Factional Weapons Cause Faction Pop Imbalance?

[Pyreal]

There are Two Main questions that are underlined.

Vanu Sovereignty Weapons:
Accuracy: High
Recoil: High (Burst and Sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: Medium

Terran Republic Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium
Recoil: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
ROF: High
DPShot: Low

New Conglomerate Weapons:
Accuracy: Medium (High burst, Low sustained)
Recoil:Medium (Low burst, High sustained)
ROF: Low
DPShot: High


There will be numerous trade-offs for Vehicles as well.

Look at the NC: High accuracy, low initial recoil and high damage. Its the Holy Grail for players who like to aim for the head!
If a player wants to be a Sniper or focus on CQC, will he be labeled a scrub because they aren't playing the side that offers the factional weapon bonuses most well suited to the task?

Will my personal skill make the difference in winning a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

If I am quicker and more accurate than my opponent, but I die because of a difference in counterpart weapons, I don't see how I won't be pissed off.

I am not a proponent of homogenization (particularly in RPGs), but I don't see how faction based mechanical differences in weapons will work in a modern styled MMOFPS.

I've played a few FPS and one thing that is always formost in players minds is fairness and balance in weapons. You can't give one side a weapon that is situationally better and not have the other side in an uproar.

PS1 vets will likely expect factional weapon differences, however, your average FPS player will expect a level playing field as regards weapons.

I can't seem to realized the piece of the puzzle that I'm sure I am missing, it must be there because there are a lot of intelligent people Developing this game who know a lot more than I do...


So saying that, help me solve this dilemma...

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?


TL;DR= Factional weapon differences will cause players to (QQ) gravitate to factions based on weapon performance.

[metziih]

If enemies aren't dying fast enough, then you and your friends aren't shooting fast enough.

Solution for any possibly balance issue; TR needs more dakka.

[Pyreal]

Originally Posted by metziih

If enemies aren't dying fast enough, then you and your friends aren't shooting fast enough.

You have failed to comprehend what was written.

[Destroyeron]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

You have failed to comprehend what was written.

And your coming off as a bit of an ass.

[Littleman]

What Metziih said was pretty much true though:

Going up against the TR is much akin playing a Bullet-Hell arcade game.

Aiming helps, but their weapons really were designed to pepper an area and kill people with a LOT of rounds to spare in the magazine. Over half of the Republic's army graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy. The rest from Selection.

[Pyreal]

Originally Posted by Littleman

What Metziih said was pretty much true though:

Going up against the TR is much akin playing a Bullet-Hell arcade game.

Aiming helps, but their weapons really were designed to pepper an area and kill people with a LOT of rounds to spare in the magazine. Over half of the Republic's army graduated from the Imperial Stormtrooper Academy. The rest from Selection.

Metziih failed to read and/or understand for the simple reason that you can't 'shoot faster' when your weapon has a ROF limit.

I asked a serious question in the clearest manner I could. He flapped his yap.
He may be a fine fellow, but his post was asinine.


Can we please focus on the two underlined questions?

Will personal skill make the difference in a 1v1 encounter, or will the factional trade-offs of the counterpart weapons be the deciding factor?

Will Factional differences lead to pigeonholing of play styles and imbalanced factional populations?

[Absentis]

The first question depends more on how well weapons are balanced, such as a TR and NC firing at each other and both dying at the same time if all rounds hit. This is something that will more or less have to be based on beta and if the devs want to make each faction have their niche strong point (ie. TR for long range, VS for medium range, NC for short range). Essentially, you choose between specializing or being a jack of all trades but a master of none.

As for population imbalance, qualities of each faction will make a difference based on the individual's playstyle. Just like how in games like BF3 you can end up with a team of mostly recons, you will end up with a lot of snipers on the faction that specializes in long range. So to answer your question, yes, empires will tend to pigeonhole people based on playstyles.

I wouldn't be too worried about population imbalances though since there will be a system to give under-populated empires an advantage; thus giving a motive for people to end up balancing empires out based on people wanting those advantages given to the underdog.

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by metziih

If enemies aren't dying fast enough, then you and your friends aren't shooting fast enough.

Solution for any possibly balance issue; TR needs more dakka.

^^^^^
That was obviously not being serious. Those of you treating it as such are morons.

I think the factions will be fairly easily balanced, when you're choosing a faction you just have to know what kind of player you are in terms of the guns you like using. It requires a little bit of self awareness that many probably not possess.

Hopefully what they'll do in that regard is allow for certs that enhance certain aspects of how your gun functions, so that if you find you're playing NC and the guns just don't fire quite fast enough for you, that you can help your gun along with that (at the cost of them doing more damage, or having less recoil, or a better scope, etc).

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Aside from the HA weapons and Scatt Max, there wasn't much unbalanced about the faction specific stuff in the first game. Also this time with the side grades you can make your TR/VS weapon similar, but not all the way, to an NC weapon.

[Fek]

Did you know PS1 existed successfully for about 7 years before MW2 came out and all fps developers suddenly lost the skill of creating asymmetric balance?

[Pyreal]

Originally Posted by Fek

Did you know PS1 existed successfully for about 7 years before MW2 came out and all fps developers suddenly lost the skill of creating asymmetric balance?

Successful is subjective.
If you are stating it was successful as any game may be successful (good reviews, good sales, playerbase and persistence), I would ask why does Higby refer to PS2 as a 'reboot' of PS?
It's because it was ahead of its time and did not reach its potential of success, that is, it wasn't truly successful.

Do you understand the term 'modern day FPS'?

Assuming that balance within a three way x four factors is even possible, please define 'asymmetric balance' as it applies to PS1 and more importantly, modern day FPSs and their playerbase.

[Littleman]

Depends...

If the first few rounds from any weapon remain tight, I imagine they all would be effective at head shots when firing in bursts. As far as I know, shielding might not have locational damage values though.

We need to play first. What is put down on paper more often than not is very different in practice, especially when the values we have to go by are as vague as low, medium, and high.

The concept of the cycler in PS1 was sound, RoF over power, but between the rexo buff and only firing a single extra round over the Pulsar and Gauss before bloom kicked in, it fell behind the other two in short term killing power, though it's long term killing power was unmatched. It tore up Maxes, mosquitoes and reavers faster than the other two rifles with AP rounds.

In the Pulsar's defense, it was ultra efficient switching between AP and AI rounds. As for the gauss rifle, only those with nothing else to fill the extra space would carry gold ammo.

Thing is, most infantry engagements required short term killing power.

This time around however, armor works differently and the weapons are deadlier. Just watching the videos, faster as well. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Vydofnir]

Originally Posted by Littleman

If the first few rounds from any weapon remain tight, I imagine they all would be effective at head shots when firing in bursts. As far as I know, shielding might not have locational damage values though.

We need to play first. What is put down on paper more often than not is very different in practice, especially when the values we have to go by are as vague as low, medium, and high.

Littleman is right. having not played the game yet, the best we can do is discuss the various aspects of faction specific weapons in relative and overly simplified terms. We have no idea how drastically each of these values varies from faction to faction, nor do we fully grasp the subtleties of how these values will interact with other game mechanics.

We know very little about how game mechanics like regenerative shields and headshots will ultimately work in this game, and what we do know is subject to change at any time. Considering that there are 6 classes ranging from LA to MAX and all the different combat situations you could find yourself involved in, you have a better chance of looking out your window to predict what the weather will be like in a year from today than you do of predicting exactly how the weapons will behave when we get our hands on them in beta. Let alone the fact that by the time we finish beta testing, the exact mechanics of any given weapon are likely to have changed significantly from when we started, and will be tweaked through updates even after release.

We have just enough information about the differences between factional weapons to make a relatively informed decision about what faction fits our preferred playstyle. Not everyone is solely interested in dominating. Some of us are looking for a challenge, and some of us will look to make our playstyles fit our weapons choices rather than the other way around.

I'm very happy that the developers have made the choice to create three factions with distinct weapons, and I can't help but think of the design challenges presented by the original Starcraft. Putting an emphasis on asymmetrical balancing makes a game designer's job that much harder, but I have no doubt that the development team is up for the challenge.

[Akadios]

I totally agree with OP. They did say that they wanted each faction to almost feel like you were playing a different game. I think that people will definitely switch empire based on weapon performance.

My entire outfit and our related clans in bf3 and halo are planning on making a final empire choice when we see what weapons fit our needs. This equates into 42 people currently in limbo to choose sides for this exact reason.

(I'm not saying if I think it is good or not just that I think it will happen)

[Electrofreak]

Originally Posted by Akadios

I totally agree with OP. They did say that they wanted each faction to almost feel like you were playing a different game. I think that people will definitely switch empire based on weapon performance.

My entire outfit and our related clans in bf3 and halo are planning on making a final empire choice when we see what weapons fit our needs. This equates into 42 people currently in limbo to choose sides for this exact reason.

(I'm not saying if I think it is good or not just that I think it will happen)

I think it's funny how people can worry over this when it never really was an issue in 9 years of PlanetSide.

People have all sorts of play styles, but there's also room in every faction for people of any play style because of the existence of common pool weapons and vehicles. Also, a surprising number of people adapt to the play style of their empire.