shuo
2012-10-03, 08:05 AM
hi there, I'm a player from China, I don't involved in the current game test but I'v been in discussion with many Chinese players who's in the test or not ever since we got the news that PS2 is coming, personally I want PS2 better, and I'v also got many thoughts about PS2 from my own or other players, so I write them down here.
==1, The very first is a basic general idea: I think the game need a general design about the battlefield "ecology" of all roles, and all balancing adjustment should be based on the general design, not the solely performance of the weapon/vehicle.
For example, A jet kill an infantry/tank by a single dive, the infantry/tank player may feel like "it's unfair, why he kill me so easily but I can't do the same to him", so there are more and more planes, left fewer and fewer infantry and ground vehicles, then maybe you nerfed the planes then more player goes to infantry/ground vehicles. It seems OK but really? Should not planes being designed for tank killers? then what are they designed for? A possible better option is, keep the tactical advantage of planes again ground units, but limit there fuel/ammunition/production to force the players to use them for proper use, not to waste them.
In general, to achieve this kind of design, you should have a general ideas about the limitation of different resources which is needed for different kinds of arms. Like, 70% infantry 20%Vehicles 10% planes, in a desgined circumstances, like 33% population and territory for each race TR/NC/VS, and adjust the resource generation in each territory. And, in other circumstances, like VS is been compressed to 15% territory, how many army of INF/GV/PL is designed to have, then adjust it again. By doing this, it's a kind of "strategic balancing", together with tactical balancing you can make it better. you can have different kind of resourse allocation in different maps, to make different battle feelings also.
Now we have 2000 players in one map, it may be better to design it in a part of RTS thoughts together rather than FPS thoughts alone.
==2, some "battle field ecological design" ideas:
--2.1 infantry: should be flexible to all kinds of battle, but should not be too powerful compared with vehicles. But they should be more powerful in a defensive battle (more details later in another point). Infantry should be expert of city/base battle of course, but this is only because vehicles can't go in due to their size.
--2.2 tanks: powerful in an assault to break the defensive line of infantries, but requires more resources (including hard ones like materials and soft ones like production facility), and can't sustain too long time in battle. In an ideal situation, an armor group would left only a few (10%~20%) ammunition/fuel/health etc. after they breaked an enemy's defensive position, that they can't enter another battle at once untill they are resupplied or they are too vulnerable to beat.
--2.3 jets: powerful against anything on ground, but low carriage of ammunition. If we limited the endurance of armored groups, it's more strategically valuable to destroy every enemy tank/turret on ground, but the jets should not surpass a tank/jeep/or even AI MAX in efficiency of killing infantries.
==3, detailed discussion on balance of infantry:
--3.1 flexibility, AI, AV, AA, repair, medic, base capture, recon, assault support of tanks, all the job they can carry out. But never more efficient then experts like you can't be better on AA works than AAMAX or Sky Guardians, that's the basic role of infantry, so even if they are not powerful, they are still needed here and their, so someone got to use them (like AMS in PS1), to make the balance work easier.
--3.2 most important, position defenders. This is also important to give a ecological slot to artillery (detailed later) in the future. Give infantry, especially heavy infantry and engineers, more ability to "dig in" to fortify defense before enemy attack and to survive longer and fire harder when they fight in an prepared position. This is also a basic rule in real world but not being reflected well in PS1.
To make them survive longer: make trenches, no matter statically there or can be made and destroyed in game, or some special defensive structures which could significantly reduce the damage taken by the infantry who's in it while he can shoot as well, or other ideas.
To make them reinforce easier: like tunnels or the "flying point" to make the defensive fighters get to defensive positions quickly and easy ,this "reinforcement balance issue" involves the AMS or Galaxy so I don't have more specific ideas yet.
To make their fire power harder: not only turrets, but special weapons like machine guns which could be "deployed" to gain more fire speed but can't move, or like time preparing AT weapon which makes the gunner more vulnerable against enemy fire if they are not in a trench cover.
==4 ideas about aircrafts
--4.1 jets:
---4.1.1 you'v made jets all VTOL, but maintained a normal flying control (roll, pitch, yaw), personally I feel the control is too easy that dog fight's not so interesting and attracting. If possible:
a. lower yaw performance, lower climbing rate, reduce speed when pitch up, ( like BF2 ), this should make more play points in dog fight (but maybe give the VS jet more yaw performance or even off-axis ability to show the specialty of UFO, lol);
b. show an arrow of locked enemies in the HUD (like HAWX);
c, give and mode switch to the map of jet, that one is wide range map for normal piloting, another is close range map for dogfight, and show enemy position and directions on the radar map, and most importantly, a trace of incoming missiles on the dogfight map (like ACE COMBAT);
d, if c is implemented, then another improvement option for planes: stealth, makes them disappear if they in the back-hemisphere of the current plane
--4.2 chops:
It may be a good idea that to separate chops and jets by different upgrades, separate the VTOL mode and normal flying mode, in VTOL mode it flies like a chop and in normal mode it flies like a normal jet. Switch it manually use an assigned key.
In jet mode upgrade: gain normal fly mode, or give the normal fly mode in natural but give a great boost in mobility; give it the ability to carry AA missiles or long range AG missiles (or potential of upgrade on it)
Chop mode upgrade: exclusive for Jet mode, loss jet mode switch ability (which would limit the maximum speed, limitation of altitude of it, and can't roll anymore), but gain a boost of ammunition amount, a boost of stability of control; give it the ability for some AG special weapons (or potential of upgrade on it), like heavy calibre Gatling guns, rocket nest, etc.
also, maybe some apperance change
I believe there should be some players who prefer chopers/jets more, so give them what they like :-)
--4.3 bombers and gunships
again, an exclusive option, to make it bomber or gunship
for bombers: low speed, high limit of altitude, high ammunition carriage, high explosive large area bomb but relatively low damge; AA weapon on tail turret; Carpet bombing run. To make it good against large group of infantry and light armors, defenses;
for gunships: average speed, average limit of altitude, cancel bombing facility, AT/HE weapon on tail turrent, makes it good against ground unit especially tanks without anti-air cover.
the bomber/gunship should be more sustainable in ammunition and health, and fly higher than choppers, but requires more resources to produce and more crew to operate. but same vulnerable against AA jet fighters.
--4.4 ground anti air weapons
the ground AA units (Sky Guardian, AA MAX, AA turret, AA infantry weapons) should have a limited advantage against normal aircraft, but not overwhelming, together with air superiority jet fighters on can gain area of total are control.
Gound AA weapon types: G2A Missiles, FLAKs, AA MGs. Missiles are long range high damage weapons but not good shooting rate and DPS, locking and guiding manually; FLAKS are good against all air units, average range and limited altitude of its ballistics, average DPS, lateral damage; AA MGs have higher ballistic speed than normal MGs, good DPS agains low armored air units, but shortest range.
The range/altitude limitation of Ground AA weapons should be considered together with flying altitude of aircrafts.Take an example:
The limitation of flying altitude: bombers(1000), jet fighters(1000), gunships(700), choppers(300)
The limitation of shoot altitude; GAA Missile(1000), Flaks(800), AA MGs(350)
In this case one would be attacked by enemy bombers in a limitation of altitude if they don't have allied jet fighters, even they have AA Missiles but bombers can resist a certain degree of damage; On the other hand if "energy maneuver" is simulated well (3.1.1 a), jet fighters can use vertical maneuvers to draw enemy fighters in friendly Flak range or leave them with maneuver disadvantage if they don't follow, any way the 800 altitude Flak can still support 1000 height friendly jets
Radar: give a radar upgrade choise for Sky Guardian or an individual radar facility built by engineers, show enemy aircrafts in map, but can't show effective the aircrafts which are stealth or low altitude (below a certain altitude relative to the radar), or maybe shaded by terrains (if it's possible technically);
Give the Sky Guardian a "deploy" ability, which make it unable to move but gain more fire power, such as more range, more firing rate, more weapon damge, easier to lock on or aim, or even access to some certain weapon types. That sould give the defensive part some air tactical advantage;
--4.5 ammunition and resupply issue
Limit the ammunition and also the resupply speed, which makes advantage if the friendly resupply depot is closing, and give the engineers the ability to build "field airport". The field airport needs ammunition too, or simplify it as producting air ammo with energy. This will makes the supply line more important and make more tactical options. Also give the tanks a similar resupply facility, (or to make the land/air resupply facility to be one) Together with AMS and defensive turrets they will make a good forward field base.
==5, ideas about artillery
the artilleries in PS1 is a disaster, but after all artillery is interesting, so we need some special settings to make them balance
first of all, resources and production limits, a request for supply;
to balance artillery, there should be one rule: "if enemy is in your range, so are you", that is, we can't let any weapon damage enemy without any risk. thus, a setting is vital:
The artillery firing should be guide by special infantry, like snipers. It's forced and continuous. when there is no guidance, the shell should spread out in a very wide range, which make it useless. In this sense, their should be a combat between snipers, makes them more useful; Or give the bomber a guiding ability also, while an guiding facility is put on the middle operated by the bombing operator, or on the tail turret. Or guiders from either planes or ground can guide shell/bombs either from bomber or artillery, and this should be fun.
All guiding requires a number write "frequency"(like a 10 bits number), so that guider and cannon/bomber can cooperate while won't effect other guider or cannon's guidance.
No guidance shoot: the spread of shells should grow less when the target is closer to the artillery itself, this makes a "close range fire support" feasible. It's more accurate when they are closer but more dangerous.The shell should be High Explosion type, from which tanks or other heavy armored vehicles should resist this kind of damage, which make an tactical repel for the defensive side.
another vital point: in real world, artillery is commonly used for "preparation fire", which would damage the bunkers, trenches and the defensive people in the front line. in another world, one or artillery's value is to destroy defensive facilities, but first the defensive facilities should be valuable or there is no need to destroy it! That's the reason I say infantry fortification should be strengthened in 3.2. One judgement is: the defense line should makes the offensive side more cost (maybe 3 or 5 times of dead) to overcome. So that's the "ecological slot" for artillery.
==6, battle rewards and punishment
don't make too many rewards personal (like experience), but more for their race(nation?). keep the players feel they are fighting for "national or group victory" rather than "personl kills", some settings coud be a guide for these kind of concepts: killing experience shared in team; more natioanl/group wide awards, etc. A team who captured and hold a base should gain more rewards than a team who do nothing but kill, (but in a defensive mission killing should be rewarded of course)
==1, The very first is a basic general idea: I think the game need a general design about the battlefield "ecology" of all roles, and all balancing adjustment should be based on the general design, not the solely performance of the weapon/vehicle.
For example, A jet kill an infantry/tank by a single dive, the infantry/tank player may feel like "it's unfair, why he kill me so easily but I can't do the same to him", so there are more and more planes, left fewer and fewer infantry and ground vehicles, then maybe you nerfed the planes then more player goes to infantry/ground vehicles. It seems OK but really? Should not planes being designed for tank killers? then what are they designed for? A possible better option is, keep the tactical advantage of planes again ground units, but limit there fuel/ammunition/production to force the players to use them for proper use, not to waste them.
In general, to achieve this kind of design, you should have a general ideas about the limitation of different resources which is needed for different kinds of arms. Like, 70% infantry 20%Vehicles 10% planes, in a desgined circumstances, like 33% population and territory for each race TR/NC/VS, and adjust the resource generation in each territory. And, in other circumstances, like VS is been compressed to 15% territory, how many army of INF/GV/PL is designed to have, then adjust it again. By doing this, it's a kind of "strategic balancing", together with tactical balancing you can make it better. you can have different kind of resourse allocation in different maps, to make different battle feelings also.
Now we have 2000 players in one map, it may be better to design it in a part of RTS thoughts together rather than FPS thoughts alone.
==2, some "battle field ecological design" ideas:
--2.1 infantry: should be flexible to all kinds of battle, but should not be too powerful compared with vehicles. But they should be more powerful in a defensive battle (more details later in another point). Infantry should be expert of city/base battle of course, but this is only because vehicles can't go in due to their size.
--2.2 tanks: powerful in an assault to break the defensive line of infantries, but requires more resources (including hard ones like materials and soft ones like production facility), and can't sustain too long time in battle. In an ideal situation, an armor group would left only a few (10%~20%) ammunition/fuel/health etc. after they breaked an enemy's defensive position, that they can't enter another battle at once untill they are resupplied or they are too vulnerable to beat.
--2.3 jets: powerful against anything on ground, but low carriage of ammunition. If we limited the endurance of armored groups, it's more strategically valuable to destroy every enemy tank/turret on ground, but the jets should not surpass a tank/jeep/or even AI MAX in efficiency of killing infantries.
==3, detailed discussion on balance of infantry:
--3.1 flexibility, AI, AV, AA, repair, medic, base capture, recon, assault support of tanks, all the job they can carry out. But never more efficient then experts like you can't be better on AA works than AAMAX or Sky Guardians, that's the basic role of infantry, so even if they are not powerful, they are still needed here and their, so someone got to use them (like AMS in PS1), to make the balance work easier.
--3.2 most important, position defenders. This is also important to give a ecological slot to artillery (detailed later) in the future. Give infantry, especially heavy infantry and engineers, more ability to "dig in" to fortify defense before enemy attack and to survive longer and fire harder when they fight in an prepared position. This is also a basic rule in real world but not being reflected well in PS1.
To make them survive longer: make trenches, no matter statically there or can be made and destroyed in game, or some special defensive structures which could significantly reduce the damage taken by the infantry who's in it while he can shoot as well, or other ideas.
To make them reinforce easier: like tunnels or the "flying point" to make the defensive fighters get to defensive positions quickly and easy ,this "reinforcement balance issue" involves the AMS or Galaxy so I don't have more specific ideas yet.
To make their fire power harder: not only turrets, but special weapons like machine guns which could be "deployed" to gain more fire speed but can't move, or like time preparing AT weapon which makes the gunner more vulnerable against enemy fire if they are not in a trench cover.
==4 ideas about aircrafts
--4.1 jets:
---4.1.1 you'v made jets all VTOL, but maintained a normal flying control (roll, pitch, yaw), personally I feel the control is too easy that dog fight's not so interesting and attracting. If possible:
a. lower yaw performance, lower climbing rate, reduce speed when pitch up, ( like BF2 ), this should make more play points in dog fight (but maybe give the VS jet more yaw performance or even off-axis ability to show the specialty of UFO, lol);
b. show an arrow of locked enemies in the HUD (like HAWX);
c, give and mode switch to the map of jet, that one is wide range map for normal piloting, another is close range map for dogfight, and show enemy position and directions on the radar map, and most importantly, a trace of incoming missiles on the dogfight map (like ACE COMBAT);
d, if c is implemented, then another improvement option for planes: stealth, makes them disappear if they in the back-hemisphere of the current plane
--4.2 chops:
It may be a good idea that to separate chops and jets by different upgrades, separate the VTOL mode and normal flying mode, in VTOL mode it flies like a chop and in normal mode it flies like a normal jet. Switch it manually use an assigned key.
In jet mode upgrade: gain normal fly mode, or give the normal fly mode in natural but give a great boost in mobility; give it the ability to carry AA missiles or long range AG missiles (or potential of upgrade on it)
Chop mode upgrade: exclusive for Jet mode, loss jet mode switch ability (which would limit the maximum speed, limitation of altitude of it, and can't roll anymore), but gain a boost of ammunition amount, a boost of stability of control; give it the ability for some AG special weapons (or potential of upgrade on it), like heavy calibre Gatling guns, rocket nest, etc.
also, maybe some apperance change
I believe there should be some players who prefer chopers/jets more, so give them what they like :-)
--4.3 bombers and gunships
again, an exclusive option, to make it bomber or gunship
for bombers: low speed, high limit of altitude, high ammunition carriage, high explosive large area bomb but relatively low damge; AA weapon on tail turret; Carpet bombing run. To make it good against large group of infantry and light armors, defenses;
for gunships: average speed, average limit of altitude, cancel bombing facility, AT/HE weapon on tail turrent, makes it good against ground unit especially tanks without anti-air cover.
the bomber/gunship should be more sustainable in ammunition and health, and fly higher than choppers, but requires more resources to produce and more crew to operate. but same vulnerable against AA jet fighters.
--4.4 ground anti air weapons
the ground AA units (Sky Guardian, AA MAX, AA turret, AA infantry weapons) should have a limited advantage against normal aircraft, but not overwhelming, together with air superiority jet fighters on can gain area of total are control.
Gound AA weapon types: G2A Missiles, FLAKs, AA MGs. Missiles are long range high damage weapons but not good shooting rate and DPS, locking and guiding manually; FLAKS are good against all air units, average range and limited altitude of its ballistics, average DPS, lateral damage; AA MGs have higher ballistic speed than normal MGs, good DPS agains low armored air units, but shortest range.
The range/altitude limitation of Ground AA weapons should be considered together with flying altitude of aircrafts.Take an example:
The limitation of flying altitude: bombers(1000), jet fighters(1000), gunships(700), choppers(300)
The limitation of shoot altitude; GAA Missile(1000), Flaks(800), AA MGs(350)
In this case one would be attacked by enemy bombers in a limitation of altitude if they don't have allied jet fighters, even they have AA Missiles but bombers can resist a certain degree of damage; On the other hand if "energy maneuver" is simulated well (3.1.1 a), jet fighters can use vertical maneuvers to draw enemy fighters in friendly Flak range or leave them with maneuver disadvantage if they don't follow, any way the 800 altitude Flak can still support 1000 height friendly jets
Radar: give a radar upgrade choise for Sky Guardian or an individual radar facility built by engineers, show enemy aircrafts in map, but can't show effective the aircrafts which are stealth or low altitude (below a certain altitude relative to the radar), or maybe shaded by terrains (if it's possible technically);
Give the Sky Guardian a "deploy" ability, which make it unable to move but gain more fire power, such as more range, more firing rate, more weapon damge, easier to lock on or aim, or even access to some certain weapon types. That sould give the defensive part some air tactical advantage;
--4.5 ammunition and resupply issue
Limit the ammunition and also the resupply speed, which makes advantage if the friendly resupply depot is closing, and give the engineers the ability to build "field airport". The field airport needs ammunition too, or simplify it as producting air ammo with energy. This will makes the supply line more important and make more tactical options. Also give the tanks a similar resupply facility, (or to make the land/air resupply facility to be one) Together with AMS and defensive turrets they will make a good forward field base.
==5, ideas about artillery
the artilleries in PS1 is a disaster, but after all artillery is interesting, so we need some special settings to make them balance
first of all, resources and production limits, a request for supply;
to balance artillery, there should be one rule: "if enemy is in your range, so are you", that is, we can't let any weapon damage enemy without any risk. thus, a setting is vital:
The artillery firing should be guide by special infantry, like snipers. It's forced and continuous. when there is no guidance, the shell should spread out in a very wide range, which make it useless. In this sense, their should be a combat between snipers, makes them more useful; Or give the bomber a guiding ability also, while an guiding facility is put on the middle operated by the bombing operator, or on the tail turret. Or guiders from either planes or ground can guide shell/bombs either from bomber or artillery, and this should be fun.
All guiding requires a number write "frequency"(like a 10 bits number), so that guider and cannon/bomber can cooperate while won't effect other guider or cannon's guidance.
No guidance shoot: the spread of shells should grow less when the target is closer to the artillery itself, this makes a "close range fire support" feasible. It's more accurate when they are closer but more dangerous.The shell should be High Explosion type, from which tanks or other heavy armored vehicles should resist this kind of damage, which make an tactical repel for the defensive side.
another vital point: in real world, artillery is commonly used for "preparation fire", which would damage the bunkers, trenches and the defensive people in the front line. in another world, one or artillery's value is to destroy defensive facilities, but first the defensive facilities should be valuable or there is no need to destroy it! That's the reason I say infantry fortification should be strengthened in 3.2. One judgement is: the defense line should makes the offensive side more cost (maybe 3 or 5 times of dead) to overcome. So that's the "ecological slot" for artillery.
==6, battle rewards and punishment
don't make too many rewards personal (like experience), but more for their race(nation?). keep the players feel they are fighting for "national or group victory" rather than "personl kills", some settings coud be a guide for these kind of concepts: killing experience shared in team; more natioanl/group wide awards, etc. A team who captured and hold a base should gain more rewards than a team who do nothing but kill, (but in a defensive mission killing should be rewarded of course)