The Good ole Balance Debate

Logit · 2011-07-12, 12:11 PM

This quote rubs me the wrong way.

"The cert system is really, really free-form. You can be as specialized or generalized as you want to be. If you want to put all your advancement time into Reavers you can do that, and you'll have a more maneuverable, durable and powerful vehicle with plenty of options for secondary weapons and fun gadgets. If you want to spread your certification across lots of different things and be more of a jack of all trades, go for it."

Planetside had a lot of problems, no doubt. But one of the it's best qualities was the fact that anyone who pulled a vehicle or a gun had the same capabilities, and the same chance to kill anyone else.

People who have more time to put towards the game seem like they are going to have significant advantages over the casual gamer, which makes for an imbalanced battlefield.

I know the game needs bells and whistles and I definitely don't want Planetside 1 with better graphics. I'm hoping that these advantages aren't enough to discourage new players, or people who simply don't have the time to play everyday.

DaddyTickles · 2011-07-12, 12:21 PM

I think we all need to think of this as a FPS version of Eve - the classes are analogous to shiptypes that you can train up specific skills for to enhance your effectiveness and fit a variety of modules for specific purposes.

As such its both a skill-based and a rock-paper-scissors game, so that a badly set up, poorly skill-developed vet will be at a disadvantage to a well set-up and trained relative noob.

To a large extent it will still be a context based outcome to encounters such that a noob with HA may be at an advantage to a vet with MA in a base hallway fight in PS. But even in PS you can finesse that by using the right implants.

Personally, I'm okay with what I've read and heard so far.

Lunarchild · 2011-07-12, 12:24 PM

They have also stated that they have a maximum difference in power between a newbie with nothing and a veteran with everything unlocked. As it is an FPS, the newbie should be able to kill the vet if he is better skillwise!

The options will likely give you a bit more power, but it will come at an expense!

Volw · 2011-07-12, 12:25 PM

THey've stated fully upgarded character will have at most 20% more power. Which is probably less than BR25(40) vs BR1 now.

Balance in PlanetSide doesn't matter much, battles are almost never 1v1 and end of the day, it's the smarter opponent that wins. There's plenty of decent outfits out there that are able to come in and decimate the opposition even when faced with 3v1 odds (if not higher). No other MMO or even FPS allows that.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Also, it seems they are basing it on EVE, so even if you don't have the time to play, you can level offline and specialise.

Logit · 2011-07-12, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

THey've stated fully upgarded character will have at most 20% more power. Which is probably less than BR25(40) vs BR1 now.

Balance in PlanetSide doesn't matter much, battles are almost never 1v1 and end of the day, it's the smarter opponent that wins. There's plenty of decent outfits out there that are able to come in and decimate the opposition even when faced with 3v1 odds (if not higher). No other MMO or even FPS allows that.

So I wouldn't worry too much. Also, it seems they are basing it on EVE, so even if you don't have the time to play, you can level offline and specialise.

I think balance in Planetside is key to be honest. If 10 players have bad-ass reavers, vs 10 players who do not, it's hard to believe that we have a level playing field.

Leveling offline is great, but they've also said people who are logged in will be receiving a faster bonus towards their class. Which brings back my point that people with more time to play are going to be more powerful. Which I really believe is detrimental to the game.

Baneblade · 2011-07-12, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Logit

Which brings back my point that people with more time to play are going to be more powerful.

Which is going to change how?

Even if you make everything equal statwise, the people who play more will most likely be more powerful. Pretty much an unavoidable scenario.

Logit · 2011-07-12, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Which is going to change how?

Even if you make everything equal statwise, the people who play more will most likely be more powerful. Pretty much an unavoidable scenario.

I think this is exactly my point brotha.

Player skill should control the outcome, not time spent in the game. Such is the case in WoW where people who have more time are higher level and thus a lot stronger.

I'm not sure how it can change, I don't make the big bucks. Ultimately I don't make the decisions, but you never know who is reading

Soothsayer · 2011-07-12, 01:06 PM

one of the big concepts of EVE Online's skill system as it relates to characters with or without large amounts of trained skillpoints is "you can only fly one ship at a time".

This key concept means that a character who is new can spec into a single ship, focus on that ship and fly it really well in a relatively short timeframe (that is to say, within the timeframe you might expect from EVE Online).

The character that has been training skillpoints nonstop for 6 years will have a lot of options (ships weapons and mods) available to them but receives diminishing returns on the time they invest into higher ranks of skills (rank 1 of a skill might take 10 minutes and give a 5% bonus... rank 5 of the same skill will take 25 days and only give an additional 5% bonus).

I think that introducing set classes into Planetside 2 will further reduce the skillpoint gap because it could be set up so that the skills you've trained in the heavy assault tree won't give you bonuses when you're playing as an engineer.

You can only fly one ship at a time in EVE, you can only play one class at a time in PS2.

Tikuto · 2011-07-12, 12:26 PM

Regardless what is said here, may I just point out fairness of an MMOFPS is key for persistence, acceptance and generally all-round enjoyment.

Where balance contributes to fairness through statistics, control also contributes to fairness through distribution. Think about that.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-12, 12:28 PM

I too dislike the idea of any form of power differential being added in.

The only thing I think it's acceptable to do that would be for squad-leader bonuses. That one is predictable, fairly easy to balance provided its the only modifiers, and you as a player can do something about that bonus by killing the squad leader. Also that is a bonus that extends to everyone - even the non-high rank players can benefit from a squad leader bonus so that one won't hurt newbies much (if at all) and encourage squad teamwork.

I like the idea of having alternate characteristics where you have tradeoffs. For example, trading top speed for more maneuverability. Or trading rate of fire for damage. Those are acceptable provided the changes aren't drastic and the effective dps remains the same.

Its a very slippery slope when you start giving advanced players more combat bonuses than non-advanced players. It's easy to over-do it and it creates a balancing nightmare.

The other thing I dislike about it is the multiplicative nature of these things. They might say they only want a 15-20% power differential, but in order for that to be the case the bonuses would need to be insignificant because many will multiply with each other.

For example, 5% more health from a squad leader, 5% more damage, 5% more speed, and 5% more rate of fire. How much of a power differential is that? Way more than 20%. Even if you sum up all the bonuses of the same type they still interact with each other. You can't easily quantify the effects of 5% more health or 5% more speed because both will lead to increased survivability, while any dps bonuses will lead to increased lethality. Combine them both and you have a huge advantage over someone else. The only way they could retain their desired goal of 15-20% is if those power bonuses were on the order of 1% or less across the board.

I would really like them to scrap all concept of power differential apart from leadership-related effects. The idea of morale and leadership bonus is great and you can keep all the numbers from mulitplying so you can provide significant and a tangible benefit to the squad leader and encourage players to stay near them and support their objectives.

Volw · 2011-07-12, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

quote

They won't scrap it because players do want to feel progression.

Pshield, rexo and HA with med+eng certs is certinaly more than 20% when compared against BR5 player.

Also, don't forget new players will ALWAYS be wiped, even if given the same gear as they are inexperienced. Luckily, PS is not about 1v1, so even 'gimped' noobs should be able to do well if they teamwork.

Logit · 2011-07-12, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

They won't scrap it because players do want to feel progression.

Pshield, rexo and HA with med+eng certs is certinaly more than 20% when compared against BR5 player.

Also, don't forget new players will ALWAYS be wiped, even if given the same gear as they are inexperienced. Luckily, PS is not about 1v1, so even 'gimped' noobs should be able to do well if they teamwork.

I'm not saying the idea needs to be scrapped. I'm well aware that the game is going to need more content to stay at a massive scale.

My main concern is that the progression is going to be too much of an advantage to the point where seasoned players will be simply too strong at some point, which is going to create problems.

Having tons of cert points in the original meant you could have more stuff on you, but it certainly didn't make your gun faster, stronger, or give your vehicles more armor and speed.

Volw · 2011-07-12, 01:00 PM

Yeah, but as I said - progression is there already. Pshield, rexo and HA. You need at least BR12 (guessing here) to match that. Also adding med and eng certs increases the chances of BR25 being fully repaired and healed up.

Also we have specialisations this time around.

So a new player will be able to specialise into, say MAX tree fairly quickly - they are using EVE as an inspiration and it's quite common in there to have a fairly new player perform critical functions in battles when specialised properly.

There is no way to balance the game to prevent noobs from being farmed. Smart newbie will join an outfit, learn the game and I can promise you, he won't be farmed even with vastly inferior gear.

Rbstr · 2011-07-12, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Logit

Having tons of cert points in the original meant you could have more stuff on you, but it certainly didn't make your gun faster, stronger, or give your vehicles more armor and speed.

But it did mean you could have self healing capability, situational weapons and implants that provide and enormous advantage compared to the poor noob that can only take HA + agile + basic medic or something with one of no implants (and I do forget the exact cert costs)

Personally I prefer the skills that directly effect weapons/hp and the like to mostly require tradeoffs. You get a more powerful rocket but lose the tracking capability. A longer range, higher damage rifle but lose ROF and ammo capacity.
I think then the command skills should be mostly secondary effects, radar rbonuses or enemy radar obfuscation. Orbital supply drops. Enhanced support class functionality. Perhaps minor combat bonuses.

Experienced players should hold certain advantages...but, just like EVE, a couple of noobs in 100million isk of ships can down a billion isk ship piloted by an old player with proper planning and coordination. It happens every day.

Logit · 2011-07-12, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

But it did mean you could have self healing capability, situational weapons and implants that provide and enormous advantage compared to the poor noob that can only take HA + agile + basic medic or something with one of no implants (and I do forget the exact cert costs)

Personally I prefer the skills that directly effect weapons/hp and the like to mostly require tradeoffs. You get a more powerful rocket but lose the tracking capability. A longer range, higher damage rifle but lose ROF and ammo capacity.
I think then the command skills should be mostly secondary effects, radar rbonuses or enemy radar obfuscation. Orbital supply drops. Enhanced support class functionality. Perhaps minor combat bonuses.

Experienced players should hold certain advantages...but, just like EVE, a couple of noobs in 100million isk of ships can down a billion isk ship piloted by an old player with proper planning and coordination. It happens every day.

I have zero experience with EVE, so I'm having a hard time comparing it to Planetside.

Again, obviously progression needs to be in the game. If these kind of trade-offs are the only bonuses than it would be fine. But I don't believe thats how it is with the way the quote is worded in the original post.