The Good ole Balance Debate - Page 3

Logit · 2011-07-12, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

The skill system trains offline, I don't see how someone plays more has a major advantage. Their skills will train a bit quicker than someone offline but I can't imagine there will be a massive difference.

While I am skeptical about increasing damage with skills it's likely something we will have to learn to deal with. Hopefully its balanced enough someone feels like they are getting their time worth and someone on the other end doesn't feel powerless against them.

This is my major problem, we have no way of knowing obviously until we can actually play the game.

I can agree the people who invest more into the game should have more of the content available to them, but not so much as to create super characters that dominate the battlefield. Even BR40 doesn't make your guns better, it just gives you more options.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-12, 03:03 PM

I'll elaborate on why power through cert tree learning is a bad idea.

In order to understand why and how it is bad you need to look not at release, but 1+ years down the road. In this environment you will have a lot of veterans, many of which will have some set of maxed out trees. What this means is that long-term, players converge to have the same power level if power is gained through skill trees. Veterans vs Veterans becomes an even playing field becuase they both have the same trees maxed out and so they are both getting the same bonus.

This is bad for a number of reasons.

1) Those 'perks' from specialization are only relevant when playing against newer players.
Newer players are the ones who don't have the specialization maxed out and so those are the players to which the specialization has advantage. This makes it harder for new players to compete with veterans long-term.

2) The value of the specialization is lost over time.
Because veterans will have some of the same maxed out trees, they will all have the same specialization bonus. Meaning veteran reaver vs veteran reaver is an even playing field. That defeats the purpose of the specialization. Eventually enough time will pass that a significant portion of players all have that specialization. Thus the benefits of specialization decrease over time.

3) Time itself becomse a hurdle for new players.
In order to match up to the veterans the only thing new players can do is play the game for a long time. This will turn off new players in the future, just as it turns off many would-be EVE players - they don't want to have to play the game for two years to be competitive so they don't even try.

4) The relative value decrease will lead to demand for more differentiation.
Due to 2) above, players who have those specializations into specific areas will start to see their investment isn't providing the differentiation that it once did as their active opponents have also maxed out their trees as well as others. They will demand deeper specialization and more differentiation. Since PS2 already went that far and already provided differentiation in the first place their most likely solution would be to release new content that deepens the trees and adds greater differentiation. This makes the cycle worse and exacerbates the problem with new players. This is the 'slippery slope' I mentioned before. Once they go down this path they are committed to it.

This is effectively the same thing as releasing new tiers of raid gear in MMORPGs. At some point players "max out" their gear, even though it may take months and years to acquire. Once everyone has the same power level they want more power and so they demand more gear. This is a bad model. PS did not have such progression and it wasn't needed.

EVE also has this in many of their skill trees and it turns off new players. Whether it's 15-20% or 100% doesn't really matter because the effect is still a significant advantage and the perception from new customers is going to be that playing the game more gives you an unfair advantage. The really crappy part is that playing the game more already gives an advantage over someone who doesn't play the game - player skill development & player experience. When you magnify it with a power bonus it's not only unnecessary but it is detrimental to the game.

Given these negative consequences to future growth of the game for benefits that decrease over time and only lead to demand for more stratification I have to ask - why the hell are they doing this? It does not benefit the game or the players and only makes their job of balancing the game harder.

Customization & Specialization != Progression

You do not need to add power progression to give players customization and specialization. What they should do is instead of power and progression they do customization & specialization via tweaking and options, just as PS did (higher BR & more specialization = more options, not power above and beyond that).

Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs are the key to customization and specialization - not power increases. Simple examples would be agumenting a rifle with new sight options or increasing its damage in exchange for lowering its fire rate. The key here is that you are getting a benefit, but you are giving something up in order to achieve it. As long as the benefits are in the same category then its a worthwhile tradeoff.

Consider the tradeoff of having a red-dot gunsight vs ironsights. For many-players a red-dot is a great improvement and they will see a performance increase just by using a different sight. However, for players that learned to use ironsights they can instead have a different tradeoff, such as add less deviation to the gun. In both cases the result is better accurancy, either by improving the sight or changing the characteristics. But the tradeoff is still there. The player can either use the crappier sights but have a more accurate gun, or they can keep the normal accuracy and add a better sight.

Other tradeoffs would be increasing the damage of the gun but lowering the rate-of-fire, or vice-versa. The idea is that the net dps of the gun does not change, but the way the operator uses it does change. In the case of increasing the damage the gun ends up behaving more like a battle-rifle and relies on the operator being accurate. Generally this will make it a better medium-long range gun suitable for distant engagements. In the case of increasing RoF and lowering damage it will make the gun better for close-quarters fighting where you make up for movement inacurracy by having a higher rate of fire.

Since damage usually degrades over distance in FPS games (including both the battlefield games and PS1), being able to customize the rifle in this way is a for a player who wants to specialize in infantry combat to custom tailor his weapon to his play style and optimize it. This is advantage, but it isn't an artificial advantage. It requires player skill and good decision making.

Since PS2 devs & Smed love Battlefield games (I do too and have no problem borrowing from BF concepts...DICE has good designs), I'll use BFBC2 as an example. In BFBC2 as you rank up you get access to different weapon attachments.

You had upgrade slots where you can swap out different weapon sights. The guns in the BF games were also designed to be roughly equal but not clearly better than one another. They just had different characteristics. Some characteristics were more beneficial than others which led to some guns having a more preferred balance than others. You also had the option of either increasing your footspeed, your damage, or your armor. You could also do other tweaks such as carry more ammo or grenades, have an expanded magazine, and provide a specific benefit to any vehicle that you entered.

This is the style of customization & specialization I would like to see in PS2 via the certification tree. I'd like to certify in assault rifle modifications and gain access to gun sights, expanded magazines, and ROF/Damage tradeoff options.

Now if you compare a new player to a veteran - yes the veteran has advantages of player expeirence and more options available to them. The veteran can custom tailor his rifle to his typical engagement conditions while the new player cannot. However, the new player is not fundamentally at any disadvantage. His bullets and his weapon are still fairly balanced with the veteran. The veteran's might be better for his style but he's not enjoying more damage or more survivability simply for being a veteran.

More customization. Less artificial power and bonuses.

(note: I think squad leader bonuses are an entirely different animal and those are OK because they are part of the gameplay and new players can benefit as much as veterans. The squad leader can also be killed, removing the benefit and adding more tactical depth to the game.)

Manitou · 2011-07-12, 03:21 PM

Excellent breakdown, and I agree.

Rbstr · 2011-07-12, 03:32 PM

The fact they they say they're looking to Battlefield in some ways implies that they're looking at a mostly trade-off situation. So your primary worry is that they aren't going to do what they said they are going to do. That's fine, but their word is the only thing to go on right now.

They say a maximum of 20% different. I take that to be an all inclusive brand new hypothetical "HA class" player vs. a maxed "HA class" player.

Don't forget that in BC2 a brand-noob doesn't get the choice between armour and damage...He gets neither.

Sometimes being a simply better by a small amount is acceptable when you start dealing with games that are supposed to hang around persistently for a while. If all is simply tradeoff that has a completely equalising effect, that's not worth while, tradeoff has to create situations where making the trade is beneficial rather than superficial.
A BF:BC2 vet may still make the choice between health and damage, at no point does he get to use all three.

We have no idea what the training curve is going to be like.
It's a good guess that, like EVE (and nearly ever other character progression based game), skills will take longer as you work up the tree. That's the critical part.
A brand-noob in 2 months may easily be within 5% instead of 20% of that year long vet.

When you combine that with a class system that means you can't bring all skills from other classes to bear things work out exceptionally easy.
The dangers of a system are not inherently expressed. They don't happen just because the mechanic exists, the designers actively work against the poor outcomes.

To continue to use EVE and an example: I fly interceptors at 100% max skills in 3 races and Battleships at that in one race...but my interceptor skills don't apply to battleships, nor to the BS skills or the other races' inty skills apply when I'm in any given interceptor. Someone with in two or three months has more than a fighting chance of taking me out in the same shipclass by using a better set of weapons and whatnot. Sure I've got a couple of 5% in things over him, but that's more than made up for by being better at the game itself, or simply making the wrong tradeoffs in equipment between speed, damage, health and other things (almost exactly like BC2, in the premise).

Finally: Why add more depth in the future, why allow X% difference and these other things?
It works to keep a game going.
Look at EVE again, all of those terrible disadvantages for a noobs have somehow lead to a game that has had continual growth like no other MMO.

Redshift · 2011-07-12, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by artifice

As far as I am concerned, classes, vehicles, and weapons don't need to be balanced. What needs balanced are the three teams. Easiest way to do that is just give all three sides every weapon and vehicle.

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Eh, but that wouldn't be Planetside anymore.

Of course it isn't, it's Planetside 2.

I'm afraid that is definatly one place where "it wouldn't be planetside" holds true, you literally can not have planetside without three distinct empires, the devs know this hence why they've said they're trying to really push the differences

Bags · 2011-07-12, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Soothsayer

Someone who puts more time in should have something to show for it at the end of any given time period.

Its not about hardcore or casual, its more about a return on the investment of time and effort.

The offline training is fine with me, but if I'm logging serious hours I want to see that pay off more so than the person who queues up their skills ten minutes a day.

You have skill, merits, and fun to show. You get more of those than someone who plays ten minutes aday.

Logit · 2011-07-12, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

More customization. Less artificial power and bonuses.

Nail on head. Bonuses to power and effectiveness are simply going to create an imbalance.

This is what made Planetside a great game. Every person who pulled a reaver, had the same advantages/disadvantages. Creating bonuses to one's weopons/vehicles that make it more powerful separates veterans from noobs and the imbalance worsens.

At release it won't be an issue, but people are going to be discouraged by veteran players owning them with the same vehicle they have only with mods on it's armor, guns etc...

Volw · 2011-07-12, 05:03 PM

@Malorn,

EVE requires 2-3 approx 2 months (since they made it easier for noobs, it's probably down to 1 month or less) of training to be able to PVP effectively. While at it, mind the devs already said the longest training will be 24hrs - compared with EVEs max timer 3-4 weeks or so, it's not a lot. So we could assume, it's going to take approx a week for a player to get fairly competetive gear. That's about as long as it takes to lvl to BR12 IIRC and it can be done offline.

The purpose of specialisation is to allow more diverse gameplay between classes. At the moment, in planetside, at least 90% of people pack the same certs and I'm willing to bet, 50%+ carries exactly the same loadout.

Eve's been around for 8 years and you can still 'catch' up fairly quickly, so your point regarding skill trees getting deeper and not allowing new players to catch up is also invalid.

In fact, one of the faults of PS1 was lack of progression, which A LOT of people complained about. Here we have progression at a fairly low costs and people are also complaining about it. It so happens everyone can't be made happy.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-12, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Rbstr

The fact they they say they're looking to Battlefield in some ways implies that they're looking at a mostly trade-off situation.

I would prefer they look exclusively at trade-off situations. Even going a little bit into the power increase situations is bad.

So your primary worry is that they aren't going to do what they said they are going to do. That's fine, but their word is the only thing to go on right now.

My primary concern is in fact rooted in what they have said they are going to do. I saw the bit aobut tradeoffs and liked that a lot. However, they also stated there would be a 15-20% difference between fresh characters and maxed out characters, including outfit bonuses & squad leader bonuses. I think that should be 0% as it was in PS1.

However I admit that the statement could be interpreted in different ways. When he said 15-20% he could have been referring to modification from tradeoffs, but that's very different from a 15-20% power difference in players. Its possible the messaging was unlcear leading us to this discussion, but a clarification one way or the other would be nice (help us here if you're reading this Matt!).

Don't forget that in BC2 a brand-noob doesn't get the choice between armour and damage...He gets neither.

That is true, and in PS the noob didn't have access to implants either and those can help a ton. I generally let that one go for two very good reasons:

1) because the time to acquire a specific customization is relatively short - they will not have those things, but they do get access to other options very quickly, and it isn't much time to unlock all of those benefits in BFBC2. They dont' get the magnum rounds for a while but they do get the weapon accuracy, the run speed, and other options that are alternative tradeoffs quite quickly. I would expect the same thing from PS2 specialization - the most useful tradeoffs might take a while to acquire, but you should have something to fill-the-slot.

2) from a learning-curve standpoint its actually a good thing not to throw too many concepts at new players right out of the gate. That's why ramp-up on the customization is OK, even if it does provide a small and short-lived disadvantage. Once the player gets the hang of the game and are ready to absorb that concept they'll be at the point where they acquire that tool and they dont' get overwhelmed and confused.

New players have a lot to learn about planetside, so its good to stretch it out over a few days, even if that means they won't have a few of the necessary tools right away.

This is differnet from bonuses that may take weeks, months or years to acquire.

BC2's system is also a little different becuase they provided a raw bonus and the 'tradeoff' was not getting any of the other bonuses. it was a 'choose 1 of the following' implementations instead of 'trade this for that'. But I digress...

Sometimes being a simply better by a small amount is acceptable when you start dealing with games that are supposed to hang around persistently for a while. If all is simply tradeoff that has a completely equalising effect, that's not worth while, tradeoff has to create situations where making the trade is beneficial rather than superficial.

Not looking for equalization. The fact that specialization exists and one can tailor weapons to specific encounters and engagement ranges is itself an advantage, but it is derived and a result of player skill, not a passive bonus that gives an advantage just becuase a person played longer and 'learned it' via the cert tree.

We have no idea what the training curve is going to be like.
It's a good guess that, like EVE (and nearly ever other character progression based game), skills will take longer as you work up the tree. That's the critical part.
A brand-noob in 2 months may easily be within 5% instead of 20% of that year long vet.

Why even have the 20% difference? What's the point?

Finally: Why add more depth in the future, why allow X% difference and these other things?
It works to keep a game going.

How so? As I've described above the benefits become less significant over time as veterans all converge on the same set of specialization and they are detrimental to the game.

That doesn't keep a game going; that's a hinderance to its growth.

Look at EVE again, all of those terrible disadvantages for a noobs have somehow lead to a game that has had continual growth like no other MMO.

Correlation != Causation. WoW is a very successful MMO. WoW has sparklehorses and pets. Therefore, Planetside 2 should have sparklehorses and pets if it wants to be successful, right?

Did EVE succeed because of their skill system design or in spite of it? There is no definitive answer becuase we do not know the causal inferences. I do have some personal data points however.

I know many players who did not play EVE because they felt it was dumb that they couldn't compete without investing years into the game AND that they could never catch up to someone who started playing before they did no matter what. I think EVE succeeded in spite of this and it could have been more successful with a different model that was more appealing to new players.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-12, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

@Malorn,

EVE requires 2-3 approx 2 months (since they made it easier for noobs, it's probably down to 1 month or less) of training to be able to PVP effectively. While at it, mind the devs already said the longest training will be 24hrs - compared with EVEs max timer 3-4 weeks or so, it's not a lot. So we could assume, it's going to take approx a week for a player to get fairly competetive gear. That's about as long as it takes to lvl to BR12 IIRC and it can be done offline.

The purpose of specialisation is to allow more diverse gameplay between classes. At the moment, in planetside, at least 90% of people pack the same certs and I'm willing to bet, 50%+ carries exactly the same loadout.

Eve's been around for 8 years and you can still 'catch' up fairly quickly, so your point regarding skill trees getting deeper and not allowing new players to catch up is also invalid.

In fact, one of the faults of PS1 was lack of progression, which A LOT of people complained about. Here we have progression at a fairly low costs and people are also complaining about it. It so happens everyone can't be made happy.

Really? Only 2 months before I can PvP effectively? How many players are seriously going to put up with that? They aren't, they're going to look for a game that isnt' based on something that dumb.

In the early days of PS before the cert creep problem anyone could be effective in PvP on Day 1. Within a few days they were usually BR 8-12 and had a few implants and a cert pool big enough to fill a few roles. That's really awesome for the game and great for growth. The idea that we can switch roles in PS2 and have access to different classes is even better for new players. But this % power growth thing...not good.

The fact that EVE devs has had to address the issue underscores the detrimental effect it has had on their game. We don't want to be in their position with PS 2 years from now.

Volw · 2011-07-12, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Why even have the 20% difference? What's the point?

You ALREADY have it in planetside.

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20. *Every* single MMO and vast majority of FPSes offer progression. In fact, I can't think of many multiplayer games that don't offer progression.

There's also influx of new players to all MMOs. Sure, over time they will have to make it easier for new players to catch up, but that's how it's being done. By CCP, by Blizzard, by any mmo developer.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you're trying to re-develop a wheel by removing any tangible benefits of levelling.

Bags · 2011-07-12, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20.

As strange as this may sound, some people play games because they are fun.

Volw · 2011-07-12, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Really? Only 2 months before I can PvP effectively? How many players are seriously going to put up with that? They aren't, they're going to look for a game that isnt' based on something that dumb.

In the early days of PS before the cert creep problem anyone could be effective in PvP on Day 1. Within a few days they were usually BR 8-12 and had a few implants and a cert pool big enough to fill a few roles. That's really awesome for the game and great for growth. The idea that we can switch roles in PS2 and have access to different classes is even better for new players. But this % power growth thing...not good.

The fact that EVE devs has had to address the issue underscores the detrimental effect it has had on their game. We don't want to be in their position with PS 2 years from now.

If you want to jump straight in to PVP that's less than a month - 2 months is if you plan ahead and train learning skills. They did a large revamp of the system a while ago so I'm not sure how long it takes now.

Hell, I even seen people PVP quite well (non fleet obviously) with 2 weeks trial accounts.

In any case a month to be able to effectively compete against someone who's been in for 8 years is not that bad, is it? Especially that you don't have to play the game at all, just set the training and periodically change it.

Also, look how many subscribers EVE has and how many PlanetSide has. Game dosn't have to cater for noobs to have a large subscription base.

Hamma · 2011-07-12, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

As strange as this may sound, some people play games because they are fun.

While this is true of course (no way to dispute that haha) one thing that we have to consider in an MMO is people need a reason to dedicate the time. That means that those people will almost certainly end up with some advantages over new characters it's the nature of the beast.

Logit · 2011-07-12, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Volw

You ALREADY have it in planetside.

BR25 with rexo, pshield, HA + med/eng is going to wipe the floor with BR5 agile+ha. It's far more than 20% difference.

Also look at the other side of the playing field. Why would anyone play the game if PS2 BR1 would be capable to deal exactly the same damage as BR20. *Every* single MMO and vast majority of FPSes offer progression. In fact, I can't think of many multiplayer games that don't offer progression.

There's also influx of new players to all MMOs. Sure, over time they will have to make it easier for new players to catch up, but that's how it's being done. By CCP, by Blizzard, by any mmo developer.

I'm sorry but it sounds like you're trying to re-develop a wheel by removing any tangible benefits of levelling.

The tangible benefits should be more options, not more power. Which is how the original was made. Sure someone with higher ranks have more at their disposal, but that isn't making the 1 on 1 battle scewed toward the side with more time to play.

If PS2 plays out they way it seems, people are going to be stronger because they have more time to put towards the game. Which isn't a good thing.