If you're gonna drive a paper tank... the Lightning's a better deal [Archive]

View Full Version : If you're gonna drive a paper tank... the Lightning's a better deal

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-30, 07:12 PM

Consider the following:

MBTs have driver/gunners and are balanced around solo play. So are Lightnings.

Lightnings can take out MBTs pretty easily (because the MBTs are solo paper tanks) and they're also faster and have faster turret rotation.

Lightnings cost about half what an MBT does.

While the potential damage output of the MBTs should exceed the Lightning's considerably assuming a second gunner, they don't have a two person team's worth of armor. The slight increase in durability doesn't really make up for how slow they are.

Conclusion: The result of rewarding the purchasee of a tank with its main guns is a slow, expensive, paper tank that can be pretty readily bested by the much cheaper Lightning.

EisenKreutzer

2012-07-30, 07:14 PM

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-30, 07:15 PM

Except we don't know how the Lightning handles when compared to the other tanks, we don't know how much damage it does, how much armor it has, how many hit-points it has, how fast it is... Etc. etc. etc.

We don't know specifics, but we do actually know most of this stuff. The core point here is that both types of tanks are balanced around solo play; due to them being fundamentally different vehicles MBTs get the shaft with this decision.

EisenKreutzer

2012-07-30, 07:16 PM

Every characteristic of the Lightning is subject to change when beta starts. Speed, hit-points, damage and a ton of other stuff.

Envenom

2012-07-30, 07:17 PM

With various certs many of these factors can be changed, so I'm not sure this argument stands up.

wasdie

2012-07-30, 07:18 PM

We don't know specifics, but we do actually know most of this stuff. The core point here is that both types of tanks are balanced around solo play; due to them being fundamentally different vehicles MBTs get the shaft with this decision.

Not if the MBTs can knock out a lightning in 2 hits.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-30, 07:18 PM

This thread is just conjecture. We have an "idea"... that is a "theory"... a fancy way of saying "maybe". But we don't "know". And it's subject to change.

opticalshadow

2012-07-30, 07:19 PM

its also still very new, balence will start changing alot during beta, when a large number of players can provide feedback.

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-30, 07:21 PM

Every characteristic of the Lightning is subject to change when beta starts. Speed, hit-points, damage and a ton of other stuff.

Yeah, they can tweak it... but it is impossible to make the MBT a better choice than the Lightning without making it an overpowered solo vehicle. Since Higby's been pretty unyielding on the whole driver/gunner thing (and the certification even if it gets put in is not likely to make classic crewed MBTs any more durable) MBTs will always be bad. Or perhaps Lightnings will be made bad enough that the MBTs will be better by comparison.

Balancing MBTs for solo play is the core problem here. It works fine in games with two tanks per side or something silly like that where you NEED to have paper tanks that infantry are capable of killing, but you can't have proper tank battles with paper tanks.

This thread is just conjecture. We have an "idea"... that is a "theory"... a fancy way of saying "maybe". But we don't "know". And it's subject to change.

I suppose if the only places one gets information is from PSU it would be theory, but we do in fact know these things. Even without that knowledge we're able to Theoryside it well enough.

EisenKreutzer

2012-07-30, 07:28 PM

Ok, listen, it's like this:

When the beta is over, the game will play like the developers want it to play.
Every vehicle and class will perform as the developers intend them to do. They will accomplish this through balancing and altering every mechanic in the game until they do what they are supposed to do.

At this stage of the game, it just is not possible to judge wether this or that feature will be "overpowered," or wether this gun or that vehicle will be used to the exclusion of all else, or that this or that feature is purposeless or broken.

SOE have a very concrete idea about how they want the game to play, and the beta-testers will provide them with the metrics they need to ensure that when the game is finished, it will behave according to that plan.

As beta testers, we won't just be collecting info on bugs. That is part of it, but it's not the complete picture. Our role isn't to provide feedback or new ideas either, though we can and should do that. Our role is to play the game, so the developers can see wether the game plays like they want it to or not, and wether every feature is working as intended.

In short, it's too early to start these kidns of discussions. Nothing productive will be said in any thread about specific issues of game balance, because the beta has not started yet. We have extremely little information to go on, and what information we do have isn't really relevant because practically all stats in the game are placeholders at this point.

TL;DR: You won't know if it's a rooster or a hen until the egg hatches.

Turdicus

2012-07-30, 07:57 PM

Oh great mazipoo, your argument isn't too bad, except you're looking at it from only one of many angles. There is no reason a MBT can't be significantly tougher than a lightning. On top of that MBT's cost many more resources and have a much longer cooldown timer attached to them. And on top of THAT lightning's have to shoot and land 6 rounds in order to do maximum damage, while a Vanguard (for example) needs only land 1, and that 1 round does more damage than all six rounds of the lightning combined.

This is all balanced (potentially) by the notion that lightnings drive much faster and handle much tighter than MBT's and the 6 rounds clip will be easier to use while driving full speed than hoping one round will hit the target. Lightnings are not designed to stand still and line up the killing blow, they are instead hit and run attackers. MBT's are much more suited for a stand up fight. MBT's get more armor, Lightning's get more speed, and both serve different roles on the battlefield.

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-30, 08:09 PM

Y'know, this was supposed to turn into an anti-driver/gunner thread... I'm disappointed, since that's the core problem here.

EisenKreutzer

2012-07-30, 08:11 PM

The percieved core problem.

vVRedOctoberVv

2012-07-30, 08:13 PM

@GM

I'm anti driver/gunner

But the core of this thread is, as I said, pure conjecture, regarding the specifics of the balance of the Lightning and the MBT, something that we don't know.

Not liking driver/gunner is one thing. The Lightning being overpowered is a different. Although they CAN relate to one another, they don't NECESSARILY relate to one another, going back to what I said... We need more information. How are we to discuss something that none of us have played with yet?

Littleman

2012-07-30, 08:17 PM

Fact is, most of what people have said in here can change because SOE said so -_- Lightnings could be just as expensive is MBT's, they just consume different quantities of resources.

One thing I do know, however, is that the Lightning, as of E3, has an anti-tank turret configuration.

Simply guessing, the lightning might bring the superior firepower and speed for the specific role it intends to play out, but it may have the weaker armor. Speed + no armor + only 1 guy = clumsy paper tank.

Likewise, the MBT will have the armor, but it's firepower will be the lesser of the two (speaking for the weaponry of the MBT individually,) yet fully manned it should be the more combat capable (re: destructive) vehicle over all.

At least, if I were in charge of balancing that's how I'd set them up. Lightning = solo. MBT = even with the main gun in the hands of the driver, they'll still want a partner on that second gun.

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-30, 08:23 PM

Not liking driver/gunner is one thing. The Lightning being overpowered is a different. Although they CAN relate to one another, they don't NECESSARILY relate to one another, going back to what I said... We need more information. How are we to discuss something that none of us have played with yet?

Now now, I didn't say the Lightning was overpowered, I just said it was a better deal than an MBT, mostly because it's still capable of killing a fully manned MBT. Remember how the conclusion was drawn about seat-swapping and fielding two MBTs instead of one? That applies doubly to the Lightnings which are fast and cheap as well.

Badjuju

2012-07-30, 10:22 PM

Personally I don't agree the the MBTs are built around solo play. For one in a huge battle, they can make for an easy target if solo. More importantly, I believe they will be considerably weaker with out a second gunner to support them, especially with air to ground being quite powerful. We have seen that the secondary gunners can be extremely powerful against air vehicles in the current build, and switching seats will never be as effective as having both seats occupied. Hopefully they will also provide a side grade to allow a passenger to control the main turret, for those who prefer that style.

Rat

2012-07-30, 10:32 PM

I am willing to bet 2 lightnings will circle strafe the shit out of a single mbt with 2 gunners....so ya, I am willing to bet the lightning will be a better bang for the buck if used properly.
this is assuming the mbt dosent have any support.

Kran De Loy

2012-07-30, 10:49 PM

I also feel that most vehicles need higher TTK.

(going by Higby Stream and the Community Event on the 13th)
Flash - Fine
Lightning - Fine
MBTs (Magrider) - A little low, maybe need 2 more seconds.
MBTs (Vanguard) - Just about right, actually, but if the Mag and Prowler gets hight TTK than the Vanny should as well to balance.
MBTs (Prowler) - Also a little low, maybe need 2 more seconds.
Liberator - A little low, maybe need about 2 more seconds.
ES Fight Aircraft - Very low. Dies very quickly to base defenses, just about right against everything else.
Galaxy - Is just about perfect. Takes a beating before it goes down, often enough time to spew it's payload over the drop site, but not always.

Flaropri

2012-07-30, 10:55 PM

Hey, look, it's the "2 are better than 1" argument; with twist of lemon.

Last I saw (admittedly, not part of the tech test and this info is likely out of date) Lightnings cost about 80% of resources. I would be shocked if it went as low as 50% by the end, and think that 70-80% is more likely at present, with 60% being a low-ball.

In a 1 v 1 fight, the MBT has the advantage over the Lightning due to superior firepower and armor, so it's increased resources are justified. In a 2 v 1 fight, the 2 Lightnings have an advantage (health based) over the MBT... so their increased resource cost (together) is justified. Even so, as has been gone over in other threads, there are other pros and cons associated with each vehicle, and the vehicle's overall perform different roles anyway (or at least the Lightning is forced to specialize more); and the advantages aren't overwhelming. Position, aim, and other factors play into it all as well, allowing skill and tactics to overcome raw resource.

tl;dr version: "Resources: they matter, and they, along with other variables, can easily adjust to make sure things are actually balanced."

Erendil

2012-07-30, 11:14 PM

Resources are a poor way to balance the battle effectiveness of different units. Resources should mainly be used to balance availability, not power.

Why? Because if a piece of equipment is made stronger and that strength is justified due to its resource cost, people won't ever used the weaker, less-expensive equipment and instead just save up unti lthey can get the more powerful one. Then they'll just play it safe in the more powerful one until they've again saved up enough resources to pull another one if it dies.

This is the same thing we saw with BFR's in PS1 when they had their long acquisition timer. Despite being the most powerful vehicles in the game, BFR drivers babied their robots and hardly ever put them at risk since if it died they wouldn't be able to pull another one right away.

More on topic, balancing Lightinings vs solo MBTs vs 2-man MBTs is a tricky one to be sure. I'm not a fan of the solo MBT either and yeah, it does cause some balance headaches since you retain the use of the most powerful, main cannon. I really can't see how using a 2-man MBT would be a more attractive option than 2 separate solo MBTs, even with the added resource cost.

As for the Lightning specifically, a huge step towards making it a more attractive option would be to give it the coaxial LMG that its PS1 namesake and Skyguard ancestor both had. They talk about the Lightning being the most versatile tank in PS2 and then they apparently remove the dual-turret setup it had in PS1 which is what gave it its versatility in PS1. Giving it back the coaxial LMG in its stock setup would help it immensely.

bpostal

2012-07-31, 12:17 AM

I'm also against the driver/gunner bit but solo play doesn't mean much more than 'I want to die really really fast to those guys over there' most of the time. Also, Reavers happen and when they do you want a top turret to fight them off.

Landtank

2012-07-31, 12:24 AM

AzureWatcher

2012-07-31, 12:42 AM

It's 6 round magazine will also be very hard to aim while on the move, trust me.

Challenge accepted.
--
I love the concept of the lightning. Very agile and very fast. Perfect for producing fresh roadkill.

Beware ye' MAX units who cross my path!

Flaropri

2012-07-31, 12:54 AM

Resources are a poor way to balance the battle effectiveness of different units.

I'm sure that's why RTS games for a very long time have used resources (in addition to some intangibles) as a means of balancing the battle effectiveness of different units. The really good RTS games manage to keep even the basic units (albeit with upgrades usually) a valid means of playing the game. They will also make it so that (within a certain value) a player with fewer resources can still out-play the opponent via superior macro, tactics, or choosing units that are more effective against what the enemy fields.

Oddly enough, this does actually translate to PS2 in spite of the very different genre.

With resources and timers balanced, Lightnings should be (overall if not in a blow-by-blow battle) preferable for solo play to MBTs, with 2-crew MBTs still being viable and sought after for their relative flexibility and (for two players) cheapness.

Resources should mainly be used to balance availability, not power.

I don't understand, if they are going to have the same power, why should they have different availability?

Why? Because if a piece of equipment is made stronger and that strength is justified due to its resource cost, people won't ever used the weaker, less-expensive equipment and instead just save up unti lthey can get the more powerful one. Then they'll just play it safe in the more powerful one until they've again saved up enough resources to pull another one if it dies.

This is the same thing we saw with BFR's in PS1 when they had their long acquisition timer. Despite being the most powerful vehicles in the game, BFR drivers babied their robots and hardly ever put them at risk since if it died they wouldn't be able to pull another one right away.

This assumes that the lighter vehicle is on the same resource, and/or that timers are short enough to allow pulling the heavy vehicle consistently as a single player. Given that vehicles seem much easier to deal with in multiple ways I don't think that will necessarily be an optimal way of doing things.

In E3, the Lightning and MBT were also on different resources, so it's not like you couldn't run around with them while waiting to get the resources needed for an MBT or vice verse. This is subject to change of course, but the point is there are ways to still give incentives for the lighter vehicle to justify it for a given play-style without making it a strictly weaker choice. Even if they shared a resource you could have different timers play into it and other factors.

Goldeh

2012-07-31, 01:52 AM

I like how with the Lightning you can fire 6 of your shots at the guy, blinding him viva the explosions.

Sick.

Littleman

2012-07-31, 06:51 AM

A Vanguard with it's secondary gunner shreds a lightning.

Lightning's are really the AI tanks.

Also, the Vanguard is a much better tank overall in terms of versatility. A Lightning relies on it's speed, and if it stops for a second it will be dead in two shots. It's 6 round magazine will also be very hard to aim while on the move, trust me.

Nah, that's the Planetside 1 lightning you're thinking of.

Planetside 2's Lightning tank has 3 turret configurations as of the E3 presentation video:

Skyguard Turret.
Lightning Turret Tank Destroyer.
Lightning Turret 100mm AP. (Anti-personnel?)

These are just graced over very quickly while explaining limitless customization.

I figure the Lightning can specialize in a target type, but won't be all that strong versus anything else. The explosive 6 shot bursts we've seen in videos may be it's 100mm AP configuration for all we know.

But regardless, a lightning with a tank destroyer turret going up against an MBT, it should be a bit of a toss up if both tanks are single manned, however if the MBT has a secondary gunner that can participate in the battle against the lightning, the MBT should come out victorious, especially with the AV secondary gun. EDIT: To clarify, the lightning should still lose in a slug fest. It would have to engage the MBT's side or rear even with tank destroyer rounds to win the fight, especially seeing as how it has the maneuverability to make that happen.

Azren

2012-07-31, 08:53 AM

Planetside 2's Lightning tank has 3 turret configurations as of the E3 presentation video:

Skyguard Turret.
Lightning Turret Tank Destroyer.
Lightning Turret 100mm AP. (Anti-personnel?)

Armor Piercing...

Btw, can't resist:
> Ohh, it's THAT thread again <

We went through this so many times before and in the end the CoD kiddies are far to unwilling to give up any solo WTFOP vehicle possibility to endorse the MBTs you want.

Gugabalog

2012-07-31, 09:10 AM

The cod kids can have the lightning or gtfo. or seat switch and be sitting ducks.

Littleman

2012-07-31, 09:24 AM

Armor Piercing...

Btw, can't resist:
> Ohh, it's THAT thread again <

We went through this so many times before and in the end the CoD kiddies are far to unwilling to give up any solo WTFOP vehicle possibility to endorse the MBTs you want.

I know the common thought is to see AP and go "armor piercing" but that would be rather redundant when there is a tank destroyer configuration, no?

I figure the anti-personnel rounds are the ones we see in videos with the huge fireballs after every impact. Like an auto cannon, only without necessarily requiring one to aim specifically at small, infantry targets one at a time.

Death2All

2012-07-31, 09:32 AM

I think this thread might actually be stupid :confused:

Lumberchuk

2012-07-31, 10:07 AM

If you think a lightning is the better deal then do ahead and only pull lightnings, but when you run into more then 1 type of enemy (i.e. tanks, infantry and air) or the type of enemy your not specialized against be prepared to die...fast.

The MBTs as they stand now will be able to have 2 types of damage (AV/AI or AV/AA) and so they provide much more versatility over the lightning. That said you will still need 2 people to crew it effectively (as seat swapping is not instant in full game) I plan on driving both vehicles depending on the situation, and they seem to both have their advantages and disadvantages. People who say MBTs are balanced for solo are wrong IMO, they have 2 separate guns, and they have said that the second gun is going to be quite powerful. To be used to their full potential they still require 2 people.

I still support the cert for dedicated driver gunner though. I think I would make a much more effective team if 1 person could concentrate on driving while the other on shooting, assuming they work together. So, IMO, the tanks do not need a buff if 2 people are in it because the vehicles are already balanced in a way that requires 2 people to work to its full potential.

Erendil

2012-07-31, 10:42 AM

I'm sure that's why RTS games for a very long time have used resources (in addition to some intangibles) as a means of balancing the battle effectiveness of different units. The really good RTS games manage to keep even the basic units (albeit with upgrades usually) a valid means of playing the game. They will also make it so that (within a certain value) a player with fewer resources can still out-play the opponent via superior macro, tactics, or choosing units that are more effective against what the enemy fields.

Oddly enough, this does actually translate to PS2 in spite of the very different genre.

Not at the player-level it doesn't. It works in RTS games at both the player- and empire-level because all of the units for one faction are controlled by the same person, and whether he purchases 1 unit with a cost of 100 or 100 units that cost 1 apiece, the total power given to that player for that purchase in theory doesn't change. Thus he has many different equally-viable combinations of differently priced units to choose from.

But in PS2, now you have 666 individual players with their own free will and own motivations all thrown onto the same team, and each person can control only one unit at a time. When this happens, most people will do what is in their own best interest and will just pool their resources until they can buy the more powerful option since they can just kill any weaker unit they come across, fall back to repair, and then rinse/repeat. Thus the "more resources = more power" balance equation breaks down.

We saw this time and time again in PS1 with HA, Reavers, MBTs, BFRs, etc, all of which were completely dominant in their respective roles to the point of choking out all other options, and their dominance was justified in the eyes of many because "they cost more" than the other options. But all it led to was a game world filled with almost nothing but HA, Reavers, MBTs, and BFRs. :p

With resources and timers balanced, Lightnings should be (overall if not in a blow-by-blow battle) preferable for solo play to MBTs, with 2-crew MBTs still being viable and sought after for their relative flexibility and (for two players) cheapness.

I'm not sure if Lightnings should be the preferred choice for solo play per se, but they definitely should be an equally viable one. However, IMO it should not be because of their lower resource cost. They should be equally viable because they should be made intrinsically as attractive as a solo MBT once they're actually pulled.

I don't understand, if they are going to have the same power, why should they have different availability?

They shouldn't. Units that have the same total power should have the same availability. However, MBTs should cost more resources than Lightnings (and thus be less available) because of the secondary gunner seat, which combined with the MBTs' armour and firepower puts the total power available to those units well above and beyond that of a Lightning. Whether or not the seat is actually used is immaterial. It is still always available and thus should add to the cost. :cool:

This assumes that the lighter vehicle is on the same resource, and/or that timers are short enough to allow pulling the heavy vehicle consistently as a single player. Given that vehicles seem much easier to deal with in multiple ways I don't think that will necessarily be an optimal way of doing things.

In E3, the Lightning and MBT were also on different resources, so it's not like you couldn't run around with them while waiting to get the resources needed for an MBT or vice verse. This is subject to change of course, but the point is there are ways to still give incentives for the lighter vehicle to justify it for a given play-style without making it a strictly weaker choice. Even if they shared a resource you could have different timers play into it and other factors.

Acquisition timers are another ineffective balancing point IMO because at the times they've been talking about (10-15minutes) they are largely irrelevant to a decent vehicle crew. All a timer amounts to is the amount of time the occupants have to "play it safe" before they can start taking risks and play aggressively since they know once the timer is up they can simply pull another one if they die.

I'm 100% certain this'll be the case in PS2 even with the weaker vehicles because in PS1 I could keep my Lightning alive for hours at a time while remaining combat effective even though I was in one of the weakest vehicles in the game. And in PS2 people will find that equilibrium between risk and reward that allows them to keep their vehicles alive for long periods despite their increased vulnerability compared to PS1 equivalents.

Pozidriv

2012-07-31, 11:04 AM

I know the common thought is to see AP and go "armor piercing" but that would be rather redundant when there is a tank destroyer configuration, no?

I figure the anti-personnel rounds are the ones we see in videos with the huge fireballs after every impact. Like an auto cannon, only without necessarily requiring one to aim specifically at small, infantry targets one at a time.

Since Erendil quite nicely said what i had in mind, i wanted to nitpick this. We know we haven't seen the Skyguard turret yet, but we have seen the 2009(ish) concept of it. Also the the 6-shot turret we have seen has been said to be 75mm.

This leaves the 100m turret, i personally think it means Armour Piercing, since having a 100mm HE cannon for infantry seems a tad unwieldy. MBT cannons IRL are around 105-125mm for reference.

Relating to this, i seem to remember Highby (or someone else) mention that the AA variant would be useful against infantry aswell. This claim is imo supported by the 2009 concept that has a gatling style gun and a missile / rocket pod. Altho the skyguard could be just a simple flak gun, it would still be reasonable to think it would damage infantry.

I think the Lightning is shaping into a light specialist vehicle, basically a lightly armoured weapons platform that can be outfitted to effectively combat a specific type of target. Land, Air or Hardened.

Edit: The lightning of today :)

Rodel

2012-07-31, 11:53 AM

Bruttal

2012-07-31, 12:12 PM

just saying i saw Erendil's sig and I agree
http://www.planetside-universe.com/image.php?u=15340&type=sigpic&dateline=1329244317

Infektion

2012-07-31, 12:15 PM

I don't understand all of these threads... beta hasn't even begun and people are talking about this game likes it's live... :huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:

RJTravis

2012-07-31, 12:17 PM

The LBT "Light Battle Tank.

The LBT is made for combat in more closed areas in close to mid range its speed is its best asset.

The LBT will be great at ambushing & back attacks were the armor is weakest.

The MBT "Main Battle Tank"

The MBT will be used for extreme long range encounters they will stay out side the city streets & support the infantry by blowing up harden cover they will also fight other vehicles that get in its range the MBT is made for medium to long range fights using its bigger barrel & round to shells enemy's.

The MBT will shred a LBT from medium to long rage before the LBT can close the gap in the open.

The LBT will shred a MBT if it Ambushes from close range.

THIS is the whole contest of the LAV-25 & the BFV in real life & its going to play out the same in game.

The videos we been shown were when the max range & players were clustered into a smaller area thus the MBT got owned allot because they couldn't go out of the battle area that was made to pack a area made for 500 players & they put 1000+ in it.

Fenrys

2012-07-31, 12:30 PM

From what we've seen, Lightnings have a very low silhouette, and the turret is on the top (unlike the Magrider for example, which has it's cannon centered). This should make it extremely hard to hit when firing from a hull-down position.

Masterr

2012-07-31, 05:04 PM

Uh, wait til beta, im sure they'll change stuff around according to player feedback.

Littleman

2012-07-31, 05:37 PM

Since Erendil quite nicely said what i had in mind, i wanted to nitpick this. We know we haven't seen the Skyguard turret yet, but we have seen the 2009(ish) concept of it. Also the the 6-shot turret we have seen has been said to be 75mm.

This leaves the 100m turret, i personally think it means Armour Piercing, since having a 100mm HE cannon for infantry seems a tad unwieldy. MBT cannons IRL are around 105-125mm for reference.

Three flaws with this argument:

1: It's sci-fi/fantasy.

2: $#!% may still yet change, if minor changes.

3: You didn't really back yourself up in the necessity of there being two anti-armor configurations. It is redundant to have TWO selections of anti-armor cannons (what the hell does "tank destroyer" mean, if not tank destroyer?) unless one is rapid fire salvo and the other a single big shot. That's only one excuse I can come up with.

The other being the sunderer and other lightning using a different type of armor resilient to tank destroyer rounds. That almost sounds overly restrictive regarding target options however.

Flaropri

2012-07-31, 08:16 PM

@Erendil
You're too focused on microcosms and generalizations. First of all, the devil's number of players on each side won't only be looking out for themselves. I'm sure many players will be, but a lot of them will be in groups, in outfits, or even just pick up on what they think is needed at the time. If they don't, the side with the least coordination and strategic use of resources will most likely lose.

Second of all, I'm looking at this as a totality. Just because PS2 is less organized (due to many different personalities) doesn't invalidate my comparison. As an Empire, it still holds true, and "kill, retreat, repeat" only holds up if people don't adjust to deal with such tactics, or if the power difference is too imbalanced to begin with.

Keep in mind also: Just because a Lib is "more powerful" than a Fighter doesn't mean people won't pick up Fighters for air superiority or hit-and-run strafes against ground targets that might be too mobile to get caught by the Lib.

Just because you can get a Lightning doesn't mean you won't get a Flash for the speed (or maybe to stick a bunch of boomers on and use it as an explosive to clear an entry-way).

You yourself have talked about how you have successfully used Lightnings in PS1, why didn't you "just" use a BFR (or did you switch to BFR only when it came out)?

But in PS2, now you have 666 individual players with their own free will and own motivations all thrown onto the same team, and each person can control only one unit at a time. When this happens, most people will do what is in their own best interest and will just pool their resources until they can buy the more powerful option since they can just kill any weaker unit they come across, fall back to repair, and then rinse/repeat. Thus the "more resources = more power" balance equation breaks down.

We saw this time and time again in PS1 with HA, Reavers, MBTs, BFRs, etc, all of which were completely dominant in their respective roles to the point of choking out all other options, and their dominance was justified in the eyes of many because "they cost more" than the other options. But all it led to was a game world filled with almost nothing but HA, Reavers, MBTs, and BFRs. :p

Well, PS1 didn't have resources (at least not in this manner), so I think that drawing on that experience to refute resources as a balance for power is still not a great idea IMHO.

Regardless, your concern seems to be about balancing individual power, so that no single vehicle with 1-crew is strictly stronger than another, even if it costs more resources. I can understand this concern, but I think it's somewhat wrong. Minor variance is acceptable when the "lesser" option has intangibles to make up for it or can be built to take on the "greater" option with specific tactics.

To clarify, intangibles are things that aren't necessarily based on raw damage and health. For example, access to unique types of weapons, the weapons might be "weaker" in general but be specialized to do a given role much better than the "stronger" alternatives. Likewise utility such as Radar, Nitro, Cloaking, or a high powered Self Destruct option could come into play as well.

Also, I speak of advantage, but it is important to clarify that as well. An MBT should have a higher straight-up advantage over a Lightning, but a Lightning that gains advantage from position, surprise/initiative, or having a more appropriate weapon for the situation should be able to nullify that and then some. Skill should also be a very large factor.

While not as close a match, I believe a person on a Flash should be able to take down an MBT eventually as well (given the right weapon) just as infantry should. Again, by creating advantages via tactics or being opportunistic.

Speaking of which, what is your opinion of the Flash and how it fits into your balance perspective? A MAX (since it seems possible for them to cost resources as well)? Or that of regular Infantry? Should someone in a vehicle have an advantage (not insurmountable, but an advantage none the less) over someone that is not in a vehicle?

I'm not sure if Lightnings should be the preferred choice for solo play per se, but they definitely should be an equally viable one.

[snip]

Units that have the same total power should have the same availability. However, MBTs should cost more resources than Lightnings (and thus be less available) because of the secondary gunner seat, which combined with the MBTs' armour and firepower puts the total power available to those units well above and beyond that of a Lightning. Whether or not the seat is actually used is immaterial. It is still always available and thus should add to the cost. :cool:

So... you agree that units can be balanced by resources based on total power, and that it isn't flawed?

The thing is, you say that Lightnings should be equally viable 1-crew vs. 1-crew to MBTs. You also say that they shouldn't be the preferred choice for solo tank play, yet that is exactly what this does. So I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue.

You say (paraphrasing here): "Don't use resources to balance power." "MBTs should be more expensive because they have more total power."

Which is it? Is balancing power with resources viable or not?

I don't have a problem with discussing how much of a degree power should be balanced with resources, how large or small the advantage of one more expensive vehicle should be over a less expensive vehicle. It just seems like your argument is self-conflicting.

Lightning alive for hours at a time while remaining combat effective even though I was in one of the weakest vehicles in the game.

Good for you, but that is a tribute to your skill, not a problem with the resource system (or it's a problem with the balance of weapons vs. repairs), no? Also, I highly doubt it was (or will be in PS2) the norm or that you were in fact fully combat effective throughout the duration (after getting to a battle and through to it's conclusion anyway).

I mean, in an RTS, a player that is able to micro his units and save them then has more resources to spend later, that doesn't break the game, and in fact is largely the point: promoting efficient and effective use of resources.