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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Electrofreak]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

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?

Controlling OP alert.

[Pyreal]

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)

For my part I have chosen VS because of their advanced nature. I'm a syfy buff and I like shooting lasers.

[Akadios]

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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

Honestly I agree that it wasn't an issue when you consider the overall battlefield. However that is different than the personal combat experience issue.
Take a Vanu and an NC in this situation. They round the corner are face to face and both react just as fast. The NC has the Jackhammer setup for 3 shot burst and the Vanu has the Lasher. Who wins if they both aim just as well? The NC every time.

It is these little things that exist throughout Planetside 1 that make certain people "match-up" better with certain empires. It isn't about unbalanced or overpowered just different. (If they were looking at each other from 50 meters down a hall the lasher should win (unless the NC had a Gauss too but that is a different issue)).