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.

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)

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.

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 ?

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?

Rothnang · 2013-02-26, 05:15 AM

Well, one thing to note is that asians do play with a hell of a lot more organization than westerners on average. Not to say they do it better, they just do it more.
So, if we complain about zergs just steamrolling everything on the western servers, it's probably way way worse on theirs.

In MMOs that are intenational the guilds that will kick your ass relentlessly by having both large numbers and good organization on their side are almost always Russian or Chinese.

ChipMHazard · 2013-02-26, 05:17 AM

Rubbish, besides also contradicting his own point about balancing for large scale engagements while also giving each soldier more firepower.
SOE is trying to balance according to large scale combat, the problems arise from bad design choices; making vehicles and aircraft focused on multirole, lacking base design, lack of metagame features (I define this as "why?").
What I would like to see is more defined roles for all vehicles and aircraft, more infantry based bases/maps, an actual reason to fight over territory, proper bonus to the underdog faction and more.

ChipMHazard · 2013-02-26, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Rubbish, besides also contradicting his own point about balancing for large scale engagements while also giving each soldier more firepower.
SOE is trying to balance according to large scale combat, the problems arise from bad design choices; making vehicles and aircraft focused on multirole, lacking base design, lack of metagame features (I define this as "why?").
What I would like to see is more defined roles for all vehicles and aircraft, more infantry based bases/maps, an actual reason to fight over territory, proper bonus to the underdog faction and more.

Originally Posted by Figment

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.

It's possible that something was lost in the translation.

He does complain about the tank's durability, however making them more durable would only make the current issues worse. They would have to make sure that fewer of them are fielded, which a lot would argue is something they have to do either way. Yet he also complains about tanks not having an advantage in moblity or firepower.
It would make more sense if he meant that everything is too easy to destroy, but it's hard to tell. Might be missing some context here.