The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by millo

Doesn't Battlefield: Bad Company 2 do something similar with Magnum ammo increasing bullet damage by 25%? It gave an edge but you could still kill people without it (and it was flat 25% straight to damage bonus). Of course the silly thing was that in the end everyone would use it above any other perk, but still it was a big deal just on some kind of weapon/server combination (M95+HC server----->oneshot kill to the chest). Also, if it's a rough figure of every bonus added (RoF, accuracy, magazine size, damage, dropoff, all combined), it would probably mean even less, especially if they set up the skill progression so you can close 80-90% of the gap in a couple weeks (a la EvE).

(see my previous post for activation question) Your comment here is dead-on to the activation question. If it works like BFBC2 there's not too much of an issue since no player can have everything at once - they have to pick and choose what they want to run with at any given moment. That captures specialization and customizing a character.

There's two ways they can do it. They can either give you all of the bonuses you unlock all the time (imagine having all of the BFBC2 gadgets at all times, so 25% damage, 25% armor, faster runspeed, better weapon handling, etc), OR they can do it the BFBC2 way where you have to make a choice about which bonuses you want and ranking up just opens up more possibilities.

The 25% damage one specifically was a good example of a poorly designed benefit. It was highly popular because it was one of the most useful bonuses. It helps you anytime you shoot, while the others tended to help you in a more limited capacity. Balancing the benefits themselves is a different mechanic discussion best saved for beta, but the overall design of how a player unlocks it and uses it is very much relevant at this time.

[millo]

Maybe they could go for a "mixed blessing" design type:

-Increased caliber (more damage, weapon kicks like a mule and is harder to control)
-Extended magazine (more ammo, heavier and harder to aim)
-Ammunition feed overdrive (faster RoF, weapon prone to random jams)
-Longer barrel (increased range, even heavier weapon)
and so on. You could use if you wanted all the mods at once, so you got a high damage, rapid firing, long distance firing weapon, but it would be horrible to fire even in short bursts, would jam randomly, slow you down while using it and so on...

Works with armor mods too (want more absorb? Sure, but you walk like a snail. Need increased protection from shrapnels? Lose some bullet resistance, and so on).

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by millo

Maybe they could go for a "mixed blessing" design type:

-Increased caliber (more damage, weapon kicks like a mule and is harder to control)
-Extended magazine (more ammo, heavier and harder to aim)
-Ammunition feed overdrive (faster RoF, weapon prone to random jams)
-Longer barrel (increased range, even heavier weapon)
and so on. You could use if you wanted all the mods at once, so you got a high damage, rapid firing, long distance firing weapon, but it would be horrible to fire even in short bursts, would jam randomly, slow you down while using it and so on...

Works with armor mods too (want more absorb? Sure, but you walk like a snail. Need increased protection from shrapnels? Lose some bullet resistance, and so on).

I mentioned this before, but I prefer positive only upgrades with choices. So you still have the drawback, but in the sense that you didn't choose it. That is there are limitations for weapons and vehicles on the upgrades with some that can't be used in combination with one another. So you could have say a shotgun or a grenade launcher (launches distance activated grenades) attachment, but not both. This was mentioned by the previous poster.

Complex rules for what is allowed in combination is fine with me honestly especially if the unlockables are complicated like my previous two examples.

Then again for a lot of things I don't want limits. Don't you still have limited certifications. If you want armor you might not have enough for upgraded speed on a vehicle and vice a verse. Or you could choose to get both and sacrifice using those certs for anything else. Basically ultra specialized players would end up most of their certs on one thing.

[TerminatorUK]

I really like the idea of trade-off bonuses with a slight penalty in another area...that's a system that has worked well in the past before. Otherwise there has to be a limitation to how many of these upgrades can be fielded at once.

[MasterChief096]

What people are not understanding is that you can have just as much specialization if not more specialization by having trade-offs instead of just raw power upgrades (no matter how small they might be).

I'll explain it again for the people who don't want to read all 12 pages of this thread.

If there are trade-offs, you could do things like:

1. Take your Guass Rifle and increase its damage by 20%. You could then decide what stats you want to minus 20% from. This could be -20% from one stat, or allocated amongst the stats you choose. For example you could take 10% from clip size, 10% from RoF. Or you could take 5% from clip size, 7% from RoF, and 8% from CoF. This would make your gun very unique to your character, as the different stat allocations you choose to put into it once you've unlocked the ability to do so would be extremely varied.

2. Same goes with vehicles. I'll use my Reaver example again. Lets say you want a Reaver with a primary purpose of swooping in and firing shit loads of missiles and then getting the hell out as fast as possible. To do this you would need speed, maneuverability, and a shit load of missiles. You could customize your Reaver to lose 25% damage in its rockets and 25% from its armor. You could then take that 50% and spread it out amongst speed, maneuverability, and possibly the amount of afterburner you have. You could increase your rocket-firing speed by 15%, your speed by 15%, your maneuverability by 15%, and the amount of afterburner you have by 5% (or however else you wish to configure it). Once again, your Reaver would be unique to you based on how you allocate your stats. It would be really awesome if there was an appearance change as well, such as your Reaver having smaller missiles and/or less armor.

I'm willing to make a compromise on things like attachments (such as scopes, fixed grenade launchers, flashlights etc). To me, those are like certs. Imagine if you could spend 1-2 cert points in PlanetSide to attach a grenade launcher to your Cycler for instance. Things like grenade launchers, scopes, flashlights, etc are the equivalent to versatility for a veteran, at least to me. So I don't mind if there are zero trade-offs for attaching a different scope/grenade launcher/flashlight to your gun, other than the fact that if you have a flashlight you won't be able to have a grenade launcher.

If you used a trade-off system you could do what one player in this thread mentioned earlier. He said he liked fast, hard hitting machine guns that have a crazy CoF bloom after the first 4-5 shots. Essentially you could add damage and RoF to your Cycler and sacrifice CoF bloom to get it.

IMO this system works better because you can create the weapons/vehicles YOU WANT and the changes are SIGNIFICANT, yet balanced. Instead of a 20% advantage at end-game that is so spread out you hardly notice it, you actually have weapons/vehicles that are vastly different from the weapons/vehicles of others. Your stat changes would actually have a large, noticeable difference on what you are using, but the trade-offs would make it so that its not super OP and can't be beaten.

Oh but a sense of character advancement is not there you say? How about actually gaining BR and unlocking the ability to customize your weapons in such extreme ways as character advancement? I'm sure new players would be like, "damn I wish I could have a super accurate MA rifle because that's my playstyle." With a trade-off system they could have that rifle, it would just wouldn't perform as well in extreme CQC. In an FPS character advancement relies less on the power of your character increasing and more on the options your character has (feel like we're beating a dead horse here), as it was in PlanetSide. Besides, a BR20 is going to have a 20% advantage over a BR1 based solely on the options he has anyways.

I still have yet to see someone argue the point that without power gains there would be zero sense of character advancement... To me that's just plain wrong. When I first started PlanetSide, every BR I felt like I was getting somewhere. I would just ITCH with anticipation when I knew that my next BR was going to give me enough cert points to get something that I had been wanting. Players in PlanetSide 2 would have the same anticipation, without power gains.

But alas, the system Higby described would be 'acceptable', as it doesn't effect the gameplay much, but I would much rather see a system as I have described above because it would:

1) not offer veterans a % power gain other than the 'natural' % power gain from being a higher BR/vet regardless.

2) Allow for customization that actually makes a difference in terms of how your weapon performs and what situations its good for.

3) Keep the anticipation for wanting to advance your character to achieve more customization options

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by kaffis

See, I'd rather a bullet not go where the weapon's pointed (and, let's be honest, cones of fire are small enough that it's not like you have that perfect an idea of where the weapon's pointed for it to be *that* jarring, anyways) than have my camera view taken out of my control or have my crosshairs walking randomly around the screen.

...

Ah, I didn't mention that. I was thinking that the camera wouldn't be statically locked to the weapon. The camera would be influenced by the weapon sway more than the recoil, but still not overly much in either case. It would give much more of a impression of holding a weapon in front of you rather than being attached to a weapon that just zooms around.

Though honestly? I just want to stay the hell away from PS1 style CoF.

Originally Posted by Malorn

This thread boils down to

...about a third of the participants saying they don't get why there's power progression at all in the game (and not getting answers).

...about a third of the participants arguing that the difference is no big deal and therefore it is OK (and bypassing the whole "why?" question entirely)

...and about a third of the participants saying some combination of dont' care, too soon, etc.


I'd really like some concrete rationale as to why this is even being discussed and at least what context under which this power gain is leveraged.


The key question boils down to...

How is the power progression activated?

A) Is it an always-on thing once you train it? As in, once I train assault rifle damage whatever I forever have like 1% more assault rifle damage no matter what I am doing?

OR

B) do you have a limited set that you custom configure to use at any one time and training the cert unlocks more options? This would be more like the Warhammer Tactics system or the BFBC2 Gadget slots.


A is a terrible design. B is absolutely awesome.

Originally Posted by Malorn

A is a terrible design. B is absolutely awesome.

300% agreed. That is forcibly agreeing for two other people as well as myself.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

Ah, I didn't mention that. I was thinking that the camera wouldn't be statically locked to the weapon. The camera would be influenced by the weapon sway more than the recoil, but still not overly much in either case. It would give much more of a impression of holding a weapon in front of you rather than being attached to a weapon that just zooms around.

Though honestly? I just want to stay the hell away from PS1 style CoF.

Ugh. So, let me get this straight -- you want your crosshairs drifting around your screen at random?

No thanks. I'd like them to stay in the middle. Having to look 5 degrees to the left of what I'm trying to aim at would be utterly maddening.

[Malorn]

Please don't derail the discussion. Topic is power differentiation, not weapon sway.

[SilverLord]

This matter is simple:

Planetside was marketed and boasted that any new player, will be just as powerful since they have the same weapons.

We WANT to attract new players to our game, and this will just turn new players off, because they will get bitch slapped everytime they see anyone that has a 20% difference in damage.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by SilverLord

This matter is simple:

Planetside was marketed and boasted that any new player, will be just as powerful since they have the same weapons.

We WANT to attract new players to our game, and this will just turn new players off, because they will get bitch slapped everytime they see anyone that has a 20% difference in damage.

1) Do your homework. Nobody is getting a 20% difference in damage.
2) I think there is enough room for the devs to have progression without letting it get overpowered.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by Raymac

1) Do your homework. Nobody is getting a 20% difference in damage.
2) I think there is enough room for the devs to have progression without letting it get overpowered.

Which we won't know until Beta. All we know is there are classes with a shit ton of skills, and advancements in character effectiveness.

Whether it will effect game play enough to make people complain it's OP and ruin the game we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm highly skeptical of the idea though, and sincerely hope they have considered all the angles.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Logit

Which we won't know until Beta. All we know is there are classes with a shit ton of skills, and advancements in character effectiveness.

Whether it will effect game play enough to make people complain it's OP and ruin the game we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm highly skeptical of the idea though, and sincerely hope they have considered all the angles.

Well, we do know that nobody is getting a 20% damage buff because Higby has explicitly stated that.

Also, I think it is safe to assume that there will be some number at which the progression and power will be balanced. What that point is will almost certainly have to be determined during beta and then fine tuned after launch, just like you said. We'll just have to wait and see. I'm actually extremely excited to see how deep this customization is.

[Soothsayer]

I keep having this nagging question through these debates... Do you want to have a system that caters to people who will only play for their first month, or do you want to have a system that caters to the people who play for five years?

Benefiting long term players is my preferred route, but doing so in a way that does not discourage new players from becoming long term players.

The undisclosed f2p aspect may have bearing on this as well, but we don't know anything about that aside from there being some sort of f2p aspect to PS2.

The EVE online model has rabidly loyal long term customers. If you can get over the initial complexity of the UI and the harshness of the environment (and if you make friends and have positive, meaningful experiences) CCP has gained a customer that will keep coming back, acknowledging that some burnout factor applies.

Though I have no experience with it, WoW has loyal customers in the same sense, they release a new expansion and people feel compelled to go back to it. I've seen it, you've seen it... However it exists on the extreme other end of the spectrum.

I don't know where the middle ground lies, can't name another MMO that has carved out a niche like those two. This leads me to believe that the middle ground is not as successful over the long term.

[Chaff]

Instead of a 20% overalll improvement, I'd like the option to choose a sidekick
- like a pet monkey (trained and certed as a GUNNER) named "Bingo" - that's my vote.

....and the option to cert my monkey as a "gunner" - so I can fill the small gun on a Prowler......so I have a better chance of filling a tank if I pull one with a small pop. Or, "Bingo" could gun for me on someting else - like a Marauder or Skyguard.

....and he could do tricks for the troops while we wait for a hack to go thru.....

.

[Peacemaker]

Originally Posted by SilverLord

Planetside was marketed and boasted that any new player, will be just as powerful since they have the same weapons.

This isn't Planetside. Its Planetside TWO. Different market idea. No one wants Planetside with new maps and new graphics. The game is going to be fundamentally different. Upgrades, skills, certs.... whatever you wanna call them are there for the explicit reason to not have the "End Game". You cant max out. There is a meta game here. Result? People don't become bored as easily.