The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation

[MasterChief096]

I feel this poll needs to be made and the concerns of the community made known.

The vote is simple. Is a veteran having a potential 20% power advantage over a new player simply not fair? Does it not have a place in a PlanetSide game?

Or is the reverse true. Is this necessary for the next installment as it will appeal to a wider audience?

How will this effect gameplay years down the road in PlanetSide 2?

The community's voice must be heard, and I will be honest with my own opinion.

I do not want even the slightest % difference between veterans and new players. The sound of, "your Reaver might be more maneuverable, durable, and powerful as a result of specializing your outfit in it and your character in it" just sounds like a terrible idea to me.

If I'm using a Gauss rifle with a 20% advantage in damage against a new player, that means that I need to do only 4/5 the damage to him that he needs to do to me. Essentially I'm fighting new players with 100 health but its like I'm fighting them at 80 health versus my 100, constantly.

I know that having power advancement for your characters appeals to gamers from the MMORPG realm, but why should we have to appeal to them? MMORPGs don't try to appeal to FPS gamers. I believe that we should not sacrifice the fairness of PlanetSide's "new player vs. old player" combat system for one that gives old players an advantage, even if it is only a 1% advantage.

If you are going to modify your weapons, take your Gauss rifle for example, then you are going to need to sacrifice in one area for a gain in the next. NEVER should you be able to upgrade your ROF, damage, or accuracy without sacrificing a little bit in another category.

The game would remain fair to me if I could choose to upgrade my Guass rifle's ROF at the expense of damage, or accuracy at the expense of ROF, or damage at the expense of either accuracy or ROF, but never would I want to just upgrade one of these categories without having to lose something in one of the other two. Its just not right to me.

The same goes for vehicles. Lets bring up a big point here. SOE wants to reward outfits that specialize in certain playstyles. This makes complete sense. The way they want to do this is by having an outfit progression similar to character progression that allows you to modify your vehicles/weapons/abilities as your outfit and characters progress. Higby mentioned your Reaver being more "durable, maneuverable, and powerful" as a result of your outfit specializing in Reaver combat. When you COUPLE this with your character progressing down the Reaver path, you get one unfair advantage between a Reaver outfit and a guy just flying his Reaver...

"Well isn't that the point?" you might ask. "An outfit that specializes in Reavers should have an advantage over random reaver pilots should they not?"

Of course, but why does it have to be in the form of power? Why can't an outfits advantage be the EXPERIENCE (non-game experience) that they get from flying Reavers all the time, working together with coordination, and developing tactics. A full time Reaver outfit is going to be better than 10 random pilots because the Reaver outfit's players are constantly in Reavers, so they are going to be better than those 10 random pilots. The outfit is going to have developed its on tactics for fighting, and gained its own personal experience from the months and eventually years of being a reaver oriented outfit.

In this MMOFPS, it is enough reward to outfits and individuals who specialize in something and spend a lot of time in certain playstyles to simply become BETTER in terms of their own SKILL within that playstyle over new players or someone who is just trying it out or whatever.

My point is that outfits and players will develop SKILL and become good at their specializations through time and patience, and learning their role and developing tactics. If I am a new player, I want to get raped by a veteran because he is better than be as a result of playing PlanetSide 2 for five years, not because we are equally matched or perhaps I'm actually better but his gun has a 5% bonus to ROF, accuracy, and damage.

POWER advancement is unnecessary and is simply a way of appeasing MMORPG players. I play MMORPGs as well as single player RPGs. I have a lot of fun in those games. I thoroughly enjoy them, but I feel that when I step into the world of PlanetSide, there is no room for MMORPG elements in the form of power advancement.

Naturally PlanetSide is an MMOFPS, so its going to need MMO game mechanics, systems, and features. This does not mean that it needs MMORPG game mechanics, systems and features.

The main thing that needs to be discussed is how can we have extreme specialization and rewards for dedicated outfits/players that aren't in the form of power? Well, like I said, let the upgrades that are unlockable etc sacrifice either armor, ROF, accuracy, speed, damage, etc. Never just have a pure upgrade to any one category of stats in PlanetSide 2 without a drawback to one of the vehicle's/weapon's/ability's other stats.

This still allows for massive customization and specialization. Your Reaver outfit can become known as either being the fastest hitting group of flyers or the slow, lumbering, but hard hitting gunship group based on specialization. Just don't allow it to become known as the "Fastest hitting, powerful punching, heavily armored, extremely maneuverable" reaver outfit.

Thoughts, discussion? I am open to any opinions that power advancement is necessary and try to look at it through the point of view of other people and either try to argue points or see why it might be a good thing.

[CutterJohn]

I disapprove of any rpg elements, limitations, unlocks, etc in fps games. A vet deserves extra power as much as he deserves extra tools, i.e not at all. FPSs don't need these things because they take skill to master. Having fake progression is pointless when it already provides the real thing.

But its just a disapproval. I'm not going to cry about it.

Also, its generally good to add an ambivalent option to polls.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I disapprove of any rpg elements, limitations, unlocks, etc in fps games. A vet deserves extra power as much as he deserves extra tools, i.e not at all. FPSs don't need these things because they take skill to master. Having fake progression is pointless when it already provides the real thing.

But its just a disapproval. I'm not going to cry about it.

Also, its generally good to add an ambivalent option to polls.

Oops I forgot to do this, can you edit polls? Meh.

I wouldn't say I'm crying about it... I'm voicing a legitimate concern for both myself and many members within the community. There are many reasons power advancement is not needed including alternatives that I did not list above. I also stated that I am open to discussing opposite opinions towards mine and if I am truly swayed by what is said in favor of the other side of the argument then I will admit it. No bullshit.

[Ender]

Adding a 20% or so increase in lethality for veterans, to me, seems like it would completely discourage new players from entering the game. I would not want to go into a game knowing that I have to spend X months/years in order to complete fairly with other players.

To me, this game is more of a thinking game rather than a "who's got the better gun" type game. I believe they are altering the fundamental concept of the game by trying to appeal to a broader audience.

If I die to another player, I want it to be due to that player's skill or tactics instead of their time spent leveling their character.

In PS1, you progress by learning the game, learning better tactics/positioning, and by mastering your weapons. I would like it to stay that way in PS2.

[exLupo]

I can only relate this all to EVE. I have no doubt that it was the genesis of this new design. The core argument of power inflation is pretty personal and I dislike it in shooters but am willing to accede to its application as long as the relative power variances aren't huge. It's a skinner box reward. People like watching numbers go up and they like feeling special. "I've got Lv5 MA. Respect me."

But lets also break it down. I'm guessing it'll go something like this...
1 category, 5 skills w/ 5 ranks.
- Small Arms -
MA - Unlocks customizations and other skills as you rank up.
Damage - small arms damage 1% per level
RoF - small arms rate of fire 1% per level
Accuracy - small arms accuracy (cof tightness or recoil reduction) 1% per level
Clip - small arms magazine size 1% per level (less realistic but I'm going somewhere)

Leveling curves in EVE are steep. A 1x skill is something like 30m 1hr 10hr 1.5d 6d. A rank newbie, fresh out of the tubes with 0 ranks will have 0 bonuses and can probably use their ESMA. Anyone will, iirc, be able to just to have basic weapons to switch to even if you decide to never cert it. However, if someone cares about small arms combat, they'll put points in. 2 hours they'll be at +4%. 6 hours at +8% and then they put in 20 hours worth of skills when they go to bed and for the next work/school day. Next time they play they'll be at +10% to all of their small arms.

On the other end you have a guy who loves the life of the boot. He's got his MA up to 4 and unlocked HA and uses that in its own situations but he's crossing a field so he's whipped out his Gauss and is taking targets at med-long range. He's put a lot of time in and this is where EVE's lessons kick in. That last 1%. The one that takes 6 days per. There are 2 times that those ever get certed. 1) when it unlocks something else. 2) when you've unlocked everything else you want and have serious amounts of time to kill. Realistically, a dedicated MA user will still likely only have 4 in each skill. Roughly 8 days time to get those first 4 skills to 4. That makes the other 6 days for a tiny 1% and no unlocks seem really painful. Players naturally move on to 4 in HA and AV, points in vehicles and medical, engi and hacking. Whatever they want. They use those 6 days for things that will increase their personal power far beyond 1%. So where does that leave the experienced MA user? +16%.

110% after one day vs 116% for the regular user. That's about 5.5% more aggregate power. Not even raw damage but overall effectiveness and that's all because the new guy dedicated 1 day to his MA skill, most of that asleep or out in meatspace. The system's gotta be viewed realistically. Not perfect vs rank newb.

And then there's the question of skill. 5% is next to nothing when it comes to simply being a better player. Take EVE again. If you pit a well trained first time character versus a partially trained character that's secretly the alt of a long time vet and, through knowledge of game mechanics (engagement ranges, capacitor use, transversal, etc.) the vet will likely win handily.

The real gap will be enough to reward specialization but not so much that new players or widely specced players won't be able to compete. And, frankly, if it were me, even with all 5s, I'd lose. I can't shoot my way out of a damn bag.

In a mythical world of perfect skill, taking a realistic view of skilling, yes, the trained user would win 1 in 20 more fights. As long as PS2 isn't ever billed as an e-sport, I'm ok with that kind of outcome.

[Sirisian]

yeah this needs an indifference option in the poll.

I just don't care if a veteran is better. Players can specialize in different things and be better at it. Is it unfair if someone beats you in a dogfight in the air because you specialized in using a tank? To me no.

I've never really cared about minor imbalances to Planetside. There's always that group of people that call for nerfs and buffs. I was never part of that group. I just played the game and had fun. (lol I didn't care when BFRs were overpowered. I just took it as part of the game and had fun killing/dying to them).

I guess this is in the same respect to things like black-ops. Those players had a huge advantage. Did I get mad? Nah I was like "ooh a challenge". I guess if you're obsessed about keeping a perfect k/d or something it could be a problem.

Taking this a step further I'd love to see massive differences in power between specialized players. Like a Reaver launching a barrage of MIRV rockets or a tank with upgraded AA rockets on the top and such. Seriously these kinds of things don't bother me in the slightest.

[Tatwi]

Thank you for making this poll. I voted "Power advancement is not necessary in PlanetSide 2", because the level playing field of the damage numbers in FPS combat is the foundation upon which the success of the combat style rests.

Matt said that they heard people like to feel more powerful. What I hope SOE understands though is that people like to be more powerful than everyone else and that when others are more powerful than them, they don't like that much at all. In fact, people hate it when others are more powerful than them. Hence, the solution provided in Planetside: Make em equal (in principle).

On this concept, I think it would be a mistake to re-invent the wheel for Planetside 2, because Planetside got it right the first time.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

yeah this needs an indifference option in the poll.

I just don't care if a veteran is better. Players can specialize in different things and be better at it. Is it unfair if someone beats you in a dogfight in the air because you specialized in using a tank? To me no.

I've never really cared about minor imbalances to Planetside. There's always that group of people that call for nerfs and buffs. I was never part of that group. I just played the game and had fun. (lol I didn't care when BFRs were overpowered. I just took it as part of the game and had fun killing/dying to them).

I guess this is in the same respect to things like black-ops. Those players had a huge advantage. Did I get mad? Nah I was like "ooh a challenge". I guess if you're obsessed about keeping a perfect k/d or something it could be a problem.

Taking this a step further I'd love to see massive differences in power between specialized players. Like a Reaver launching a barrage of MIRV rockets or a tank with upgraded AA rockets on the top and such. Seriously these kinds of things don't bother me in the slightest.

Is it possible for a moderator to add this option? I don't think I can do it.

Well, there are a few things I can see in your post where you might be misunderstanding what I tried to express in my OP.

I'm not calling for nerfs or buffs yet as we have not even play tested any of the games features.

I completely agree that I have no problem with veterans being better than new players, but for the right reasons. A veteran should be better because he's a veteran, he has play time experience, he's developed skill and tactics with his weapons, vehicles, and outfit. He knows the game better and thus has a personal advantage over a new player, not an advantage as a result of game mechanics that assist him because he's a veteran.

I am also all for specialization, but you can have specialization and character advancement without the use of raw power advancement. You can have specialization and progression that is both cosmetic and effects vehicles and weapons etc but does not simply add more power with no drawbacks.

What I'm referring to is modifications for weapons. Lets use a standard MA rifle for example. As you gain experience and unlock things, you can add modifications that effect damage, rate of fire, accuracy, clip size, noise the weapon makes, etc. However, the game should not have modifications that just add an increase to one of these and that's it. If you are going to add a higher caliber bullet modification that increases damage, it should either reduce clip size, accuracy, or rate of fire. For example say this bullet type provides a 20% damage increase. This means that 20% must be taken from the other categories. To add more specialization for the player, allow them to choose which category or categories its taken from. The player can take that entire 20% from rate of fire, or he can take 5% from ROF, 5% from accuracy, and 10% from clip size. Maybe he even wants something odd like 17% from ROF, and 3% from accuracy or something. It would add to the uniqueness of each player's weapon and add to personalization, without giving veterans raw upgrades to power with no drawbacks.

This same concept can be applied to vehicles in terms of weapon damage, speed of the vehicle, armor that the vehicle has, and any other stat that can be applied to vehicles.

Scopes for weapons I don't really see as being a power advancement as long as they don't effect the actual stats. Scopes are more of a tactical decision that a player makes. He must choose the right scope for the current battle that is taking place. This adds to player skill and how smart he is playing.

Also you say you have no problem with a veteran beating a tank specialist in the air because he specialized in a tank. Naturally a vet thats been using a reaver for 2 years versus a new player who has been playing tank and is trying out a reaver should have a significant chance of losing just because the veteran is better in terms of how long he's played.

But I don't want that veteran to beat that new player in the air because his reaver has +20% damage.

Maybe that veteran has customized his reaver to sacrifice damage and armor for extreme speed and maneuverability, whereas the tank driver who is trying out the vanilla reaver has more general stats, more armor, less maneuverability and speed, and more damage. This means that the veteran might win because he is more maneuverable and faster in the air than the vanilla reaver, but he is not winning because his reaver does more damage and thats it. He's winning because he's customized his reaver to fit what he wants to see in terms of his aircraft, and he's gotten good using that type of customized aircraft.

If the new player was replaced by a player using a heavily armored, slower reaver that does more damage, then he still has a chance of winning, but he's going to have to figure out how to fight reavers that are weak but fast and maneuverable.

See what I'm saying? I'm all for multitudes of customization that come with battle rank and unlocks, I just am not in favor of these unlocks simply adding benefits with no drawbacks in other areas.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by exLupo

I can only relate this all to EVE. I have no doubt that it was the genesis of this new design. The core argument of power inflation is pretty personal and I dislike it in shooters but am willing to accede to its application as long as the relative power variances aren't huge. It's a skinner box reward. People like watching numbers go up and they like feeling special. "I've got Lv5 MA. Respect me."

But lets also break it down. I'm guessing it'll go something like this...
1 category, 5 skills w/ 5 ranks.
- Small Arms -
MA - Unlocks customizations and other skills as you rank up.
Damage - small arms damage 1% per level
RoF - small arms rate of fire 1% per level
Accuracy - small arms accuracy (cof tightness or recoil reduction) 1% per level
Clip - small arms magazine size 1% per level (less realistic but I'm going somewhere)

Leveling curves in EVE are steep. A 1x skill is something like 30m 1hr 10hr 1.5d 6d. A rank newbie, fresh out of the tubes with 0 ranks will have 0 bonuses and can probably use their ESMA. Anyone will, iirc, be able to just to have basic weapons to switch to even if you decide to never cert it. However, if someone cares about small arms combat, they'll put points in. 2 hours they'll be at +4%. 6 hours at +8% and then they put in 20 hours worth of skills when they go to bed and for the next work/school day. Next time they play they'll be at +10% to all of their small arms.

On the other end you have a guy who loves the life of the boot. He's got his MA up to 4 and unlocked HA and uses that in its own situations but he's crossing a field so he's whipped out his Gauss and is taking targets at med-long range. He's put a lot of time in and this is where EVE's lessons kick in. That last 1%. The one that takes 6 days per. There are 2 times that those ever get certed. 1) when it unlocks something else. 2) when you've unlocked everything else you want and have serious amounts of time to kill. Realistically, a dedicated MA user will still likely only have 4 in each skill. Roughly 8 days time to get those first 4 skills to 4. That makes the other 6 days for a tiny 1% and no unlocks seem really painful. Players naturally move on to 4 in HA and AV, points in vehicles and medical, engi and hacking. Whatever they want. They use those 6 days for things that will increase their personal power far beyond 1%. So where does that leave the experienced MA user? +16%.

110% after one day vs 116% for the regular user. That's about 5.5% more aggregate power. Not even raw damage but overall effectiveness and that's all because the new guy dedicated 1 day to his MA skill, most of that asleep or out in meatspace. The system's gotta be viewed realistically. Not perfect vs rank newb.

And then there's the question of skill. 5% is next to nothing when it comes to simply being a better player. Take EVE again. If you pit a well trained first time character versus a partially trained character that's secretly the alt of a long time vet and, through knowledge of game mechanics (engagement ranges, capacitor use, transversal, etc.) the vet will likely win handily.

The real gap will be enough to reward specialization but not so much that new players or widely specced players won't be able to compete. And, frankly, if it were me, even with all 5s, I'd lose. I can't shoot my way out of a damn bag.

In a mythical world of perfect skill, taking a realistic view of skilling, yes, the trained user would win 1 in 20 more fights. As long as PS2 isn't ever billed as an e-sport, I'm ok with that kind of outcome.

Very constructive post! Thank you!
However I do have to touch on one thing.

I do agree that 5% power advantage is next to nothing when it comes down to player skill.

That would essentially mean a veteran with a 5% increase in damage against the new player would be the equivalent of fighting a new player as if he had 95 health, even though he's at 100.

But we have to take into considering that if the power advancement becomes available to players after a considerable amount of playing time and achieving "veteran" status, then the veterans are going to have naturally become better at the game over this time period. Meaning that they might become REALLY REALLY good players, and in addition, have the 5% increase.

So a new player who is REALLY REALLY good going against a veteran who is REALLY REALLY good + his 5% power increase is still going to be at a slight disadvantage. Naturally a new player who is REALLY REALLY good going against a veteran with 5-20% power increase that is REALLY REALLY bad might still have good chances of winning, but why take the chance of giving REALLY REALLY good veterans additional power? Speaking as a PS veteran of eight years, I can honestly say that I never once felt the need to feel more powerful in that game. If I wanted to become more powerful, I either dueled good players until I got better, or I ran training with my outfit until we showed signs of improvement. We never once thought that game mechanics were needed to increase our "power" because we were entitled to it as a result of being veterans.

[akiadan]

I've seen a similar sort of thing presented in mag, but in a different way. You could upgrade your gun and make it more accurate or more clip size without negatively effecting any other stat. The way it was setup though made it fairly balanced. you were given a certain number of "Credits" in which you can use for each loadout. so you have 30 "credits" and 20 of those are used in other equipment. your weapons costs 6 "credits" so you have 4 to work with. A grip would cost 2 and a sight would cost 1. now of course you cant have more than one sight or grip on your gun that would be rediculous. All these upgrades were givin access to at a fairly early point in the game. The difference they make is minimal but in reality its mostly cosmetic and may save your life in an extreme case or help you make a longer shot better while making it a little harder to hit closer targets because of the zoom.

The point is it can be done in a balanced way, or it can be done it a way that makes the game completely horrible and grueling experience for new players. I would like to see this in the game if done correctly. But alas I dont think that it is possible to do such a thing so easily so I dont really want to see an attempt in Ps2

[MasterChief096]

Its interesting that the poll is nearly 50/50 but none of the people who have voted in favor of power advancement have come out and voiced exactly why they voted in favor of it.

I'm not trying to be biased. I have an opinion on the issue and I'm defending it, but I do actually want to hear the other side of the argument, and see if I'm just missing something.

SOE needs player feedback. That doesn't just mean what I'm trying to express, but also what the other side of the argument has to express as well. Come on guys, come discuss!

If I start to come across as flaming ideas or what not please let me know, I'm trying to make every effort to defend my opinion in a "non-troll flame dude" way.

[Sirisian]

No I understood exactly what you meant. It's the same argument others have made for balancing the upgrades. They want upgrades that do nothing in the long run. It's a tactic many people on these forums use to justify their reasoning. You might not even realize you're doing it. "Lets upgrades damage, but decrease accuracy" making it only good for close combat. I disagree with that strategy and I'm going to tell you why.

When someone upgrades something it should have a direct effect on the weapon with no weaknesses. I say this because if all weapons and vehicles in the game are like this then it specializes people immensely. Someone that upgrades the cannon on their tank to be say 50% better would have a very powerful tank. Someone that upgrades their armor by 50% would have a very strong tank. Upgrading flight maneuverability instead of weapons on a plane has the same effect. Someone might want to upgrade their Reaver rockets with awesome new rockets that are good against the ground units, but find themselves open to air attacks by more agile planes.

Now you're thinking "oh well players get farmed" when in fact they don't. You just need to use your imagination. For instance, I've never played Halo past the first one, but in the new ones they have a deployable shield that a player can use in as a quick defense against vehicles. BF2142 has a wall shield for this very reason to protect against attack when moving along open terrain. So players could specialize as infantry just as easily to protect themselves from vehicles. They could get smoke grenades to hide themselves, turrets, mines, to defend an area, and upgrade them all as specialized defenses.

However, this community is surprisingly stubborn to keeping the game 100% balanced for everyone and destroying what the skill tree specialization could allow. You're assuming new players would be scared away before being able to specialize I'm assuming? I agree that is scary proposition, but in the long term anyone sticking around would realize they'd be on par with anyone else after a while with the same opportunities.

(Note, I'm not a big fan of the delay in the skill-tree which I believe will cause the lag from beginner to BR20 do whatever player).

[CutterJohn]

Honest question. Whats the point of a 1v1 comparison? These are quite rare in PS. By the time you are in a 20v20, the differences between the sides average out.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

If I wanted to become more powerful, I either dueled good players until I got better, or I ran training with my outfit until we showed signs of improvement. We never once thought that game mechanics were needed to increase our "power" because we were entitled to it as a result of being veterans.

And that's why this will always be divisive. SOE is probably doing this to both attract the traditional "mmo" fan who is accustomed to direct stat progression and to separate their product from the BF3s of the world.

The question of "Why do people with more practice need more power?" will always be asked. As it stands, that's how the game is going to end up. As players, it's up to us providing feedback to help dev temper the numbers along the way.

I think if lv40 had suddenly unlocked 5% better weapons players would have wept/raged, Auraxis would have exploded, and the servers would have cracked in two. BFR 9000. However, since the gap is in from the start, I think it'l work out ok in PS2. The community, new players at least, will grow up knowing nothing better and, hopefully, the returning PS1 vets will accept it as well.

There will always be a segment that want it banished but not so much that they stop killing each for that next yard of land.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

No I understood exactly what you meant. It's the same argument others have made for balancing the upgrades. They want upgrades that do nothing in the long run. It's a tactic many people on these forums use to justify their reasoning. You might not even realize you're doing it. "Lets upgrades damage, but decrease accuracy" making it only good for close combat. I disagree with that strategy and I'm going to tell you why.

When someone upgrades something it should have a direct effect on the weapon with no weaknesses. I say this because if all weapons and vehicles in the game are like this then it specializes people immensely. Someone that upgrades the cannon on their tank to be say 50% better would have a very powerful tank. Someone that upgrades their armor by 50% would have a very strong tank. Upgrading flight maneuverability instead of weapons on a plane has the same effect. Someone might want to upgrade their Reaver rockets with awesome new rockets that are good against the ground units, but find themselves open to air attacks by more agile planes.

Now you're thinking "oh well players get farmed" when in fact they don't. You just need to use your imagination. For instance, I've never played Halo past the first one, but in the new ones they have a deployable shield that a player can use in as a quick defense against vehicles. BF2142 has a wall shield for this very reason to protect against attack when moving along open terrain. So players could specialize as infantry just as easily to protect themselves from vehicles. They could get smoke grenades to hide themselves, turrets, mines, to defend an area, and upgrade them all as specialized defenses.

However, this community is surprisingly stubborn to keeping the game 100% balanced for everyone and destroying what the skill tree specialization could allow. You're assuming new players would be scared away before being able to specialize I'm assuming? I agree that is scary proposition, but in the long term anyone sticking around would realize they'd be on par with anyone else after a while with the same opportunities.

(Note, I'm not a big fan of the delay in the skill-tree which I believe will cause the lag from beginner to BR20 do whatever player).

So basically what I gathered from this is that you are in favor of power advancement for veterans via unlocks, simply because you are in favor of it? You're not for it for any particular reason other than you don't think its a bad idea?

Basically the argument you are making is that if a veteran unlocks more powerful rockets for his reaver, as well as something that increases his reavers speed or maneuverability, he has to choose which one to take with no penalty for either. If he chooses the more powerful rockets he is NOT choosing the increased maneuverability thus his reaver will be vulnerable to the guys who did choose the maneuverability?

This makes complete sense and is a good point, I agree. I can see where you are coming from here. But this method of power progression only works when veterans are fighting other veterans who have been given the same options. A new player who is flying a reaver will not have unlocked the more powerful rockets or the increased speed/maneuverability, and thus will be at a huge disadvantage to a veteran who has. This is where the problem is with me. I would rather, as a veteran, take the more powerful rockets and choose to lose a little speed/maneuverability or perhaps armor, but have the benefit of being able to dish out more damage.

Why is 100% balance such a bad thing to aim for? Obviously no game has ever achieved 100% balance, nor is it likely for any game to ever achieve this. Opinions vary too much and someone will always be displeased with how something works.

Your post says that infantry can specialize in protecting themselves from vehicles, but its the same flaw, only veteran infantry players will have access to all things that keep them protected from being farmed by vehicles. New players would still be running around out in the open getting farmed by veteran infantry players with raw power upgrades that they didn't have to sacrifice anything for.

With the method I've mentioned, a veteran can still have an advantage over a new player in close combat, if he's upgraded his gun to do less damage but have more bullets in a clip and have a higher ROF. Its all up to the player and how he feels the need to play the game.

I don't see what I proposed as destroying what the specialization tree can create, I see it as adding to it immensely.