Probably.

Problem is we're discussing here how we'd like things to be. Not just to describe how it "is", but "what do we prefer". If there's no concensus on definitions of words, feedback that is provided now won't communicate clearly to devs.


Meaning by the time we get to clearly communicate, it's probably too late to fundamentally change systems or even make large general system changes.

Especially not if there's a group that's "used to" doing something the "new way", even if this isn't the best way. Plus devs are people, people are always reluctant to change something that they've come up with first because it means they wasted time developing something else. Regardless if it's better or not.

Yeah. This is the biggest reason why I would like them to have a long drawn out beta.

People are coming from a ton of backgrounds and experiences, so terms and phrases mean different things to different people. We all need to get our feet wet and get the feel of the water to get the whole community on the same footing.

[Figment]

A long beta would be nice and I really do hope there's going to be a point to beta beyond bug fixing, but I fear need to get microtransactions started will trump that. :/ Also because other companies like Pro7Sat.1 are waiting to make money off of the deal.

[ArmedZealot]

A long beta would be nice and I really do hope there's going to be a point to beta beyond bug fixing, but I fear need to get microtransactions started will trump that. :/ Also because other companies like Pro7Sat.1 are waiting to make money off of the deal.

From what I experienced in T:A, microtransactions can be successfully monetized before the game leaves closed beta. The "Open" closed beta really helped out T:A a ton I think and PS2 should try to emulate that. I think it kept the money coming in while keeping the game in a relatively liquid state.

Of course this is just my opinion and my experience. The devs are obviously still playing around with their microtransaction model. Just look at the recent AGN interview where higby is still entertaining the ideas of gun rentals and equipment rotations.

[Tuomio]

Its a mathematical fact, that sliders (PS2 type, seen from current footage) will have to have so little impact, that they will be unused and irrelevant after the shine wears away. Otherwise we would have super-characters ruling the PvP play, this is also the reason that PvP is not allowed in typical RPG MMO, where your character will gain very distinctive and broad abilities!

There are numerous single player games where this can be observed (ie. Mass effect 3). For example, knife boost 20% (being maxed out) is almost irrelevant. Might i also add, that its boring, like fiddling with Excel chart. Actually thats exactly what you are doing, changing single floating point values on a .ini file in an eye-candy fashion.

On the opposing side there is Fallout-type bonus abilities, in which you only have handful of and they give you very narrow, but sharp edges on special situations. Of course the player will then try to bring the battle in his terms, where these abilities can be used, ie. single knife slash = guaranteed kill, hand picked from 5 other options that get locked away after choice is made. This would be too powerful to be used in a have-it-all slider fashion!

PS1 also had very good and well behaved class tree, its simple and effective, thus it also gets used and gets observed from opponents point of view. It requires effort from developers side and so i am almost certain that is the reason why its not put in place here. Micropayments might also weigh in here.

[Marinealver]

Enginner, Scyth, Mag, HA.

[ArmedZealot]

Enginner, Scyth, Mag, HA.

Unicorn, Personal shield, MA

[noxious]

Tuning sounds really dumb, and a one-line description of specialization within PlanetSide 2 disambiguates the term for anyone that isn't functionally retarded. The same one-line description would be necessary for the word tuning since the word doesn't really have a domain specific definition.

At any rate, I disagree that the word is problematic at all. Just because a person can do everything doesn't mean they can't specialize in one area. A programmer, for example, can often do many kinds of programming, but they will still be specialized in a small subset of areas where their knowledge and experience is primarily focused. This is exactly how specialization applies in PlanetSide 2; yes, you can do everything, but you can also specialize in a particular subset of roles by focusing your certification points on those roles.

[SFJake]

^^

Basically, specialization opens tuning opportunities. Someone specialized in something can tune its various options to fits its exact needs.

The use of specialization is fine.

[Littleman]

Not if you only have so many cert points to spend so you cant unlock everything. I dunno why having a custom loadout is so bad compared to classes. With the TTK being short it changes alot to the original PS, when you run up to a guy with jh/av and shoot with your cycler he aint going to turn round and kill you he will be dead.

I think if we had only a certain amount of certs to spend, like in the original, it would create specialization because it would be forced. Although Higby said we can unlock everything if im not mistaken?

While I won't deny this is another term for specialization as one may recognize it, in the grand scheme of things, it's a really restrictive form of it. SOE doesn't really want people to roll 7 different characters just to enjoy every aspect of Planetside 2. That's wholly inefficient and arguably impractical for everyone.

Classes, while offering pre-determined restrictions, allow people to focus on one character (where a lot of people earn their reputations,) with the idea that classes can be balanced to prevent the super soldiers we see today. They could have restricted cert points ever so much in PS1 that the classic Rexo/HA/AV/Med/Eng setup was simply too expensive to have, but that single character would essentially be locked into that single role. They couldn't drive a tank, or fly an aircraft. You'd basically be facing a class system anyway.

[Noivad]

The real question lies in how long it will take to cert everything. I have heard ( Not Confirmed) it will take a year to cert all the Galaxy mods. So if one person actuallys does that then he is a specialist in Galaxy certing, but may be a noob at actually flying one with all that stuff on it. And just because you can fly a galaxy that does not mean you can fly it tactically correct to use its full potential under various conditions.

So really, depending how you look at it, there are 3 distinct specializations for a gal pilot. Cert - Flight - Tactical Deployment of a myrid of different situations and locations.

If he or she can do all that then maybe they would be called Experts.
Does it really matter what we call him if he or she can do it. Perhaps Outfit Gal pilot will do. :evil: