What determines who wins more often? Player skill, Population, or Faction imbalance?

[Assist]

So after spending my coffee time this morning reading through posts on Planetside2.com forums, I've come to realize that I disagree with a lot of what is posted. :ofn2:
:rant:
It seems like people on the official forums blame a lot of the games issues on faction specific weapon imbalance, which blows my mind. The game is fairly well balanced for a three sided game, the few disparity's are obvious though. But reading on the forums about which factions weapons are stronger just drives me nuts. For the amount of guns in the game and the incredibly small differences in RoF, TTK, Reload, etc I find it amazing that people think FactionA wins more often because of their weapons. It really bothers me the most when I see people saying Vanu have it the best with the bullet drop, because 90% of fights happen in a range so small that bullet drop doesn't even have to be considered and when they're outside of that range the VS have damage drop off that everyone conveniently ignores when debating the minimal differences in weapons. Does anyone really feel that the weapons are that imbalanced? Do you guys get pushed out of defending a base and blame it on the faction balance/weapons? It feels like it's the most talked about subject on the forums and it blows my mind because it's one of the few things that are extremely well done compared to other tri-faction or even two faction games.

One of the least talked about subjects in PS2 seems to be player skill. Probably one of the more interesting subjects to me because this game wants to delve into the MLG market. I'd venture to guess that most of time someone pulls some amazing shot the first word that comes to mind is hacker. I personally don't do that much, I usually just take another drink, but I know from the /yells, the posts on forums, and the hilarious videos of legit players that people believe any sort of obscene player skill must be a hacker. If PlayerA from FactionA wipes out a room on his own someone yells bullshit as soon as they revive. Truth is it doesn't happen that often because usually someone reacts quick enough once something like that happens and with the short TTK that guy is taken care of by the pray and spray method. When is the last time you lost a base due to the skill of your opponent? Skill seems to be well balanced in this game IMO, for good or bad. The great players still can dominate in their own way but they don't make enough of a difference in a large fight that they really change the tide of the battle themselves. This type of game play is great for the lifetime of the game but the attraction of the game should be based on something like meta-game/strategy which is really lacking right now. I think one of the few places where player skill shines is in the aircraft, I have no chance against some of the good pilots on Waterson, where as I can still get a lucky shot or two in against the great infantry players. While I don't think player skill has an immense impact, I prefer it how it is because it means that teamwork and/or strategy is still required to dominate.

Which brings me to the third deciding factor in the game, population. I think population plays far too big of a part in the game right now. Population overwhelms any potential weapon imbalance as well as any potential player skill difference. Zergs destroy any tactics involved in defense. Doesn't matter if you have the best strategy and the best players, you're going to get overrun by the zombie horde if you attempt to fight it. Unless of course you have a zerg to counter it. While I'm fine with this style of game play, the problem is that there's not always a zerg to counter the opposing zerg. The zerg vs zerg mentality works until one zerg disappears. Then you have a handful of people getting crushed attempting to defend and a zerg of bored people taking empty territory. You can almost always login and find a zerg vs zerg fight, but lately it seems that one side has multiple zergs while another faction only has one. Eventually the side with one zerg gets flanked by two zergs and people just split and head to another continent. The problem is there's no good reason to fight outnumbered. There's nothing that gives you a chance to fight outnumbered. I enjoy being on the underdog side in most games because you always have something to work towards, but in Planetside 2 it feels like you're just being punished for being on the underdog faction. How they can fix/change this, I have no idea. It may be perception that has lead to one side being underpopulated, maybe it's this fourth faction so many talk about, or maybe it's just that there's no appeal to being on a certain faction. Either way, the fact is it's not fun to get run over day after day because you simply don't stand a chance against the overwhelming number of players running at you. I think one thing that could really help the issue is giving more incentives to defend territory you control, as well as make it easier to defend that territory. I think the closer a base is to your warpgate the more value it should have. Small changes can go a long way in this game, as some recent balance adjustments have shown, I wish they'd do some small tweaks to try and even out the populations on servers. Worst that happens is the faction imbalance shifts to the underdog and then they can tweak from there.

:rant:
Time for more coffee.

tl;dr - Weapon balance is as good as it gets, get over the minuscule differences; Player Skill vs. Player Teamwork is really well balanced; Population needs to be close to even across factions for this game to work.

[psijaka]

-snip-
tl;dr - Weapon balance is as good as it gets, get over the minuscule differences; Player Skill vs. Player Teamwork is really well balanced; Population needs to be close to even across factions for this game to work.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Faction imbalance issues are minor. Skill is important, but if 30 tanks turn up outside Broken arch, then you've lost anyway.

[CraazyCanuck]

Add in a more lucrative reason for defense other then a small bonus on killing a guy while defending and keep improving base defensibility. I'm a defense whore and love making a capture as much of a pain in the ass as I can manage, but even wih my sick appetite for abuse I'm getting tired of the futility of it. The warp tunnels were a nice touch but we need more. Put all vital areas of a base underground.

[Assist]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Faction imbalance issues are minor. Skill is important, but if 30 tanks turn up outside Broken arch, then you've lost anyway.

And I'm ok with getting zerged down at a base, that's part of the game. As long as there's a friendly zerg somewhere that can counter it. When there's not a friendly zerg that can counter, then there's a problem.

[Kerrec]

I agree with you.

However, I do firmly believe in the 4th faction. And it's obvious they believe in weapons being imbalanced since they switched teams in the first place.

After GU2, most of my deaths were to NC BR10's or below using 1000 Cert weapons. To me, it's obvious. And I'm sure the NC and VS were seeing TR BR10's or below kill screens too.

The 4th faction is a serious issue. Being able to switch factions while staying on the same server wasn't a good idea.

[EVILPIG]

Current balance:

Best infantry weapons - TR,VS,NC
Best MAX - NC,VS,TR
Best ESF - VS,TR,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

[CraazyCanuck]

The 4th faction is a serious issue. Being able to switch factions while staying on the same server wasn't a good idea.

Bingo! Agreed Kerrec. Bonehead idea that was.

[ringring]

I'm sure you're right.

Imbalances will always exist and in PS2 they're minor. Skill is not particularly important. Who brings most is the winner.

What could be done?

Well, the devs could make the base benefits stronger, strong enough to influence strategy anyway.

[CraazyCanuck]

Defense has to become just as vital as offense with the rewards to match or atleast be comparable. Other then a direct xp reward what if they implemented a hold bonus. The longer you fight in and hold an area from attack, the greater the rewards improve up to a maximum that makes sense? Or you receive a morale bonus in HP or some other buff that makes it worthwhile to stick to defense.

[Graywolves]

The massive amount of people who can't properly test or analyze anything in the game has lead me to simply not bother saying anything half the time. People generally just want to lobby for their team or play style.

While there is a lot of factors in gun play to be competitive it is undermined by the surrounding environment and balancing. Overall the minor errors in gun play balancing don't effect much other than subjective game play.

It is possible to get a small group of coordinated players and be a pest to larger forces, sometimes even defeating certain forces. But the game's flow is definitely governed by momentum.

So if I had to choose one of the three I would say population, as much as I don't want that to be it's just one of those basic fundamentals of war. Not much can be done against a 3:1 ratio or higher unless certain factors are met or the forces are funneled/manipulated in a way to make them work in 1:1 encounters.

But if you break a Zerg's momentum then you get more of your own forces show up and an actual battle occurs. Then whoever wins gains momentum and pushes while the loser disperses.

[Gimpylung]

Faction switching must have some kind of meaningful penalty, you should not be able to do it on a whim.

This issue need to be resolved before account wide unlocks are made available or chaos will ensue and empire balance will go to hell.

Base defences and attacks need to operate based on the same scoring as PS1... based on your contribution to the fight. You killed a load of people, rep'd gens, supported in general during a successful defence you get a huge proportional reward. Keep the existing 15% bonus for defenders too.

You were part of a big zerg that captured a base that had a squad defending it and you barely fired a shot, you get virtually no reward.

2 zergs meet in a base, big fight ensues, whoever wins the fight gets a big def/cap reward but everybody is happy because there was a big fight and people were earning regular XP anyways.

There are flaws with this idea but its better than only 15% defence bonus and no ultimate 'Defended' reward in conjunction with a 1000xp base cap bonus for just showing up at a ghosted zerg capture.

In the existing reward structure, your average casual player is just gonna join the zerg and get the free capture XP.

[MrBloodworth]

It seems like people on the official forums blame a lot of the games issues on faction specific weapon imbalance, which blows my mind.

10 years of this in the original game. Asymmetrical balance causes this. Games where each faction are just copies with different paint jobs do not.

This surprises no one.

As for who brings the most. Its a player problem, this isn't a session based shooter where a match starts and ends with a set number of users.

This is one of the features of the game, not a flaw. You could argue though that organizational tools are lacking. Its a war game, logistics matter, its not a "battle" game. There are many battles in a war.

Then you have the design point of :"Everyone should be able to pull anything at any time" , with the created caveat of map design and access ( Something not part of PS1 ). Witch leads to the DESIGNERS being the arbiters of whose going to win what by fact of access to equipment to assault the wholly open bases with, and not the players.

Lastly, my personal surprise is most issues with PS2 can be attributed to one thing that no one seems to be willing to attribute it to. The base designs. They are Death match mentality school of design. Not warfare, or siege type.

Every base needs to have an underground area inaccessible to Vehicles and it must contain sub-objectives for the base. Hallways do not cut it. We need areas of contention and multiple paths more akin tot he original. The key sub-objective should be the spawn room. Every single base needs the siege mechanics back. Outside, courtyard, interior, phases.

This is missing in this version, and was the core of the design of the original game. In PS2, its like they intentionally thought that everyone should be vulnerable to vehicles at all points in time.

They took what was possibly the worst aspects of base design of PS1, the towers, and amplified it. Forgetting that all towers were attached to a base. However you can see some of this in the "forward" spawns of major bases... but its wrong. Just wrong.

4th empire means fuck all just like it did in the original, its a perceived boogeyman that barely exists, the issues are the map design and the designer arbitration of whose going to win, ETC..

[Assist]

Current balance:

Best infantry weapons - TR,VS,NC
Best MAX - NC,VS,TR
Best ESF - VS,TR,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

You're speaking about weapon imbalance, and I disagree with all your opinions on the ranking of 'best'. As I said, weapon imbalance is hardly there at all, to the point that it's one of the last things that should be debated because of the amount the imbalance effects game play.

The massive amount of people who can't properly test or analyze anything in the game has lead me to simply not bother saying anything half the time. People generally just want to lobby for their team or play style.

While there is a lot of factors in gun play to be competitive it is undermined by the surrounding environment and balancing. Overall the minor errors in gun play balancing don't effect much other than subjective game play.

Completely agree. Some of the whining about faction imbalance is hysterical. I personally love the ones who always come out in droves against the VS for having no recoil.

[MrBloodworth]

No one has the best tank.

We all have the worst bases.

[Dkamanus]

I really can't say. I'm usually with a decent KDR and 2 days from now it seems MUCH harder to kill people. They only seem to die fast enough with 3~4 headshots. I've unloaded a LOT of bullets into someones chest (11 hits in some cases) and the dude doesn't seem to drop dead.

Hit registrations seem to be messed up. My latency lately has been 210~230 ms (was 160 ms before). People are hitting me with bullets sprays so often it's not even funny and when I do the same (NC weapons are capable of that, depending on the weapon), more then not I've seemed to fail lately at killing consistently.

It's a whole gamma of problems that are turning me off this game, and I'd hate to see it die out, but it will, most likely to some problems that we'd hope weren't in it, but are now.

And yes, even with slightly differences, those can make or break a game balance.

[elementHTTP]

Population imbalance and level of organization

[fierce deity]

Defense has to become just as vital as offense with the rewards to match or atleast be comparable. Other then a direct xp reward what if they implemented a hold bonus. The longer you fight in and hold an area from attack, the greater the rewards improve up to a maximum that makes sense? Or you receive a morale bonus in HP or some other buff that makes it worthwhile to stick to defense.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It pisses me off every time I help regain control of a base then get no reward for doing so. Heck, I've been in tech plant fights where the attacking faction almost took the facility, then the defenders somehow managed to push the attackers completely out, with no reward. Time based base holding rewards would be great since it would give an incentive for sticking around to defend it. As you probably know, most bases become ghost towns after the battle is over.

Faction switching must have some kind of meaningful penalty, you should not be able to do it on a whim.

This issue need to be resolved before account wide unlocks are made available or chaos will ensue and empire balance will go to hell.

Base defences and attacks need to operate based on the same scoring as PS1... based on your contribution to the fight. You killed a load of people, rep'd gens, supported in general during a successful defence you get a huge proportional reward. Keep the existing 15% bonus for defenders too.

You were part of a big zerg that captured a base that had a squad defending it and you barely fired a shot, you get virtually no reward.

2 zergs meet in a base, big fight ensues, whoever wins the fight gets a big def/cap reward but everybody is happy because there was a big fight and people were earning regular XP anyways.

There are flaws with this idea but its better than only 15% defence bonus and no ultimate 'Defended' reward in conjunction with a 1000xp base cap bonus for just showing up at a ghosted zerg capture.

In the existing reward structure, your average casual player is just gonna join the zerg and get the free capture XP.

I would love to see such scoring implemented.

[Xaine]

The game just isn't good enough for enough people to play it.

At launch, when the game was 'worse' because of more bugs and issues etc thats when I had the best time.

There were enough people around to make all the glaring issues seem smaller.

I play Infantry almost exclusively, and its getting harder to score kills on your own because either you outnumber the enemy hugely, or they outnumber you.

There are some exceptions, but its not like it was at launch.

Its been months since the game came out, and there STILL isn't a good reason to fight.

No one gives a fuck about new helmets. If you can't think of anything else, bring back the PS1 lattice system. DO SOMETHING.

Server merges already. Something is clearly wrong, yet they refuse to do anything about it.

Classic SoE.

[MrBloodworth]

The game just isn't good enough for enough people to play it.

That's not true.

[Xaine]

That's not true.

Then why are they having to merge servers.

Why is it that on most servers, only Indar has enough pop for a decent fight.

The facts are against you my friend.

[Omnimon]

Population > all , just like IRL . Skill and such helps but only gets you so far........ Just ask the Germans in WW2.......In this game #'s mean everything. You can have a squad of extremely skilled players and a commander that knows his stuff, but they won't hold out ( consistently ) against an entire platoon + . Besides if we'd have it such that smaller #'s + skill consistently holds out against entire platoons, there WILL be a ton of posts crying out for nerf XYZ tactic or weapon or such ( As we've seen with air, and now tanks , pretty soon it'll be HA and Maxes and LA ) . Players in general won't adapt to the situation from what I've seen . If they had I wouldn't be seeing the same people rushing the same areas over and over and over and over with the same class , load out , vehicle and tactics ( if any) . Its pretty rare that i'll see people switching their class/load out/ vehicle to adapt to the situation . Frankly as far as i can tell, if your doing that your probably in the top 5-10% for PS2 players in terms of skill .

This isn't like Quake 2/3 or such where an extremely skilled player CAN turn the tide of battle ( Springfield CTF servers ftw ) , given the nature of this game, the larger the battle the more important positioning is which means that with more bodies you can cover more different firing points along the front / area .

[MrBloodworth]

Then why are they having to merge servers.

Why is it that on most servers, only Indar has enough pop for a decent fight.



Natural progression of any online service. At launch demand is high, many servers are opened. Then it evens out as the hype is over. For many MMORPG's this does not matter, but for a PvP only game, population is content. So the servers are merged.

"Not good enough to play", is wrong, there are clearly people playing it.

[EVILPIG]

You're speaking about weapon imbalance, and I disagree with all your opinions on the ranking of 'best'. As I said, weapon imbalance is hardly there at all, to the point that it's one of the last things that should be debated because of the amount the imbalance effects game play.


You brought up weapon imbalances. I didn't say that it was the "problem". I'm illustrating that the game is fairly balanced as far as strengths and weaknesses of each empire, which supports your view. But since you disagree with it so much, rate the empires in the same format I have. I would love to see your view on it.

[KaskaMatej]

Player skill averages out in big enough conflicts. Sure, a squad with good player will be able to take on two squads of average players, but with enough players, everything evens out.

Faction imbalance is also a small factor. There is enough sidegrades and good enough asymmetrical balance when there isn't a direct counter-part in other two factions.

Population, or at least faction population is the biggest factor of the three you mentioned. When one empire has very often below 30% total population, that is a big problem in overall balance. It becomes even worse if other two factions gang on the smallest because the third empire cannot defend nor attack in a successful manner so the players leave, making the imbalance even worse making even more people leave. Ganging up happen for on all three empires but it's worse for the least populated.

[ChrisLand]

Agreed with the OP.

Although player skill and balance can play a factor nothing sways a battle like population. Population balance = better game for all.

[Assist]

I would love to see your view on it.
Best infantry weapons - TR,VS,NC
Best MAX - NC,VS,TR
Best ESF - VS,TR,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

Well it's going to differ player to player is my guess, even by a small margin. Which is just a testament to the balance done originally by SoE.

Best infantry weapons - NC,VS,TR
Best MAX - NC,TR,VS
Best ESF - TR,VS,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

Really should start another thread about this, like I said above I think most people will have different opinions on it in one way or another.

[Pella]

Well said Assit.

And the PS2 forums are a joke and 90% of the people who post there are a complete joke also. Littered with what i call Scrubs.

Half the rants are from people with 1 week play time, And a terrible looking K/D.

Now K/D means nothing i know. But when your trying to put across a point. Then someone with absolutely no idea how to play this game, trys and explains to me. that they know best! gets right on my tit.

How can players like this argue a fact about any type of balance is beyond me.

Today, A BR21, With a -K/D Was arguing the fact that i have no idea about ESFs... And he knows best.

Jog on.

[Calisai]

After GU2, most of my deaths were to NC BR10's or below using 1000 Cert weapons. To me, it's obvious. And I'm sure the NC and VS were seeing TR BR10's or below kill screens too..

This is a major pet peeve of mine. The amount of below BR10's I've encountered since GU2 is amazing (both killed and died to).

The reason it pisses me off is Mattherson was a pretty balanced server prior to GU2... primetime it was usually all three factions in the 30's, none higher or lower. Now VS is lucky to break 28% (during primetime) and I actually saw a record (for me noticing) of 17% the other night (albeit a few hours past primetime)

This on a supposedly medium population server. And yes... this is GLOBAL pop, not Indar pop or some other cont.

I expect to lose a fight when outpopped... but I also hope to be able to move somewhere else to fight somewhere I'm not outpopped... and the cycle of ghost/wiped due to overpop fight/ghost/overpop fight is getting old fast.


As for the weapon balance/vehicle balance/OP/UP, etc. Most fights come down to position, who sees who first and who has the most weapons firing on them.


Oh, and I lay the blame firmly at SOE's feet for this one. Whether the buffs/nerfs/warpgate switch were needed or whatever... I say having them all at the same large patch caused a huge PERCEPTION that VS was getting nerfed hard... and it's that PERCEPTION... whether correct or not... that causes the 4th empire to jump ship like the rats they are. If they had spread out everything over a few patches and given time to adjust... it might not have been so dramatic of pop swing.

[Xaine]

Natural progression of any online service. At launch demand is high, many servers are opened. Then it evens out as the hype is over. For many MMORPG's this does not matter, but for a PvP only game, population is content. So the servers are merged.

"Not good enough to play", is wrong, there are clearly people playing it.

So you'd call the population of the game dropping by about 50% natural progression, would you?

[raw]

@Assist, yes it is complete bullshit what is being posted on the offical forums. the signal-to-noise ratio is so high, I can't bring myself to read it anymore. I wish RadarX would come down hard on all those people that post nothing but hyperbole 24/7.

PS2 isn't the only game plagued by these people: http://www.firefallthegame.com/community/threads/hyperbole-is-the-opposite-of-good-feedback.35147/

Regarding playerskill, the game is so demanding it all comes down to FPS i.e. the size of your rig. I guess in smaller areas that will be used for competition performance will be less of an issue, in which case we are left with Call of Duty in Space, so not too much in terms of playerskill. The farmability of infantry by vehicles in this game is reminiscent of CoD's doomcopters. Weapon handling is OKish, but nothing out of the ordinary.
There are some mind games involved around small (tiny) scale objective offense/defence, otherwise it comes down to tubespam pretty much. Turning this game into ESPORTS will be quite the challenge.

[Ghoest9]

@ OP

If you look at starter weapons the VS is a way way better choice than the NC - especially for average and worse players(which is half the player base) simply because they are easier to use effectively
And many players use starter weapons.

So thats a big deal.

Secondly - ROF does matter because of the flinch code. Its not the only thing that matters a good player will beat a bad player. But to equal players going head to head the flinch code offers a modest advantage is to one with a higher ROF.

Its not BIG deal but its annoying to see it dimissed.

The second point is significant - but is sometimes overstated because you can upgrade to faster weapons eventually.

But the first point imatters - especially any time there is new players. And it probably has had an effect on populations.

[BIGGByran]

Well it's going to differ player to player is my guess, even by a small margin. Which is just a testament to the balance done originally by SoE.

Best infantry weapons - NC,VS,TR
Best MAX - NC,TR,VS
Best ESF - TR,VS,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

Really should start another thread about this, like I said above I think most people will have different opinions on it in one way or another.


Best infantry weapons - VS,TR,NC
Best MAX - NC=TR,VS
Best ESF - TR,VS,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

Population imbalance generally determines who wins more.
Player Skill would generally determine who wins but since we have unlimited spawns, Player's skill gets down graded.

[Sifer2]

Best infantry weapons - VS,TR,NC
Best MAX - NC=TR,VS
Best ESF - TR,VS,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

Population imbalance generally determines who wins more.
Player Skill would generally determine who wins but since we have unlimited spawns, Player's skill gets down graded.


Did you mean the put the equal sign between TR, and VS in the MAX category? Cause that is more accurate as they are nearly clones. While the NC MAX is in a class of it's own as a indoor combat dominating monster.

I agree though that population trumps skill right now. With the way the hex system works, and fast respawn timers.

[Neutral Calypso]

What determines who wins is what little outfit has the most strategic mindset combined with individual player skill.

I have seen the zergs just collide with each other and go nowhere... then suddenly, my outfit comes along and actually STANDS ON THE POINTS and things get done.

[Larington]

My personal opinion is that victory or defeat is based on two things - incompetence and random chance.

Incompetence - Someone makes a mistake, sometimes that mistake is exploited, like not paying attention whilst driving and losing all your momentum because you crashed into a tree... Just as a reaver/mosquito/scythe comes over the hill. Incompetence is especially significant when it comes to getting farmed by air because only one person bothered to pull a burster MAX instead of two or three people. One on one a rocket podding ESF will almost always beat an AA MAX because it can outmanoeuvre the MAX or just come back later to ambush it after some repairs.
I also think it especially applies in the form of players not watching the mini-map like a hawk, I do, and in combination with a radar Flash it can save my life countless times.

Random chance - Does that prowler come around the corner when you're facing towards it, or away from it. In one case you might escape, in the other you're almost certainly dead.

I feel these decide the results of a battle more than anything, and they are both happening CONSTANTLY in both big and small ways.

[camycamera]

i think if it is a game like this, teamwork usually wins, i.e organised outfits.

[Tatwi]

1. Who sees who first.
2. Frame rate.
3. Rate of fire.

Cheating trumps all and everything else is frivolous.

[Saintlycow]

Yeah, I hate the official forums. Only go there to talk about the flash.

Anyways, I suppose I should mention weapon balance.

Best infantry weapons - VS=TR,NC (I feel this is very small margin. VS no drop is directly countered by the degradation, so it's a non-factor) VS accuracy and TR extra bullets give them the edge over the hard hitting, but low fire rate NC guns. Seems that ROF>all

Best MAX - NC,TR=VS (I never play VS max, but NC is sooo good inside the biolabs in the rooms, while VS and TR are better at the pads. The whole range thing is quite BS, because you never see a group of maxes running around in a field)

Best ESF - TR,VS,NC (As VS, I feel like the speed of TR gives them an edge)

Best Tank - TR,VS,NC (Pendulum swung a bit too far in favor of TR. They also have the INFantry killing abilities, which need a nerf) Tank V Tank is fine, tank V inf needs work. I never get killed by vanguards while running infantry.

So, factions are fairly balanced.

As for Skill, I am feel it does not play enough of a role. Skilled players should be rewarded more.

So that leaves it with Population. I really feel like this game could be called zergside. When ever I play, it feels like it's "zerg or be zerged". Don't get me wrong, I like massive battles, but these don't seem to happen. The harsh reality is that zergs never clash, and fight small opposition. This fun for no one. Zergs should be guided towards each other, as was the case in the UES and during most FNO. For example, this last FNO with the SENTS was great in this regard. All the zergs were situated around Vanu archives, allowing for tactical work on the flanks instead of dealing directly with the hostile zerg.

Also, the map plays a large role, what with the crown being "easier" to assault from the north, and the SE gate being a steaming pile.

[Mordelicius]

Current balance:

Best infantry weapons - TR,VS,NC
Best MAX - NC,VS,TR
Best ESF - VS,TR,NC
Best Tank - TR,VS,NC

All things equal, meaning: equal population, equal skill and equal organization,

Vanu wins infantry fights in their sleep.
TR wins with their Prowlers with tank battles.
Scythe has slight edge over the Mosquito since they are harder to hit.
NC Max wins cqc, TR wins on sustained medium fire and Vanu has the long-range sniper Max. In usefulness NC has slight edge because of the CQC nature of specialized Biolab fights.

My take on current balance:
Infantry Weapons: VS>TR>>NC
Best Max: NC>TR>Vanu
Best ESF: VS>TR>NC
Best Tank: TR>VS>NC

Much like the Magrider nerf, I can't wait until GU4 when they have finished the major weapon balance pass. I'd say Vanu rules like hell on K/D. They have a much higher effective DPS with stupidly OP combination of accuracy, high ROF and no recoil :eek:

Logically, it should have been:
NC: High Damage, low ROF, low accuracy, medium recoil
TR: High ROF, low damage, low accuracy, medium recoil
VS: High Accuracy, low damage, low ROF, medium recoil

As it is, NC has High Damage ( like 10-20% bonus) with low ROF, low accuracy and maddening recoil. Not to mention the flinch screen given to us by high rof TR and Vanu. :doh:

[Koadster]

This is why I barely read the official forums.. Its even degraded into people comparing stats now to see whos opinion matters more.. just like BF3. Notice how the devs actaully post in this one but you dont see anything in the official ones.. lol says alot about what the devs really think of the ideas and threads over there.

To post above ^... I found the NC Gauss Rifle and Merc carbine awesome. Id take the Gauss rifle over the T1 cycler anyday! Its just a different playstyle you have to adapt too, its not your typical run and gun weapons like COD/BF3 and because of whatever reason the younger kids are drawn to the NC (maybe the rock music and wanting to be rebels, sticking it to the man!) But they get annoyed when they cant run and gun rambo style. With my TR and NC toons I kill and get killed by each faction evenly.

[Assist]

All things equal, meaning: equal population, equal skill and equal organization,

Vanu wins infantry fights in their sleep.
TR wins with their Prowlers with tank battles.
Scythe has slight edge over the Mosquito since they are harder to hit.
NC Max wins cqc, TR wins on sustained medium fire and Vanu has the long-range sniper Max. In usefulness NC has slight edge because of the CQC nature of specialized Biolab fights.

My take on current balance:
Infantry Weapons: VS>TR>>NC
Best Max: NC>TR>Vanu
Best ESF: VS>TR>NC
Best Tank: TR>VS>NC

Much like the Magrider nerf, I can't wait until GU4 when they have finished the major weapon balance pass. I'd say Vanu rules like hell on K/D. They have a much higher effective DPS with stupidly OP combination of accuracy, high ROF and no recoil :eek:

Logically, it should have been:
NC: High Damage, low ROF, low accuracy, medium recoil
TR: High ROF, low damage, low accuracy, medium recoil
VS: High Accuracy, low damage, low ROF, medium recoil

As it is, NC has High Damage ( like 10-20% bonus) with low ROF, low accuracy and maddening recoil. Not to mention the flinch screen given to us by high rof TR and Vanu. :doh:

I'd love to know where these myths come from.

VS have nearly the same recoil as NC, in fact in some weapons most would consider it worse for VS because the first shot recoil is worse. Take a look at the weapons charts sometime before saying stuff like that :\ Overall NC weapons are a bit worse in recoil, but not by very much.
Same with the ESF's, the Mosquito has the smallest hitbox not the Scythe. The Mosquito also has more maneuverability due to the speed having a direct effect on turn speed in the air.
Also the VS MAX being a long range sniper? O.o Have you tried to use one ever, there's nothing sniper about it. It's nice to have range, but the CoF accuracy is on par with your scattermax.
Effective DPS is completely dependent on player skill. But since you brought it up, TR have the highest theoretical DPS as they also have the highest average RoF.

I'm fairly sure most of the balancing issues people have with the game are those individuals listening to their buddies spread rumors about the other factions. Myths - always debunked by doing a little research on your own.

[Dkamanus]

My take on current balance:
Infantry Weapons: VS=TR>>NC
Best Max: NC>TR=Vanu
Best ESF: VS>TR>NC
Best Tank: TR>VS=NC

Tank balance has been almost achieved, just some less damage on the HEAT and AP damage and it's gold.

[Mavvvy]

Population population population. Skill may determine a skirmish, or influence a fight, but it comes down to numbers in the end.

With no time penalty to each consecutive death, numbers will always be able to brute force any skilled defenders/attackers.

A ps1 feature I sorely miss.

[Phreec]

Define "win".

In a 1v1 situation it's only down to player skill and faction imbalance while in the big picture population is the most important factor, but player skill and imba faction traits still affect the results.

[MrBloodworth]

It comes down to numbers due to the base design.

Defenseable bases are historically designed to allow a small force to repel one 10 times its size.

[Rahabib]

From my time in Connery - population (zerg) then faction imbalance (map layout plays a big part) then player skill (theres so many people its hard to pin point skill in this game). I have never seen someone play and think - "wow" that guy is good. mostly its just luck of getting the drop on people.

[Ghoest9]

I'd love to know where these myths come from.



Ummm they probably come from people who actually try to play with the starter weapons.

[Bocheezu]

If we're talking about indoor battles over cap points, it really depends how many people are involved. A small-scale battle of 10v10 is really where player skill can shine and bases will be won or lost just based on skill.

On a larger scale, say 40v40, you can't selectively put together 40 elite killwhores vs. 40 complete terribads; both sides are going to be a mix of both, and in that case it comes down more to class composition, overall weapon choice, and focusing on removing spawn points. A platoon made up of HAs with some medics and engineers will beat an all-HA crew (biolabs are very strong for MAX and LA as well). In a biolab, a shotgun is usually a better choice than an LMG; so for equal skill, 40 guys with shotties will generally beat 40 guys with LMGs in a biolab.

The idea that this game is "fair" for a BR1 and that a veteran player only has a 20% advantage over him is laughable. Certain weapons are guaranteed upgrades for certain situations and if a BR1 tries to fight indoors against a guy with a shotgun, they are probably going to lose. Just simple things like medpacks and flak armor increase survivability significantly. So a higher-BR crew will destroy a lower-BR crew for equal skill.

I think faction weapons have very little to do with anything. Some are better than others (no other carbine compares to Solstice) but the overall effect is minimal.

[Xaine]

The idea that this game is "fair" for a BR1 and that a veteran player only has a 20% advantage over him is laughable. Certain weapons are guaranteed upgrades for certain situations and if a BR1 tries to fight indoors against a guy with a shotgun, they are probably going to lose.

Fine, but what happens when a new player with a LMG sees a vet with a shotgun at long range.

Or when they get the drop on someone and they don't get a chance to shoot.

This is not a game where someone with 'better gear' than you is going to beat you all the time. You can outplay them by making them fight on your terms.



I think faction weapons have very little to do with anything. Some are better than others (no other carbine compares to Solstice) but the overall effect is minimal.

As a main LA player who uses the Solstice constantly, I dislike it.

The TRAC-5 has better range and better ability to hip fire at close range.

[Assist]

So I guess the question is how can they better balance the population ? Since it seems most here agree that population is the deciding factor in the game. I think they don't want it to be, they'd prefer even fights, but the current method of just giving additional EXP for being underpopulated doesn't appear to be working.

I've thought about this quite a bit and I can't come up with a good reason to get people to transfers themselves to another faction. I think it's too dependent on player preference to be able to change it. I personally don't care which faction I play, but I know I wouldn't enjoy the game as much if my faction was the side consistently above 40% pop. It's similar to the Liberator I guess, I don't see how it's fun to sit in a Liberator farming to rank 100, and I don't see how it's fun to be just a small part of the massive zerg.

[EVILPIG]

So I guess the question is how can they better balance the population ? Since it seems most here agree that population is the deciding factor in the game. I think they don't want it to be, they'd prefer even fights, but the current method of just giving additional EXP for being underpopulated doesn't appear to be working.

I've thought about this quite a bit and I can't come up with a good reason to get people to transfers themselves to another faction. I think it's too dependent on player preference to be able to change it. I personally don't care which faction I play, but I know I wouldn't enjoy the game as much if my faction was the side consistently above 40% pop. It's similar to the Liberator I guess, I don't see how it's fun to sit in a Liberator farming to rank 100, and I don't see how it's fun to be just a small part of the massive zerg.

I have.. to.. say it..

If you want an even fight, go play CoD or BF. Sometimes fights are even. Some times you get steam rolled. Sometimes you do the steamrolling. That's the beauty of it. As a seperate issue, more players is always better, but beyond that, if we had 10 conts and could pop-lock 6 of them, you'd still have unbalanced fights in places and that is cool.

Either way, give them hell!

[james]

Its numbers. As it sits for the most part the bigger zerg wins. Its nothing something you can really fix though

[Assist]

I have.. to.. say it..

If you want an even fight, go play CoD or BF. Sometimes fights are even. Some times you get steam rolled. Sometimes you do the steamrolling. That's the beauty of it. As a seperate issue, more players is always better, but beyond that, if we had 10 conts and could pop-lock 6 of them, you'd still have unbalanced fights in places and that is cool.

Either way, give them hell!

The last three nights on Waterson the VS population on login and logout has been below 25%, except for today when the VS had 28% when I logged out.
I don't care about individual fights and I tried to express that in my earlier posts. You are right, more players is always better, except when one side has nearly double the number of players as the otherside at *every single fight*. The only option to 'win' then becomes to avoid the fights to play the game, which isn't a good option. Which is what we've done and we unfortunately have held 2 continents multiple times the past week because those continents are empty. We did get a new record today though, our VS pop on Indar got down to 6%, yet somehow the TR still had the highest pop on Indar and Amerish and were only 4% below us on Esamir. This is not a "I want a fair fight" population problem, this is a "there is no fair fight" population problem.