Meaningful Customization & Balance via Tradeoff Decisions

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If I cert a tank, and want to switch to infantry, I expect to go to the appropriate terminal for the gear and get it. Not make a side trip to a third terminal so I can change up what certs I'm accessing at the moment.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Definitely some mistunderstanding here - I'm not suggesting any change to the class system. If you are in the "tank driver role then you can drive a tank.

I'm suggesting another layer where you choose the power bonuses. Those power bonuses are significant and meaningful and because of the limited number and the decisions you must make, that will differentiate you from other players who will make different decisions.

Example, suppose you like assault rifles and choose to have an assault rifle damage bonus as one of your power augments. Whether you are a tank driver or a light assault infantry you get that bonus. If you occasional hop into a max suit or infiltrator then it won't be that useful to you, but if you do that with any regularity then you might have some differnet bonuses for those roles.

Its no different than if you were swapping implants. Some implants are more or less useful in certain roles. "Surge" for example is not a very useful implant for a MAX, but if you don't spend a lot of time in a max or while you are flying aircraft, but you may feel it is a worthwhile implant for the times you don't. Same deal.

Not seeing a misunderstanding.

Me: If I cert damage for an infantry weapon, I want to be able to put that on the weapon when I pull that weapon.

You: That damage bonus for an infantry weapon would be an implant like thing you must make a side trip for to change out

More importantly I'm concerned with how the game scales. Think release + 1 year and they have a content expansion. Many players have converged and have most of the same skillsets providing the same passive power bonuses. There is no longer differentiation between players. What will they do? Well they already started down the path of power over time so they'll very likely continue down that path and expand and add more power bonuses. Just like EVE started with "not that big of a difference" it becomes a big difference and discourages new players.

Just because eve did it does not mean PS will as well. People who stick around in a game for a couple years do not do so because of the leveling mechanics, but because they like the gameplay.

I propose one based on other games with similar systems (including PS1 and EVE - use their ship customization model instead of their skill gain model).

We don't even know if there will be a +5% damage cert or whatever. It could be a barrel attachment, that you fit in place of another barrel attachment that gives better accuracy or something. This is in fact what I'm assuming will happen. You cert upgrades, that you can purchase, and install on your armor/weapons. And if you install them, you can't install other things.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Not seeing a misunderstanding.

Me: If I cert damage for an infantry weapon, I want to be able to put that on the weapon when I pull that weapon.

You: That damage bonus for an infantry weapon would be an implant like thing you must make a side trip for to change out

You only need to make a side trip if you didn't already have it slotted.

This is no different from how BFBC2 does gadget slots. You can choose to have damage, or you can choose to have armor. But you cannot have both. You can choose to have an a run sped bonus, or you can choose to carry more grenades. But you cannot have both.

Thus, tradeoff and meaningful specialization. Its meaningful because it is significant and you the player had to make a choice as to which strengths you want your character have based on your playstyle. Its also meaningful because not every player will have the same benefits you do. If you choose a bunch of infantry bonuses, you will be more suited for infantry than players who chose vehicle oriented bonuses or different types.

If you got the bonus all the time, it means
1) the bonus will be small and insignificant
2) many other people will have the bonus, making it meaningless except against nubs that haven't trained it yet.

Do you not want your bonuses on your character to actually convey an advantage in a field of your choosing?

Just because eve did it does not mean PS will as well. People who stick around in a game for a couple years do not do so because of the leveling mechanics, but because they like the gameplay.

We are in agreement - gameplay makes people stay, not power "progression" and other meaningless carrots. Putting these things in is unnecessary and as I state, potentially dangerous, so it should not go in, even if it's "no big deal" right now.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You only need to make a side trip if you didn't already have it slotted.

This is no different from how BFBC2 does gadget slots.

BF2 gives them to you at the spawn screen. You don't have to take a ten minute trip to another base to change up.

Originally Posted by Malorn

If you got the bonus all the time, it means
1) the bonus will be small and insignificant
2) many other people will have the bonus, making it meaningless except against nubs that haven't trained it yet.

or

3)The bonus will be significant, but because there are 5 significant upgrades occupying the same slot on the weapon, you have to pick and choose, and since everyone values different things, different upgrades will be used. i.e. Some would want the high accuracy barrel with reduced cof bloom, some would want the high damage barrel with secondary acceleration coils for more damage, and some would want the underbarrel grenade launcher attachment.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

BF2 gives them to you at the spawn screen. You don't have to take a ten minute trip to another base to change up.

Once per-spawn could work here too with loadouts. As long as you can't change it mid-fight and you make a decision at spawn time what your bonuses are going to be I don't see an issue with it.

3)The bonus will be significant, but because there are 5 significant upgrades occupying the same slot on the weapon, you have to pick and choose, and since everyone values different things, different upgrades will be used. i.e. Some would want the high accuracy barrel with reduced cof bloom, some would want the high damage barrel with secondary acceleration coils for more damage, and some would want the underbarrel grenade launcher attachment.

I think you're still not quite understanding what I'm getting at. Weapon upgrades and such that you use resources to acquire are not what I'm discussing. Weapon attachments and augmentations are not the topic of this discussion.

To provide the eve example, I'm talking about the passive upgrades one gets via skills (or certs), not the modules and rigs that can be applied to augment a specific ship. The former is always-on applied to your character. The latter is a one-time purchase that is applied to the current equipment being used.

So I'm talking about how to handle passive power upgrades that might be unlocked via the cert tree. They have described their system like EVE, only with far lower power progression amounts (~20% combined).



EDIT:
Looking back on your posts it seems as though you're just hung up on the proposition of changing these bonuses at a terminal, not with the core idea of limiting active bonuses itself. The frequency at which the bonuses get changed is not the important part of the idea being proposed. The important part is the part in the OP that I bolded, increased font size, and colored yellow. That's the core idea, everything else is a more minor design detail that is certainly subject to being changed. Love to discuss that more if that's what your objection is with.

[CutterJohn]

If its just about permanent upgrades that are not tied to any piece of equipment, and are just a few %, then I see no issue leaving them always on. A few percent in an fps only has meaning on paper.

I would not like stronger bonuses that you must pick between, because I don't like character differentiation like that. You should get good at a role because you play it a lot and are good at it, not pick a role to be good at so you can play it.

[Malorn]

I did a quick edit of my previous post while you were posting this (its labeled at the end).

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If its just about permanent upgrades that are not tied to any piece of equipment, and are just a few %, then I see no issue leaving them always on. A few percent in an fps only has meaning on paper.

But then why have them at all? If they're small and insignificant they have no value. And as people train them up they become meaningless as the veterans have the same bonuses.

I would not like stronger bonuses that you must pick between, because I don't like character differentiation like that. You should get good at a role because you play it a lot and are good at it, not pick a role to be good at so you can play it.

I don't disagree with this statement. If the devs are hellbent on having power progression as part of cert training I'd rather see it done this way rather than being flat applied across the board for reasons stated above.

I don't think power progression is necessary. I also dont' think it's bad for the game unless it is applied across-the-board through time-based unlocks, rather than by explicit customization decisions a player makes and has tradeoffs with. That's the context of the thread.

[Malorn]

One thing occurred to me that this entire thing I'm rambling about could boil down to an enhancement of the Implant system.

Instead of 3 slots for activated abilities you could have something like...

3 slots for activated abilities

4 slots for passive combat augments

3 slots passive non-combat augments (quality of life stuff)

It ends up being similar to the WoW Glyph model or an EVE ship. High slots, medium slots, low slots, etc. The cert tree could unlock all the different options but you get to augment your base soldier with a ton of different options.

And since you have to make choices the bonuses are meaningful and don't converge over time.

I suppose that's a simpler way to look at it.

[FriendlyFire]

I would prefer a system that has very little or no convergence. I think PS2 could benefit from a system that promotes "roles" and not "Super Soldiers." Specialized Soldiers or Load outs, similar to what Malorn mentioned above is a good system. LoL uses a system similar to this as well, very high customization and easily switched depending on play style or load out.

[MasterChief096]

Here was my proposed system:

Originally Posted by 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