Think before you cry OP.

It's not really the dieing in and of itself that is the subject of it but how the player-player interaction was up until the death. One theme I've noticed with a lot of games is that weapons or abilities that increase the options of players make the game funner for everyone where as weapons or abilities that force their opponents into some very specific options tend to be less fun for players and generally disliked.

As such the better approach to a weapon or ability that is causing problems is to open up new avanues for players to have counter play against it that is fun for them too.

Balance is supposed to be balance between the factions as a whole. The thing that sets this game apart from the standard BF clone is that the factions don't have the same weapons and aren't equally good at all parts of the game. Given this fact, all the factions have to play and organize differently to be effective. It keeps the game fresh. Whenever I feel the game has gotten too easy or I just get bored--I switch factions and learn new tactics.

I'm so happy the dev's have ignored most of the 1 to 1 "justification" rants for nerfs/buffs. It's not an exploit to play to your strengths, figure out what yours are and have fun doing the same.

Just my 2 cents.

The people complaining about things being OP have adopted Kruger's Effect. I just taunt them with "Evolve or Perish"

Just wondering... where do you draw the line for an insignificant margin and one that actually matters?

I would say if the options are all performing within 1-5% 30-day average KPH from each other, that's an acceptable variation.

But 10%? Or greater? Those might actually be signs of a significant imbalance.

There should be some line where you figure out that things actually are imbalanced, even if that line is just hypothetical and is never reached in PS2.

It's always good to think before crying wolf, but that doesn't mean we all stick our heads in the sand and pretend wolves don't exist.

It would be great if, just as requesting thought before suggesting OP, one would think before hanging on to the status quo for dear stats. I would suggest people always question someone's motivation in resisting change.

Some of the things mentioned in this thread are pretty sadly misguided.

• Using peer-pressure and associated social isolation to bully people into silence because you don't agree with their point of view? That's pretty whacked, to use a technical term. It's also misguided as you'll find quite a few people couldn't give a rat's bum about your peer-pressure.
• Evolve or Perish... cutely similar to publish or perish but that's not important. Think about what you're saying for a minute. To evolve means adapting to change. Yet you're using that suggest no changes should be made. It's like people who love to mention the Dunning-Kruger Effect because that's what all the other kids in the cafeteria think is cool. It isn't really the panacea some seem to think it is from an argumentative standpoint.

This is a public forum with equal access to all who play this game. I don't agree with everything everyone says, clearly. On the other hand, I do very much respect their right to speak their mind.
If they claim something is OP and I don't see it that way, I can say so. I can also choose to stay out of it entirely if I don't really think it's an issue. Asymmetrical balance and the virtue of teamwork often convince me to leave a subject alone**.
What I cannot do is suggest others must simply shut up because they disagree with me. That's just not an acceptable approach.
**For example, the vulcan is very frustrating when it simply chews right through blockade armor. On the other hand, people feel that way about my ravens, and I should really have gunners in my sundy.

That goes both ways if you didn't know.

It is the unskilled/unlucky calling something OP when they just don't have enough information/time. And it is the skilled/lucky calling something fine when they forget just how easy they have it.

Then you can also get into people who really think those things in honest or choose to say them in a means to an end. The 2nd part your "Evolve or Perish" taunt fits into very nicely as something an ***-hole would say to hush people who threaten their way of play.

There has been more fights I've changed by dying...then there has been by staying back and staying alive. You are absolutely right. In planetside 1 it was the sameway...dying in that game was FAR more dangerous then in this game. That game you had at the very least 5 second respawn, more accurately it was 30 to 45 seconds and typically FAR further away. But in that game people would be afraid to rush a door they knew people were hanging out camping. But if someone would run through that door more than one would follow like lemmings. The same is true in this game. I've come around a corner with a sundy to see a line of tanks....I drove by and surely died...but the time it took for all the enemy vehicles to turn to deal with me....a few mags would push and destroy them.

The same goes for infantry work....and getting better at the game. When i die....i often try to figure out what killed me...where it would came from. How he killed me, I go back and try again. I do it till I get it right. It's how I've become a better player. There are still those better yet. But I've gotten to the point where I don't try to beat people 1v1 all the time. Sometimes I'm more content by being someone who helps our TEAM win. Far more fun in the game for me when I can feel that way. Enemy has overwhelming airpower? I will team up with a friend to get a pair of skyguards to run them off or help our team get air supreiority. I will use lock ons.....I will get a walker harasser, or dual walker sundy...forcing the other aircraft our's can go A2G and push the enemy back. Even if we lose, at least i felt like I made a difference instead of just throwing myself down a tower stairwell to die over and over again then rage at what ever gun is killing me.

I need batteries.....I NEED MORE BATTERIES! (Vs Sentinel voice pack) Is how I taunt my enemies. My character has a sick and overwhelming need to have more batteries...the driving force behind the entire VS war campaign is the acquisition of more batteries. Explaining things doesn't really matter....if they are unwilling to learn themselves....there is no reason for me to try and show them why they are wrong. Most people on the internet down't want to learn, they just want their way to always work....if it doesn't they want the game to make it work.

Good point. Players do have options in PS2 though, they just don't use them because they're often more difficult than the option they're "Forced" into. I've had some of the most fun in PS2 by learning how to properly counter the situations that I've been "forced" into. Its a part of the game, and learning how to handle it, and when you should/shouldn't be prepared for it is part of the learning curve.

See my post about having to have moments that aren't fun to really appreciate the moments that are. It ultimately enriches the experience when you finally overcome an obstacle.

The issue is that you can't really go by stats alone, and there never has been, nor will there ever be a hard line where something is or isn't balanced. Its always going to be a matter of perception.

KPH only indicates kills per hour. It doesn't factor in player skill, teamwork, resource cost, learning curve of said options etc etc...
The devs have done a fine job of handling counters to most situations, the issue is that there is a learning curve to each option, and most people are going to go for the easier to use, but ultimately less effective weapon, and I don't see that as being bad design/imbalance, I see that as an unwillingness to adapt and learn to use the more difficult (but more rewarding) route.

If an option is easier to use, then they're going to that, leading to less KPH for the more potent, but more difficult option.

PS2 has a scale that makes looking at a single weapon, or a weapon and it's "counter" highly difficult. Everything kind of weighs on everything else in the game, and by changing a single weapon, you may introduce unintended side effects elsewhere in the game.

Not resisting change, nor saying it shouldn't happen, I'm just trying to remind people that due to the scale of the game, they should step back and look at things as a whole. I'm not against changing the game in some ways, but I feel that people are too fast to speak their mind from their own perspective only, instead of looking at things from as many perspectives as possible. This game has a large scale where everything weighs on everything else in some minor way, and as such, people can't examine something on its own, without examining it within the scope of the entire game.

You may hate that I can kill you in a liberator as another liberator, galaxy, or ground vehicle, but I hate that I get killed by ESFs, TitanAPs, Flak, Decimators ( Although thats my fault), Bursters in spawn rooms, other liberators. Its just a matter of perspective. I'm actually in favor of changes to AA, despite primarily being a pilot, but I think it should be thought about long and hard before anything changes, and that goes for any aspect of the game, not just AA.

As for the social pressure, I was only joking about actually pressuring anyone, but I do feel that peer pressure is always going to weigh in on any social situation ( read: MMOFPS ), while negative pressure isn't the answer, neither is overly positive. We have to encourage people to learn to play better, not hand them changes to the world around them to suit their needs.

More people need to see it from this point of view. There is a lot of meta in PS2, despite popular opinion if you can see the game this way. There are tons of games that provide quick, casual release from difficulty, but that shouldn't seep into every game that has a large population. Attracting new players isn't worth alienating older ones, which a lot of changes that people suggest would do.



Don't take this thread as a "Oh everything is perfect don't change it" thread, just a reminder to give it some serious thought before you request a change. I've seen several other games get changes they requested, only to want them reverted immediately. Basically, its a "Be careful what you wish for!" thread.

So quoting in-game dialogue makes me an *******? Well, then I guess the game itself is one as well.

The hackusations need to stop too. Honestly, if a guy kills you once or twice, don't worry about it. The dude is just really good. Now if he kills you, your squad, your imaginary friend and then takes Higby hostage all in 5 seconds.....then maybe it's time to file a ticket.