The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation

[Lunarchild]

Originally Posted by Chaff

Instead of a 20% overalll improvement, I'd like the option to choose a sidekick
- like a pet monkey 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.....

.

Unfortunately monkeys have no clue what an "enemy" is and just fires even if there's nothing to shoot at. Heck, it doesn't know the word aim and just randomly shoots around wasting your ammo ^_^

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I think it is safe to assume that there will be some number at which the progression and power will be balanced.

No power progression at all with cert training is guaranteed balance. No assumption or faith necessary.

[Sirisian]

What exactly are you guys trying to balance here? Soldier vs Soldier? Vehicle vs Vehicle? Soldier vs Vehicle? All of them at the same time?

I made my previous comments with the thought in mind that balancing can be done through rock paper scissors balancing. Meaning things can be unbalanced one way without destroying the game. I guess that's now what other's want though.

[EASyEightyEight]

Every forum I visit for an unfinished game, you have people taking what info is available, filling in the blanks, and treating it as gospel while they rant and rave about it.

Higby pretty much confirmed the plan is that the sum of the parts brings us to the 20% conclusion. That includes outfit specialization. That includes squad lead influence. That definitely includes what the player can do on their own. I know I've mentioned this somewhere, probably this very thread.

We also have no clear cut definition of how the upgrades apply. I'm having a hard time imagining something as simple as WoW's talent system where I dump 5 points into something and get 15% more damage out of it just like that. That will have to do for squad leads and maybe outfits, but for personal training, I think everything should be a physical attachment of some kind. I'll be consuming a slot on my piece of equipment, so I can't have bigger rounds in a longer barrel for both damage and accuracy. I can't have two extended mags taped together.

Remember, the idea is up to 20%, not exactly 20% no matter what you do, and through more factors than just what ever you have on hand that shoots bullets. SOE may have considered each classes possible kit as a whole, not just the individual items.

A list of ideas just thinking of the MA (note little thought was put into the numbers, they're just examples) and I'll be using Brink's customization points as a reference.

Barrel/Ammo mods (primarily effect weapon accuracy/damage/rof)
Larger Barrel: Increased damage (+1 dmg)
Enhanced Stock: Increased accuracy (+5-10%)
Dual-Barrel: Increased firing rate (+.5 rps)
High-Caliber Barrel: Increased damage (+2 dmg) Decreased RoF (-.5 rps)
Long Barrel: Increased Accuracy (+10-20%) Decreased dmg (-1 dmg)
Cyclic Tri-Barrel: Increased RoF (+1 rps) Decreased accuracy (-5-10%)

Magazine mod (primarily effect ammunitions handling)
Extended Mag: Extra rounds (+25-50%, depending on weapon?)
Taped Mag: Faster reload, every other reload (-1 second reload time)
Tap-switch: Allows for instant switch of AP and AV ammo. Lower mag capacity for each.
Drum Mag: Even more rounds (+50-100%) Slower reloads (+1-2 seconds)
Belt-feed: No reload, maximum ammo capacity reduced (25-50%) no ammo type exchange.

No classic inventory, I'm assuming then that we don't have much control over ammunition capacities if any at all. Also notice: trade-offs aren't so straight forward.

I'm sure SOE has many more ideas too.

Admittedly, I could be wrong, and most cert training really does amount to points ala talents, but the gains would be rather meager individually I imagine.

__________
TL;DR

Stop filling in the blanks, you're just fooling yourselves and blowing $#!% way out of proportion. You don't know if certs act like WoW talents, or are all straight up attachments, limiting themselves anyway. The 20% encompasses outfit perks, squad lead perks, and individual training, and SOE should be balancing the individual part based on a class as a whole, not the individual items as part of that 20%.

Sorry Malorne, but part of what keeps people playing is progression. If you really think any amount of power difference will chase away newbs, then I can't even fathom how MW2 gets the numbers online it currently does and still sees newbs sticking it out through seasoned vets and their multitude of perks, huge weapon selection, and little tricks for noobtubing or knowing where that secret hidey sniping spot no one can sneak up on. Really, it's quite the mind-****

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

Sorry Malorne, but part of what keeps people playing is progression. If you really think any amount of power difference will chase away newbs, then I can't even fathom how MW2 gets the numbers online it currently does and still sees newbs sticking it out through seasoned vets and their multitude of perks, huge weapon selection, and little tricks for noobtubing or knowing where that secret hidey sniping spot no one can sneak up on. Really, it's quite the mind-****

Progression is not what keeps people playing. You don't need to give people handouts of power for playing their game. Gamers aren't a bunch of panhandlers waiting to see what minor carrots a game will give them and flock to it.

Most of us played planetside for years and we didn't need that crap. The reason we stopped playing is typically because the game got stale, not because they didn't give us "progression". It's unnecessary if the game itself offers good compelling gameplay with variety and freshness.

If a game is fun to play, provides meaningful challenges and enough variety in the gameplay to keep you interested then people will keep playing.

This idea that you need to give people stuff to keep them interested is a bunch of horse poop.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Progression is not what keeps people playing. You don't need to give people handouts of power for playing their game. Gamers aren't a bunch of panhandlers waiting to see what minor carrots a game will give them and flock to it.

World of Warcraft has actually used this reward model to sustain itself for years while lacking in any real forms of gameplay. There are a lot of people (one of my coworkers included) that enjoy the player progression reward model. It's also helped to keep many TF2 people playing the TF2 game.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Most of us played planetside for years and we didn't need that crap. The reason we stopped playing is typically because the game got stale, not because they didn't give us "progression". It's unnecessary if the game itself offers good compelling gameplay with variety and freshness.

If a game is fun to play, provides meaningful challenges and enough variety in the gameplay to keep you interested then people will keep playing.

I agree. However, you really need to step back and look at it from a business perspective to see the reward model in action. If you give someone all the upgrades and certification choices when they first start playing then things will become "stale" much quicker. If you unlock those over time and keep adding more then it's going to keep people playing much longer. In theory at least. I'm hoping some of these certification changes have gameplay changing effects also thus they'll add more gameplay over time. So something you didn't see happening at the beginning of the game evolves into someone's specialized strategy.

[EASyEightyEight]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Progression is not what keeps people playing. You don't need to give people handouts of power for playing their game. Gamers aren't a bunch of panhandlers waiting to see what minor carrots a game will give them and flock to it.

Most of us played planetside for years and we didn't need that crap. The reason we stopped playing is typically because the game got stale, not because they didn't give us "progression". It's unnecessary if the game itself offers good compelling gameplay with variety and freshness.

If a game is fun to play, provides meaningful challenges and enough variety in the gameplay to keep you interested then people will keep playing.

This idea that you need to give people stuff to keep them interested is a bunch of horse poop.

You really don't see the flaw in your own reasoning, do you? It's not really that it's flawed, per-se, more like your impression of what people/sheep in general want.

Yeah... they DO need that carrot. That next goal is what drives a lot of players. Simply shooting someone for the sake of shooting someone and taking land for the glory of our empire only works for so many people (like us.)

An actual, felt form of progression gives people a sense of accomplishment. As a fresh face, the mere concept of Planetside is eye popping. Yeah, they'll take their licks, and some may quit, more often than not because they expected to dominate and can't stand to get dominated, not because I'm putting out an extra point of damage per round, but the ones that stick around will be keepers as they see all sorts of customization open up for them as they play the game. That in itself is a form of reward for effort.

There are very few popular FPS' on the market that I can think of, that don't involve some form of "powering up." Obviously, it's a popular, working and acceptable model. Applying it to PS2 should be a no brainer. MAG, a PS3 game with up 256 players on one map, has all sorts of skills that increase weapon accuracy, reload times, even maximum health pools. Newbs don't exactly shy away from it for that reason, it just never sees updates or advertisements... ever. The influx is far outweighed by the bored outflux that have vetted between the 3 factions 70 times by now.

Face it, PS2 is going to see some slight power differentiation, but nothing the masses would be discouraged by as a whole. Some maybe, but we'll see more than we'll lose, otherwise again, how is MW2 so popular still? It only supports 6v6!

[Malorn]

Correlation is not causation. Just because WoW did something does not mean that a specific feature in WoW was the reason for that success. If it did not have that feature it may have been more successful. We can only speculate.

What I do know is that Planetside had players for many years without progression. Many shooters also lack it and remain popular. Thus, I can confidently conclude that progression is not required for a game to be successful and good game.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

Yeah... they DO need that carrot. That next goal is what drives a lot of players. Simply shooting someone for the sake of shooting someone and taking land for the glory of our empire only works for so many people (like us.)

"Conan, what is good in life?"

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Lamentations aside, crushing enemies and driving them out is accomplishment. It served us in PS for many years quite successfully. What was even better was that the act of crushing and the act of driving was fun as hell.

An actual, felt form of progression gives people a sense of accomplishment.

Ahh, no - Actually accomplishing something gives me a sense of accomplishment.

Taking a base. Triumphing over a rival outfit. Prying Amerish from the cold dead hands of the Vanu. Turning the world blue. Inventing new tactics. Successfully leading the conquest of a continent.

All of these things are accomplishments. Next to these things getting handouts for playing the game are garbage. What good is that? Why have that? It is unnecessary, and I did nothing to earn it. You want to give me rewards? Give me rewards for taking a base or a continent or resources. That's why I wrote up some in-depth ideas on that in the PS2 idea vault. You should go check them out. Good stuff in those threads.

[EASyEightyEight]

Originally Posted by Malorn

"Conan, what is good in life?"

"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

Lamentations aside, crushing enemies and driving them out is accomplishment. It served us in PS for many years quite successfully. What was even better was that the act of crushing and the act of driving was fun as hell.




Ahh, no - Actually accomplishing something gives me a sense of accomplishment.

Taking a base. Triumphing over a rival outfit. Prying Amerish from the cold dead hands of the Vanu. Turning the world blue. Inventing new tactics. Successfully leading the conquest of a continent.

All of these things are accomplishments. Next to these things getting handouts for playing the game are garbage. What good is that? Why have that? It is unnecessary, and I did nothing to earn it. You want to give me rewards? Give me rewards for taking a base or a continent or resources. That's why I wrote up some in-depth ideas on that in the PS2 idea vault. You should go check them out. Good stuff in those threads.

And with this post, you've pretty much just admitted the only people your argument really concerns is... you.

Sorry, but I have to break it to you and your inner frat boy:

Your way of play isn't good enough for a lot of other people. SOE seems set on putting in that character progression and achievements you don't care for. I advise not partaking in that progression and those achievements if you're not interested. Problem solved.

EDIT: And I did read it. You even responded to my post (or did you make a new thread?)
EDIT#2: Oh pshhhh, I'm thinking of your other, similar topic on PS2 general. EDIT#3. Wrong place to be putting my opinions on those threads.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

Your way of play isn't good enough for a lot of other people. SOE seems set on putting in that character progression and achievements you don't care for. I advise not partaking in that progression and those achievements if you're not interested. Problem solved.

I will point out if you look at people with multiple accounts you'll quickly understand this to be true. People do like to progress and when they stop progressing they make an alt just so they can progress even if it's the same thing. There are some veterans here that have pretty much tried to max out all their characters. Keeping the game interesting when you only have 1 character per server will be interesting.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

I will point out if you look at people with multiple accounts you'll quickly understand this to be true. People do like to progress and when they stop progressing they make an alt just so they can progress even if it's the same thing. There are some veterans here that have pretty much tried to max out all their characters. Keeping the game interesting when you only have 1 character per server will be interesting.

Did they say we'll only have one character per server? I was under the impression it was one empire per server.

[FastAndFree]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Did they say we'll only have one character per server? I was under the impression it was one empire per server.

The character selection screen slowed down the pace of the game too much

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Did they say we'll only have one character per server? I was under the impression it was one empire per server.

With a time-unlock skill system and one empire per server, there's no reason to have multiple characters per server unless you could train them in tandem. Assuming they would be copying EVE's only one character can train at a time thing, they would just skip that, limit the game to 1 toon per server and save any associated dev time. There'd be no reason for alts other than avoiding a reputation (bad or celeb).

They could have multiple toons per server and let them train at the same time but I dunno. I'm not feeling it.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

And with this post, you've pretty much just admitted the only people your argument really concerns is... you.

Is that not true for every person who posts here? Are you claiming to represent the silent majority?

Your way of play isn't good enough for a lot of other people.

Oh so you are trying to invoke the silent majority.

SOE seems set on putting in that character progression and achievements you don't care for.

Are they set on it? They talked about it. I don't see how any of us can claim to know their level of commitment to any one thing.

They haven't exactly been forthcoming in their reasons behind why they chose to do that. The only thing I saw on the subject was the idea of rewarding players for investing in one thing. Power progression need not be a reward, especially for a specialist who is by-definition is already good and experienced at what they're doing.

There are other ways to 'reward' players for devotion to specific things that don't involve power advancement.

Also power advancement purely or playing the game is dumb. We didn't earn it. Its a meaningless reward and it is rewarding us for clicking a button, not for actually achieving something. The resource system and territory control is a far better 'reward' - reward us with resources to go get cooler stuff. There's a great reward for actually accomplishing something.

I advise not partaking in that progression and those achievements if you're not interested. Problem solved.

Doesn't seem like it's an optional system. And if it were, not partaking gimps oneself. Sort of forced to partake, which is one reason why progression systems are poor ideas. The only games that need them are the ones that don't have good gameplay to keep players interested. It's what we call a "crutch."

Planetside was not one of those games, as evidenced by longterm play in spite of not having progression. Why should PS2 have it?

Yeah I'm going to say that again. Planetside is the counter-example to your claims that progression is necessary. It isn't. I don't need to invoke a silent majority to say that. The example is right there. You have no evidence to claim otherwise.