Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: Home of the most rejected quotes...
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #1 | ||
Private
|
I liked NC the best. I liked their reason for fighting, and the harder hitting weapons sounded like my play style.
Kevin Moyer Dev http://www.planetside2.com/news/dev-...vin-moyer-2012 |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #3 | ||
Private
|
Having played PS1 for a few years first as NC then as VS, its important to listen what the devs are saying.
Now? Hmmm a dev posts the NC have harder hitting weapons and you just hope it isn't a big deal? I ask to enquire. If it's not a buff explain the relationship to the MCG & Lasher. By raising the question, I hope rather to be told by devs what the trade off is. Do for example VS get accuracy and the TR rate of fire. Perhaps devs might explain how they factor damage. Point is, it is legitimate to ask what is meant by this. Frankly, the NC had the loudest voice in PS1 and generally got what they wanted. Let's recall the Lasher debacle. So far from being alarmist I'm seeking an understanding from the devs why it shouldn't be considered a buff. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #4 | ||
Staff Sergeant
|
An unbalanced game is a soon to be unpopular game. SOE knows this, they will strive to balance the game the best they can. I think they're doing a good job so far sticking to the balance of PS1. Will NC have harder hitting weapons and more armor? yes, but that is only part of the story. Not everything can be put in a bar graph at this point in time of development. Maybe we'll see that NC come up short when it comes to their AOE weapons -- where the Vanu will shine... and will carry less ammo and be empty long before the Terrans.
tl;dr - Wait until beta before you judge too harshly |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #5 | |||
Private
|
It's a quotation from a dev, not my supposition. PS1 lost a lot of players precisely because it became unbalanced. The NC voice complaining about the lasher absolutely was an example of braying hard enough for long enough to get what you want. The schisms that caused in PS1. Hence my point inquiring from devs - i.e. hoping they will put the comment in context. Whether one calls it a buff or OP the outcome is the same in such an instance Malorn. I repeat that it was a dev's comment about "harder hitting weapons" - I have every right to query that comment, precisely as it implies a relatively greater advantage. So let the dev give the context, explain factoring if he may. But don't deny the right to query it as a buff / OP weapon if that is a reasonable conclusion to draw from a dev's stated comment. Thank you Erendil, that seems nicely reducted and explanative. Last edited by biertrappist; 2012-04-19 at 11:59 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #6 | |||
Major General
|
as for the relation between the lasher and the MCG, they're both HA and their packets go awol all the time? |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #7 | |||
First Lieutenant
|
Generally-speaking:
VS Accuracy = A Recoil (Burst Fire) = A Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = A Rate of Fire = B Damage Per Shot = B Damage over Range (Degradation) = C TR Accuracy = B Recoil (Burst Fire) = A Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = C Rate of Fire = A Damage Per Shot = C Damage over Range (Degradation) = B NC Accuracy = B Recoil (Burst Fire) = C Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = A Rate of Fire = C Damage Per Shot = A Damage over Range (Degradation) = B __________________ Last edited by Erendil; 2012-04-19 at 11:57 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #8 | ||
I'm not actually quoting anything specific but I noticed your signature and finally thought I would say something lol.
Because it's a Magrider and how they move, you would have full 360 degree rotation already because of the hovering mechanic. Moving the main turret up would just make it look awkward in my opinion. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to look one way and travel in another without a problem like the other tanks do, it'll just look a bit different from the outside perspective. To kinda keep this on topic, I like your colored chart you made ![]()
__________________
![]() Last edited by Saieno; 2012-04-19 at 11:59 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #9 | ||||
First Lieutenant
|
Since the Mag is the VS's primary ground assault vehicle, if the Devs don't design it to compensate well enough for the fixed cannon it could severely gimp the entire empire. But I have confidence that they can build the Mag to be a fairly competitive MBT using a fixed-forward cannon. My sig is there as much to keep the issue in everyone's mind as it is to show my own personal preference for its design. I get quite a number of comments about it, which tells me my ploy is working. ![]() Oh, and thanks on the chart compliment. ![]()
Using "High" was what the PCGUK article did and it caused more confusion among people on these boards. The article's graph had high/medium/low corresponding to the colors red/orange/yellow. So for example it showed the NC having "high/red" damage per shot, but it also showed the VS had "high/red" recoil. That was confusing for many because we know from other sources that NC have the highest damage per shot which corresponds with the high/red setting, but the VS have the least amount of recoil, but yet the graph said it was "high." But what is "high" recoil? Does it mean it has a high amount of recoil? Or that it's "high" quality of recoil - i.e. not very much? That made people wonder for every setting if "high" meant "a high amount of" or if it meant "high quality." The values of High/Med/Low can be easily interpreted to mean either a quantitative measurement of amplitude or a qualitative one of desirability, and the PCGUK graph used those meanings interchangeably. OTOH Grades A/B/C for most people generally mean only qualitative desirability, so there's less room for misinterpretation. EDIT: incidentally, which TR/NC values on my graph appeared to be incorrect for you? Was it recoil or something else? Last edited by Erendil; 2012-04-20 at 01:01 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
[Ignore Me] #10 | |||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
Here's the conversion VS Accuracy = High Recoil (Burst Fire) = High Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High Rate of Fire = Med Damage Per Shot = Med Damage over Range (Degradation) = Low TR Accuracy = Med Recoil (Burst Fire) = High Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = Low Rate of Fire = High Damage Per Shot = Low Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med NC Accuracy = Med Recoil (Burst Fire) = Low Recoil (Sustained/continuous fire) = High Rate of Fire = Low Damage Per Shot = High Damage over Range (Degradation) = Med |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #12 | |||
Ok, so correct me if I have this wrong, but I am attempting to "rate" the ratings, empire-wide, to get an over all "score"... Ill use your quote, and mark my understanding in bracket/bold off to the left. Then at the end sum up for a score.
Good = 3 Decent = 2 Bad = 1
So, VS10, TR12, NC12, unless I missed something. Edit: First order of business for me, is to sidegrade into getting recoil under control, since VS weapons may be frustrating... Especially since accuracy should be most helpful at range, but where damage is the least. I wonder how long it takes for the recoil to trump the accuracy... will be interesting. I think I will need to gravitate to an "NC-style Pusar"...
__________________
![]() Kein Plan überlebt die erste Feindberührung. Res ad triarios venit... μολὼν λαβέ! Last edited by Grognard; 2012-04-20 at 01:40 AM. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #13 | |||
First Lieutenant
|
If you try my graph and use the following values: A = 3 points B = 2 points C = 1 point You get the following: VS = 14 TR = 12 NC = 12 I guess it all depends on how to interpret the recoil ratings. I'm more inclined to believe my graph since it makes no sense to give energy weapons the worst recoil. They should have next to none since their projectiles have little to no mass and rely instead on things like heat-transfer from high-energy particle/plasma, etc to damage their targets. Plus the PS2 official site explicitly stated the Beamer anyway has little to no recoil. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #14 | |||
First Lieutenant
|
The MCG unloaded 13 rounds before it's CoF started blooming (unless the soldier got hit), that to me is an example of an A burst fire rating. Yours says TR have a "high" for burst fire recoil, implying that it's bad when it's exactly the opposite. On average the TR weaponry had better burst fire values then the other two empires. The Cycler shot 6 rounds before affecting the CoF while the Pulsar shot 4 and the Gauss an impressive 3. The Lasher and JH bloomed on the first shot, but the JH fired so slowly that it's CoF was almost closed before the next shot and the Lasher recovered it's aim better then the MCG but still over time the CoF bloomed more then the JH. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|