The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation

[Vancha]

Bags you're saying the same stuff I addressed in IRC...

I don't think you could deny that most of the speculated "criticism" of the 20% thing is toward upsetting some balance between a new player and a fully levelled-up veteran. I'm pretty sure the point of using map knowledge and such was to put into perspective just how little a difference skills will make in that regard, not that because veterans already have an advantage that they don't care about making a level playing field (do you honestly expect any developer to say such a thing?)

[Bags]

I'm slightly reassured that it's not a plain +20% MCG damage, but still. I don't think that because it's already not fair (and I have no problem when the "unfairness" comes from player skill increase over time) is justification for further skewage.

[kinkaito]

I'm Going to vote "Power advancement is necessary in PlanetSide 2"
My reason behind this is as follows:
They want the game to be a MMO-FPS game, in which case they want people to get the end-game perks, which everyone can get, it's not like it's going to be hard to "level up" in the game, you get points for killing/taking points ect,
For example: look at Battlefield, Call of Duty ect,
You advantace though the ranks, and get given stronger addons to your weapons, do they make a huge differance to the game? no.
to me, there an incentive to level/play, to get the unlocks that i want, that my team want, 10% - 20% power damage doesn't seem that high sure it will make a differance, but its not like your going to be running around aimlessly, getting 1 shot because someone has an extra 10%-20% damage, as long as i have the option to spec into getting armor/head gear that neglects that end game damage, i dont see a problem,
Most of the time your given the option "Light armor" "heavy armor" anyway. and it only seems logical if they have a way to increase your damage, you have a way to increase your defenses too.
just my opinion.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Manitou

Make them learn to play well; don't give hand-outs or they will never learn to play well, they will just rely on the game company to equalize it for them.

You could level to max never touching anything but an AA max. It wouldn't make you a good player. Probably a good AA max, but all those extra certs, not earned. Just ground out.

RPG aspects are hooks to keep you playing so they can earn more $. They serve no other purpose in an fps. Which I don't care for, but also don't care much about so long as its reasonable. But the proper foundation for an fps is everyone is always on an equal footing, and skill is all that differs. The fact that you have to earn something means the developers took something away from you so you could 'earn' it back.

[Goku]

Originally Posted by Manitou

Learn to play the game, Bags. Why should SOE be responsible for whether a new player is equal to a veteran player? They aren't and won't be. Everyone started as a noob. Why penalize the veteran for knowing how to play by enabling someone who needs to learn with some weapon/armor/ability they didn't earn.

Make them learn to play well; don't give hand-outs or they will never learn to play well, they will just rely on the game company to equalize it for them.

Manitou I do not see any logic in your reasoning at all. Its rather obvious a new player will have disadvantages at the game by not knowing anything at all. Why should a veteran player be able to do far more damage then a new player? There is no reason for it. I don't care if you play the game for 5 years. There is no reason anyone should have far more better damage due to playing the game for longer. This is a FPS first not a RPG were you become far more powerful then you were at the beginning of the game and one shot level ones.

[EASyEightyEight]

Why do people insist on taking every little thing and imagining the worst case scenario? How many here really believe the world would end next year?

The 20% difference encompasses the whole of everything that contributes to the "power gain." Individual advancement + outfit advancement + squad leader skills = 20% difference. An individual may only bring a mere 8% on their own, and the first 4% could be gained over the course of a the first 3 months month of dedicated training if that long, and the remaining 4% the rest of the year. And that full 8% will likely not be mere stat increases.

Most of the statistic will likely be attachments, such as:
-grips for accuracy/kick-up,
-front prongs for immobile but extreme accuracy control
-under-slung shotgun/launcher, etc.
-scopes for ranged precision
-Longer barrels for CoF control
-extended mags for extended firing sessions
-taped mags for faster reloads
-High caliber ammunition magazines.

By the end of the year, a player could take their cycler we see in the released images and it could effectively be an LMG with prongs, longer barrel, and a drum mag, but they can't attach a grenade launcher, scope, or high caliber mags to it at the same time. He's basically a stationary target while using his weapon the most efficiently. The other guy is good for long range assaults and denying the use of cover.

Then you take into consideration outfit/squad lead skills that may improve a factor(s) of the troops under their command. A rifleman outfit with squad-leads focused around rifleman combat would be required to push any individual player to the 20% increase, and as MasterChief guesstimated, it will mostly boil down to various stats slightly increasing to overall reach that 20%. Nothing is stopping a newb from joining an outfit and then a squad (in proximity of their leader preferably) in that outfit and gaining that 12% extra power as a result.

Right now in PS1, the difference between a BR1 and a BR20+ is beyond 20% easy. SOE knows what they're doing with PS2. With specialization, for it to feel like specialization, there will need to be some increase in effectiveness. To some degree there will be customization for personal play style preferences, but it can't be "okay, I increase my accuracy, but now my bullets do less damage." That's bad, because it doesn't mix all too well with outfit and squad lead skills. What's good is "Okay, I increased my accuracy, but the guy shooting at me obviously chose to increase his damage. Ow."

A player is still making a choice, but the penalization comes from the other guy making another choice which could be preferable depending on the situation. It won't be a simple matter of picking damage but now you can't hit anything outside of CQC, or picking accuracy and while very round fires in a laser thin stream behind the last one, but your shooting BB's.

I'm talking maybe 5-10% differences in firepower/accuracy here (like one extra round before bloom, or 1 more point of damage, if that,) which would contribute a smaller percentage to the overall "20%" we're all exploding over.

[IceyCold]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

Why do people insist on taking every little thing and imagining the worst case scenario? How many here really believe the world would end next year?

The 20% difference encompasses the whole of everything that contributes to the "power gain." Individual advancement + outfit advancement + squad leader skills = 20% difference. An individual may only bring a mere 8% on their own, and the first 4% could be gained over the course of a the first 3 months month of dedicated training if that long, and the remaining 4% the rest of the year. And that full 8% will likely not be mere stat increases.

Most of the statistic will likely be attachments, such as:
-grips for accuracy/kick-up,
-front prongs for immobile but extreme accuracy control
-under-slung shotgun/launcher, etc.
-scopes for ranged precision
-Longer barrels for CoF control
-extended mags for extended firing sessions
-taped mags for faster reloads
-High caliber ammunition magazines.

By the end of the year, a player could take their cycler we see in the released images and it could effectively be an LMG with prongs, longer barrel, and a drum mag, but they can't attach a grenade launcher, scope, or high caliber mags to it at the same time. He's basically a stationary target while using his weapon the most efficiently. The other guy is good for long range assaults and denying the use of cover.

Then you take into consideration outfit/squad lead skills that may improve a factor(s) of the troops under their command. A rifleman outfit with squad-leads focused around rifleman combat would be required to push any individual player to the 20% increase, and as MasterChief guesstimated, it will mostly boil down to various stats slightly increasing to overall reach that 20%. Nothing is stopping a newb from joining an outfit and then a squad (in proximity of their leader preferably) in that outfit and gaining that 12% extra power as a result.

Right now in PS1, the difference between a BR1 and a BR20+ is beyond 20% easy. SOE knows what they're doing with PS2. With specialization, for it to feel like specialization, there will need to be some increase in effectiveness. To some degree there will be customization for personal play style preferences, but it can't be "okay, I increase my accuracy, but now my bullets do less damage." That's bad, because it doesn't mix all too well with outfit and squad lead skills. What's good is "Okay, I increased my accuracy, but the guy shooting at me obviously chose to increase his damage. Ow."

A player is still making a choice, but the penalization comes from the other guy making another choice which could be preferable depending on the situation. It won't be a simple matter of picking damage but now you can't hit anything outside of CQC, or picking accuracy and while very round fires in a laser thin stream behind the last one, but your shooting BB's.

I'm talking maybe 5-10% differences in firepower/accuracy here (like one extra round before bloom, or 1 more point of damage, if that,) which would contribute a smaller percentage to the overall "20%" we're all exploding over.

This^.

A very well thought out post mate. This is exactly what I think when I hear Higby explain the power scale in the game; and to me this is completely acceptable.

[MasterChief096]

I wouldn't exactly call it a crazy poll, its just discussion and its a very important aspect of PlanetSide 2 (one of the most important) that I feel the community hasn't really discussed en masse yet.

@Manitou - I think you misunderstood what Bags was saying. He wasn't advocating for veterans to be penalized or for bonuses to be given to new players, he was saying that veterans shouldn't have any additional benefits over new players other than the fact they have unlocked more options and know the maps/tactics/game better than the noobs.

@EASy - You're right, the difference in PS1 if we were to somehow calculate it from a BR1 to a BR20 or hell even a BR40 (nowadays) is probably more than 20%. The issue though, is what if a BR20, in addition to having more than 20% advantage due to options and versatility, now had ANOTHER 20% due to weapon upgrades for the SAME weapons that newbs can cert?

If PS2 followed PS1s model (as they stated they want to do), then a BR20 in PS2 would have a natural 20% advantage over a newb just because the BR20 can have more options and versatility, increasing his survivability without having to increase the stats of the options he does have.

The point that Bags is trying to make that since this is already skewing things in favor of veterans, why do we have to add the additional 20% from outfit specializations, weapon attachments, etc into that and skew it even further? I agree. Why?

PlanetSide doesn't need RPG elements to succeed. It needs to deliver what no other game has ever delivered: huge, massive-scale battles that completely blow the minds of FPS gamers across the world. PlanetSide 1 did this for the select few who played it but sadly it didn't work out. As I previously stated PlanetSide is an MMOFPS not an MMORPG, so why do we have to add unnecessary RPG elements to it? Sure, add as many MMO elements as you want, such as player interaction, etc, but MMO elements/game mechanics/features are far different than MMORPG game mechanics/elements/features.

[Soothsayer]

I think that the conversation has gotten off track by the focus on vets vs new players.

I recognize that from the standpoint of a person who is considering buying the game that coming into an environment where there is the perception of being behind the people who have been playing is a valid concern.

I also believe that any person should have a reasonable chance at defeating any other person in the game based on having the correct weapon for the situation and the player skill to use it well.

However, advocating a system where the game is set up entirely for total balance between vets and new players seems shortsighted when you take into consideration that those new players will become vets at some point, and then what?

If you've put the time in, you should see a moderate or significant amount of character growth, given the dev comments, that growth won't be entirely vertical, as in direct damage output. Higby has said that the increase will be more of a widening of options that allow the player to customize the characteristics of their weapons/vehicles, with the occasional skill that can add to power directly.

Richard Garriot (though I feel as though he talked a lot more than he actually performed) mentioned the concept of a "level fence" that he was trying to overcome in Tabula Rasa. Not that I'm saying that was good game or that I believe him to be as much of an MMO pioneer as his PR said he was, but this concept is what I believe that most of the detractors of the skill system are fighting against.

Level Fence (MMORPG) - where a player does not have a remote possibility of defeating a player of higher level than himself, due to being unable to even make a dent in the opponent's HP either by nature of resists or extreme power difference.

While Mr. Garriot was way off on a lot of things, he correctly identified the problem with putting MMORPG concepts into a MMO shooter. I fully agree that a level fence has to be avoided at all costs, but I don't think that this 20% number that is coming out constitutes a level fence that is prohibitive of a lower level player being competitive against a high level player.

[EASyEightyEight]

You still don't get it. It's ALL part of that 20%. At it's very base, Planetside 2 will essentially be a matter of everyone has every cert currently found in PS1 right from the start. They'll be restricted to classes, and they may not have the customization options right away, but everyone may have access to every basic tool from day 1.

And on that note, since they're going to be balancing classes, now we're talking cross-tool balancing as well. A year of rifle training may in fact be a mere 4% of the players power increase, and a year's worth of med-tool attachments make up the other 4% of my previous 8% example. Maybe the outfit specializes in foot zerging, making weaponry overall better, but the squad leader prefers supportive play so med-apps get a slight buff in proximity to him. This combination may only take the individual up to a theoretical 17-18% power difference over a day 1 newb, with 10% going towards rifles and the remaining percentile towards the use of the medical application device.

Really... the biggest concern should be over day 1 newbs that prefer to fly solo vs. veterans that prefer to stay within outfit spawned squads. Frankly, those newbs should learn quick to find the proper outfit and squad to make up for the differences.

Keep in mind as well... the guy in the squad handing out the bonuses needs to focus on training those skills. One could be in a squad, but that doesn't mean anyone in the squad has leadership (in-game)skills/certs. I'm also willing to wager leadership skills won't be too horribly specific, like in my example above. I fully expect them to be more general, but we'll have to wait and see.

[Higby]

Originally Posted by Goku

This is a FPS first not a RPG were you become far more powerful then you were at the beginning of the game and one shot level ones.

The growth afforded by the PS2 cert system to an mmorpg character growth curve isn't even comparable.

Using some back of the napkin math on a hugely simplified example. A first session player would pick up a gun that did 10 damage per shot and start blasting at a guy with full health, assuming he hit every shot and didn't get any headshots (he's a noob, afterall!), it would take 10 shots to kill his enemy:

Shot # damage done health remaining
1 10 90
2 20 80
3 30 70
4 40 60
5 50 50
6 60 40
7 70 30
8 80 20
9 90 10
10 100 0

Imagine we were talking about a straight 10% damage increase, what does this look like?

Shot # damage done life remaining
1 11 89
2 22 78
3 33 67
4 44 56
5 55 45
6 66 34
7 77 23
8 88 12
9 99 1
10 110 -10

Would you look at that... still takes 10 shots to kill.

What about 20%, surely that is an insane TTK decrease...

Shot # damage done life remaining
1 12 88
2 24 76
3 36 64
4 48 52
5 60 40
6 72 28
7 84 16
8 96 4
9 108 -8

1 less shot to kill, not exactly curb-stomping and face-blasting noobs off the map. And, this is already an out of bounds scenario because we're not going to have a 20% increase on damage to begin with.

[IceyCold]

Originally Posted by Higby

The growth afforded by the PS2 cert system to an mmorpg character growth curve isn't even comparable.

Using some back of the napkin math on a hugely simplified example. A first session player would pick up a gun that did 10 damage per shot and start blasting at a guy with full health, assuming he hit every shot and didn't get any headshots (he's a noob, afterall!), it would take 10 shots to kill his enemy:

Shot # damage done health remaining
1 10 90
2 20 80
3 30 70
4 40 60
5 50 50
6 60 40
7 70 30
8 80 20
9 90 10
10 100 0

Imagine we were talking about a straight 10% damage increase, what does this look like?

Shot # damage done life remaining
1 11 89
2 22 78
3 33 67
4 44 56
5 55 45
6 66 34
7 77 23
8 88 12
9 99 1
10 110 -10

Would you look at that... still takes 10 shots to kill.

What about 20%, surely that is an insane TTK decrease...

Shot # damage done life remaining
1 12 88
2 24 76
3 36 64
4 48 52
5 60 40
6 72 28
7 84 16
8 96 4
9 108 -8

1 less shot to kill, not exactly curb-stomping and face-blasting noobs off the map. And, this is already an out of bounds scenario because we're not going to have a 20% increase on damage to begin with.

=Higby= uses [LOGIC] against =Rage Thread=
[LOGIC] crits for 99999999999999
It's super effective!

[Sifer2]

The bigger concern to me in regards to progression is I heard examples given that it could take over a year to max out a class. Now it might be premature to have a fit over this not knowing what the class trees look like. An what weapons/mods will be available to the new guy versus the 1 year veteran. But it does strike me as something that could very easily be screwed up.

If 1 year vets get an uber weapon mod or something that everyone knows is just way better. I don't see people sticking around for a year at a disadvantage to try to earn that. Games like Battlefield/CoD may have stuff like this but it certainly doesn't take a year to level up.

Of course I do understand what they are trying to do. They recognize that PS1 was weak on the progression side of the things an that a lot of people left once they hit BR 20 an got tired of fighting over the same bases. Some MMO players seem to only play for progression an nothing else. So they are trying to give them that. But it could cause a lot of problems I think. Especially do to inevitable inflation where eventually some one maxes his class an wants even more toys to break the game balance.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Bags

If everyone gets 20% more power, nobody has 20% more power.

All this does is make vets 20% stronger than noobs, which is completely unnecessary.

It's actually specialization. Someone could be specialized 20% into one thing and another person could specialize 20% into something totally different. Meaning two veterans would not necessarily be on equal footing. It would depend on what they specialized in.

In fact that's why I'd prefer more than 20%. I already did the math Higby showed for a few cases and came to the same conclusion that 20% isn't really anything for specialization. My current fear is that specialization doesn't mean anything other than visual upgrades.

[Valdae]

Another thread on this forum that has been blown completely out of proportion..