Factional Weapons Cause Faction Pop Imbalance?

[GreatMazinkaise]

Well, it's been mentioned that TR have greater "hip-firing" (misnomer) accuracy than the other two factions, so one could assume that those who favor moving while shooting will primarily play TR.

The stationary turret players will of course prefer NC for better headshots. Those who favor versatility and interesting vehicle movement over an illusion of masculinity will prefer the VS.

So to the OPs questions:
1. Only if you're playing TR /troll
2. Almost certainly.

[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.

[Littleman]

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?

We don't know. Low, medium, and high tell us nothing of how precisely the weaponry performs in actual practice, and I'm not going to gauge each weapon's worth by what we see in videos. Furthermore, each weapon has a different modifier on head shots last I heard. Chainguns and shotguns for example won't have any head shot modifiers.

And for the record (to those whom it may concern,) head shot capability wasn't a concern in PS1 because there was no existence of head shots in PS1, and the Gauss was only beast compared to the cycler because of the rexo armor buff during PS1's early days. The MA were all very balanced vs rexo armors before that update.

[Greenthy]

Balance in an asymmetric way is fairy tail though.

It's all just perceptions. For example:
Can you deal with being fodder up close and very lethal long range ?

I'm not pleading to make symmetric games, as those are just boring.
I'm merely hoping the community will accept the fact that assymetric means one or the other will be better at one or the other situation. And it is these moments that people will come to a forum and call: "NERF, i just got splattered up close, i got a 70% loss rate in that situation" while at long range it turns around.

[Xyntech]

Based on the first Planetside, I'm not too worried about this. The VS were often underpopulated, but it never was really a problem, and the population imbalances were rarely very drastic.

If there are obvious problems in beta, I'm sure some things can be tweaked around, but I don't see this being too problematic.

Remember also that there will be customization options. My guess is that the NC and VS will be able to push their customization options to the extreme and make their guns perform very similarly to the default TR guns, while the TR will only be able to slightly improve the TR specific aspects of their base guns. So the TR will still always have the potential for the highest rate of fire and the NC will always have the highest potential for shot for shot damage, but through customization the other empires will be able to get close enough that it won't be that big of a deal.

It will just be easier for a TR gun to have high rates of fire, and it will be easier for NC guns to pack a larger initial punch. You will get those styles by default and wont have to work to modify them that way.

The only area where I'm not sure how well this will translate are the faction specific vehicles like the Magrider and Scythe controlling so differently or the Prowler and Vanguard being such different sizes. In the end, I think there will always be a certain amount of inescapable faction uniqueness, but I don't think it will extend too far into things like head shots with sniper rifles.

[ThermalReaper]

I don't think anyone but the E3 players(Even then that information could be wrong) would have the right answers. So the only point of reference is Planetside 1, which some people claim that it was balanced.

[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).

[Forsaken One]

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.

Main problem. There is now headshots.

When you add headshots the weapon that can kill the fastest via headshots is the auto winner.

NC gauss will have high power+high accuracy = best for killing with headshots.= best midrange gun.

Fun fact is most of you will brush this off but its the truth.

Go play any F2P FPS. what is pretty much everyone who has items useing? (counting guns only not explosives.) is it the p90? or is it the high power+high accuracy guns?

combat arms= g36 and sniper rifles
^^ just to name one as an example.


Then to add to this the NC get the "high powered sniper" and super powered shotgun for CQC

[Destroyeron]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Those who favor versatility and interesting vehicle movement over an illusion of masculinity will prefer the VS.

I argue against it being an "illusion."

[WVoneseven]

If you're in TF2 playing scout and run into a small room with an enemy pyro chances are you're cooked. Yes in TF2 you can have another pyro on your team but that's hardly a counter.
Afghanistan today you have US, AUS, UK forces with 5.56×45mm M16, AUG, SA80 in combat with Taliban mostly carting Kalashnikovs in a larger caliber. The NATO force arms are more accurate with less punch and the AK varients have a larger round but are more brutish. Only real source of imbalance between forces has more to do with armor, training and circumstance.
PS2 can be just like that with no problems at all. If NC find it harder to aim due to power (AK variant) they will miss their important high damage shots if they aren't good. While if a TR doesn't learn how to manage his ammo (5.56NATO) he'll run out just at the wrong time and end up dead. Same goes for Vanu as if they can't learn to aim for the chest and allow recoil to put shots through the center of mass they will just not do the damage they need (remember so far they can rely on recoil like this as their weaps are more accurate where as if NC relied on recoil to carry their cross hair they would spray wildly.)

TL/DR: It'll be fine. Chill yo beans. Easier to go asymmetrical than you might think.

[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.

[Moofasah]

Wait....This game isn't about 1v1 encounters. If you're caught with your pants down 1v1, you lose.

If you're trying to ninja a tower and you're VS, and the other guy who just spawned is NC, then you should know that he may have a jackhammer. Keep your distance.

Alternatively, that NC has to be right in your face for that jackhammer to be effective.

Assuming you both know what your minimap is and both use it, you are on fair terms.

THAT is the balance. You adapt your play style to suit the situation you are in.

With that said, this game is NOT about YOU. This game is about your EMPIRE. Your power comes with your numbers and your teamwork. None of that 1v1 shit matters if you are coordinating with a group of people.

[Spiritbeast]

it's like playing starcaft 2, each race in SC2 has different tricks/abilities/units (tossincebirth) but they all play the game with the same goal...kill the other dude. In PS2 it's similair, u choose an empire and recieve all the ups and downs that come with it. So YES u have to choose your empire based on what type of gameplay each offers.

The only difference is in PS2 u can tweak your standard empire weapons, by purchasing different weapon variants, and switching weapon components. I think this will just be a bonus though, allowing u to build on your empires strengths or lessen their weaknesses, but still wont allow u to reach the performance of your enemy empire's standard weapons... A TR weapon is always going to perform within 20% range of the base TR weapon model, and a VS weapon will always perform within 20% range of a base VS weapon model.
...choose wisely ; P

[SergeantNubins]

Also the stuff above about high damage v rate of fire etc etc It makes no difference, the first shot out the barrel is accurate, and thats the one thats going to be headshotting for skilled players, after that its down to even higher levels of skill to get the 2nd, 3rd, 4th on target etc.

It's like in counterstrike - Ct's & Ts have different weapons.. AK47 Vs M4 - m4 is weaker per shot damage, faster rate of fire and less recoil, ak47 is high damage, lower rate of fire and more recoil, but i dont think anyone say that game was imbalanced? people just adapted their style to suit the gun they were using.

You also seem to be looking at this from the relatively small fps games that are the current flavour.. in those games its easier for a skilled layer to control the engagement and the environment, the maps are smaller and there are less oponents to worry about. That's not likely to be the case in ps2, with 2000 players on the map, you will find it very hard to control your environment and choose your engagements, other people will find you, either by accident or on purpose and so you will need to be versatile and not just rely on mid distance headshots all the time.

It's also amazing that people are already claiming the NC are imbalanced before anyone has even played the bloody game!

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Moofasah

Wait....This game isn't about 1v1 encounters. If you're caught with your pants down 1v1, you lose.

Quoted for blindingly obvious truth. There will be circumstances where your skill, whatever you think that might be, will carry you through. There will be circumstances where you are in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong weapon. This is designed to be true across all factions. Whether they hit it or not, we'll just have to see.