How SOE have failed to balance the game properly and the real reason behind it

stargazer093 · 2013-02-25, 11:35 PM

PS: This post isn`t by me, it`s from some guy in Chinese community, I merely translate it because the content really is interesting

so here it starts:

Ok, so we all know that currently, the game`s balance suck. This happens because SOE is balancing the game via a cycle of nerfing everything until everything become suck so they are balanced. For example, infantry is just weak atm, they don`t feel like 27th century infantry at all. Yet, why so many people are still complaining about infantry being too strong? Answer: because at the moment, tanks and ESFs suck ball. For tank, it can be taken out by a couple of RPG shot from HA behind rocks, and it does not have any significant advantage on firepower and mobility. It simply doesn`t feel like a modern day tank at all. As for ESFs, the speed and the handling and the armor, facing a sea of AA, need to say more?

A simple solution would be just stop this nerfing and then nerfing cycle, and start to actually make everything more powerful, let the players who use them FEEL the satisfaction of using them. This, of course would create some short-term balancing shitstorm, but in long-term, players will have more fun when using something strong and powerful to fight against something else that is also strong and powerful, and SOE can sell more weapons and other stuffs because players will be more willing to purchase stuffs too. Plus, considering SOE have done the opposite every since day one, I seriously doubt that they can`t handle this one.

But, why SOE has done this at the first place? Now we are talking. The real reason why they failed to balance the game properly is because they had choose the wrong MATHEMATIC MODEL for massive warfare. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the arch-villain behind everything!

What is the goal of Planetside 2? Crown? Spawn Farming? Tank spam? NO! The purpose of Planetside 1 and Planetside 2 is massive warfare and massive warfare alone! Can`t you see that on the subtitle? "Size Always Matter". Yes, the single and only goal and purpose and characteristic that make Planetside 2 is its beautiful, prolong, and heart-shaking massive warfare in huge maps. It is what SOE had planned all-long, from engine to map (let not talk about base design atm...plz) to class to everything are made for it. HOWEVER, SOE has failed to realize one thing, different size in war will lead to different type of mathematic model.

Throughout the history, there has been two different type of mathematic models for simulating war: Lanchester's laws and Monte Carlo method. Lanchester's laws is for determine strengh/number relationship in large scale warfares, focus on macroscopic level of war. Monte Carlo method is for simulate small scale tactical firefight, focus more on microscopic level, on each single soldier. Both models are completely different from one another. Planetside 2 is massive warfare so obviously it should be based on Lanchester`s Laws, and small scale firefight such as BF, Cod, CS or other stuffs on Monte Carlo method. Since they are based on different models, they should have different notion and direction on balance. The key for BF3`s balance lay on each classes` individual performances, so the small scale firefight can go like the developers expected. HOWEVER, Planetside 2 is completely different in term of scale of warfare, so the key of balance is the NUMBER of soldiers participated, NOT the individual performances. In Lanchester`s Laws it is the number of soldiers that lead to strengths. Without balancing the number of soldiers in the field first, other things simply DOES NOT matter that much, it is like doing sculptures in a boat during a thunderstorm, there is no way anything can work properly!

So the fact have spoken, SOE got the mathematic model wrong in the first place. They are so busy making PS2 an e-sport to earn fast cash, so they spend their limit time and effort on balancing individual performances of classes and equipment while neglect completely the most important aspect of this game: number of players. The result is obvious, the more they balanced, the more the players got pissed off, thus more and more quit, because they didn`t balance what they are supposed to balance, all they had done is to balance for small scale firefight. The thing is, as they balance more, what they have done is in fact, destroying the whole reason that made Planetside 2 attractive to players, so they would stay in game and keep playing!

Sadly, SOE doesn`t seem to have realize the seriousness of this, they still believe that they should go to the direction of Monte Carlo method, they are still struggling on those so-called balance, which are in fact small things that will immediately become neglectable when there is enough number of soldiers on a large enough battlefield, and they are still nerfing those that actually make the players to stay. This is a cycle, a bad one. The more they nerf (balance, they call it), the less the players. The less the players, the less the large scale battles. The less the large scale battles, the more small scale firefights. Finally, the more the small scale firefights, the more the complains about the small, nearly useless things were directed to SOE, so they start the nerf cycle once more. If they keep doing this, one day the server will simply be empty. At last, game over, literally.

CrazEpharmacist · 2013-02-25, 11:43 PM

Interesting read but not very specific in his examples. How exactly would they go about balancing it in regards to the Lanchester model? Maybe I'm just struggling to understand but nothing really comes to mind after reading that.

maradine · 2013-02-26, 12:08 AM

There's nothing to understand. OOP simultaneously wants to gratify the individual yet render his individual contribution meaningless.

stargazer093 · 2013-02-26, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by CrazEpharmacist

Interesting read but not very specific in his examples. How exactly would they go about balancing it in regards to the Lanchester model? Maybe I'm just struggling to understand but nothing really comes to mind after reading that.

In general what he means is that, since PS2 is a game about massive warfare, then the way they balance it should be around this term. However, SOE has putted too much efforts and time on those small things that aren't really related to it, which lead to lose of players and the reduce of the promised massive warfare. So in order to get the game back in track, SOE should have focus more on how to make massive warfare more viable, instead of tweak things that would simply become unnoticeable when there are massive amount of players.

Rbstr · 2013-02-26, 12:10 AM

I guess, if you want to simulate a bunch of 1v1s, you could do Monte Carlo simulations.
I fail to see what point beyond "Number of people is what matters most in PS2 outcomes" is.

(This is a great example of writing to the wrong audience. I bet 1/100 people that read this know what Monte Carlo even is. Also, the models shouldn't be completely different. If the monte carlo simulation is valid it should reduce to the larger theory at large scale)

Koadster · 2013-02-26, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I bet 1/100 people that read this know what Monte Carlo even is.

A yummy biscuit ?

RedKartel · 2013-02-26, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Also, the models shouldn't be completely different. If the monte carlo simulation is valid it should reduce to the larger theory at large scale

Well this is not always the case, models are builded with some parameters in mind, and when you push them out of they natural applications it might fail.

Monte Carlo model is based on interactions between two objects (microscopic interactions put together to generate the behaviour of the system). This kind of model can enhance local effects and lead to over or underestimate the behaviour at a larger scale but is very accurate at object scale.

Lanchester's model is based on macroscopic interaction between groups of objects, you cant see local effects but you can emulate pretty well the behaviour of the system at large scale.

For those who do some phase transition thermondynamic its the same comparison between Ising model (microscopic approach) and Landau model (macroscopic approach).

What this guy tryed to say (from what I've understood from the model comparison used there) is SOE need to balance trought a high statistical method and the not case by case method they've used until now.
The MBT balance is a good exemple as if they've only considered the K/D between MBT and not the overall K/D. So they lower a local effect (Magrider was to good in MBT vs MBT battle) but enhance other local effects (MBT acting differently after GU2 in their other roles) leading to a non desired overall system behaviour.

I hope this helped a bit.

PS: My thoughts on this balance issue is they'll never be able to have it perfect, consedering the astronomical amount of gameplays people have, using an approach or an other will always lead to frustation for some gamers.

Edited to avoid more confusions

Kerrec · 2013-02-26, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by RedKartel

...The MBT balance is a good exemple as they've only considered the K/D between MBT and not the overall K/D...

This is an error in your thinking. There is a difference between "only considering" one statistic, and only providing one statistic to the player base. Just because that is all the information we got doesn't mean that is all the information that was used to justify the changes that were made.

Even I can be wrong by stating the above, because neither of us know what information was used to make the decision.

You do no one a service by making unfounded allegations like the one above.

RedKartel · 2013-02-26, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

This is an error in your thinking. There is a difference between "only considering" one statistic, and only providing one statistic to the player base. Just because that is all the information we got doesn't mean that is all the information that was used to justify the changes that were made.

Even I can be wrong by stating the above, because neither of us know what information was used to make the decision.

You do no one a service by making unfounded allegations like the one above.

I've puted my thoughts on balance at the end of my post, this "allegation" is no more than an explanation of what I've understood from OP post and not random unproven fact throwing, my apologies if it looked like so.

psijaka · 2013-02-26, 04:02 AM

I once wasted 2 days of my life on a marketing course; the only worthwhile thing mentioned during the entire course was the application of Lanchester's laws to marketing!

Not quite sure what point the original OP is trying to get across, but Planetside 2 is an instance of where quantity does trump quality, to a large extent.

I suppose that SoE have been attempting to balance on a larger scale; take the recent example of the MBT balancing, where they compared overall K/D between the various MBTs. They've broadly got this right, although have overdone the Prowler slightly.

raw · 2013-02-26, 04:09 AM

ALIENS ABDUCTED SMEDLEY AND IMPLANTED SOMETHING INTO HIS BRAIN
NOW THEY CONTROL HIM TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD
PLANETSIDE 2 IS ALIEN TECHNOLOGY TO ENSLAVE HUMANKIND
WEAR YOUR TINFOIL HATS WITH PRIDE

P.S.: I am a physicist with a strong statistical background and OP is complete insanity.

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 04:24 AM

I don't find that post all that enlightening to be honest.

To me it says 2 things:

1. Buffing things is better than nerfing things.
2. Combat scale has to be reflected in the balance.

I don't agree that buffing things is better than nerfing things, because it's not the numbers that make something feel powerful, but the gameplay and its relationship to other units.

Combat scale does cause a lot of problems in this game currently, because a lot of things that are balanced in small scale combat, like lock on launchers turn utterly ridiculous in large scale combat. When AA guns were well balanced for large scale combat people cried two rivers about how they were too weak in small scale combat, now a single burster can deter a Liberator, but AA units in a 150 strong army can completely clear the skies. Yea, that's a huge problem with this game, but we need solutions, not metaphors for the issue.

Pella · 2013-02-26, 04:41 AM

The original author has no idea what he's talking about. And is a prime example of what the majority of the PS2 community.

The guy needs to stick to Star craft, Rather than being judgemental on a FPS.

Like common this stuff makes 0 sense. Mathematic MODEL What ever next.....

Thunderhawk · 2013-02-26, 05:01 AM

Just because something came from the Far East and talks about mathematics randomly associating it to game play doesn't mean it's right.

Figment · 2013-02-26, 05:03 AM

I'm not familiar with either model, though I think I catch his drift.

Take MBTs, they are being balanced for one on one MBT warfare, but not for usage in large groups of players in general. Feels to me he is talking about better balancing of manpower and wants to feel more powerful by having more endurance. I mean can't be more firepower.

Alternatively, he could simply be talking about getting the pops balanced.

It is difficult to understand without some proper examples. Did he give any?