Fixing Balance in PS2

Balance problems are built into PS2 and are consistently annoying to old and new players. PS2 is the ONLY MMO that i know of that both allows and strategically encourages lack of balance. Do you want to win a fight in PS2, no matter how awful your platoon is? Outpop by 30 percent and you've won.

As server population decreases and the game is in danger of dying altogether, BALANCE should be addressed in a meaningful way. Remember, it's the players who are the content, not the awful bases on Hossen, for instance. Can DBG really afford to lose massive percentages of new players and continue to lose old players because if your platoon drops into an even fight and the pop goes 70-30 against you, your team loses, no matter how well you fight?

A couple of easy fixes. When the area pop reaches 55/45, stop letting players in the larger pop spawn, or increase the spawn time dramatically.

Another easy fix which should be put in place for casual players is a balanced arcade mode that features TDM and other traditional multiplayer modes. Also Bots for off line practice in those modes.

I expect a lot of flames, but that's forumside, so whatever. Balance is a problem in PS2 and with the game's content ( the players ) moving on to other games, balance should be addressed.

Your suggestions are welcome, except the suggestion that goes 'i have a lot of fun farming outside of spawns, so leave the game the same until it dies.'

And that was the last time anybody ever took Subterranean Nanite Analysis

No. NO to any kind of hard population limits. PS2 is a sandbox. It's our game, we are the content. Don't like your chances - redeploy, or yell in chat, or get on TS, or face the odds as they are. Equipment-wise factions need to be balanced (god forbid *the same*), but otherwise - all is fair in love and war (even MAX spam, as cheesy as it is).

I'm also opposed to any additional game modes - those will only serve to fragment the playerbase.

The uneven pop percentages are absolutely FUN..

I LOVE being warpgated.. LOVE being the underdog.. there are so many targets to shoot at..
If you are in the big zerg with 90% pop for some hex.. you are wasting your time.. get out of there.
Find a battle that your faction is about to lose.. get in there, make a difference, or at least get a bunch of kills/certs etc.

If the whole game is "balanced" around some percentage.. that would be extremely boring.
If you want to be on the 'winning' faction side, join 'em.. play all three and then you can always pick the one
that suits your mood of the day.

Buff TR, Change VS. Give NC some Fish-Oil and Antioxidants. GG

Or play PS2 as PS was intended,
The NC were high damage
The TR were quick damage
The VS were precise damage

Always have to balance things out so the wet diaper gamer doesn't leave the game for being too hard on them. Seriously?

You can change the game but you can't change the player. ****ters gonna ****. No amount of balance changes to anything will fix the human condition. It is up to the players to elevate themselves above their peers into leadership positions to create a better gaming environment. Unfortunately, a lot of people are comfortable with not trying.

If anything, the only thing that should be changed is how the game is played but not by using any kind of hard pop caps. There just needs to be more things to do. Planetside 1 offered a lot of things which didn't even involve zerging a base:

1. Setting up defenses with tons of deployables. Minefields, strategically placed sentries, etc.
2. Specops gendroppers. These guys would go into enemy territory to take out the generator linked to a base where all the big fighting was taking place. The dropped gen would cause the base to lose it's benefits, requiring forces of the defenders to pull some back in order to resecure the generator.
3. Specops could also work to deny an enemy from reinforcing a base with NTUs. The base could fall into a neutral state which would allow any side to move in and attempt to claim it, opening up a brand new front.

Those are just a few ideas of things which could be done which would make zerging less of an issue. More people would be doing other things in the game rather than just flinging their bodies at a wall of rotaries, lol. I'm just saying, theres more solutions than just changing numbers or from putting hardblocks on things. Localized events could also draw people away from fights to make it less zergy.

i think the game is balanced enough as is - i dont think any changes really need to happen for the most part, just adding stuff now. i dont mind be the underdog, or the overwhelming force. every empire does it every now and again and its just a wave you have to ride out from time to time. even if we took all the guns for every empire n made everyone able to use them, i dont think this would solve any problems that already exist. the problem is 4th factioners jumping the sinking ship to join the overwhelming force. redeploy side is another issue but atleast its being handled more recently. Lock it to one faction per SERVER, or perhaps an empire swap cooldown like they had in PS1. oh you just got done playing as VS, you gotta wait 30 mins before u can play NC. (actual PS1 balance fix) bam, issue resolved

No, there should never be any population limits because that kills a large portion of strategy this game could have.

DBG said they will be fixing redeployside soon, that should fix the problem. Wannah outpop? Well, you can no longer simply warp entire squads across the map, you will actualy have to gather your squad at the WG, grab a Gal and fly it. That could take more time than you have before the enemy takes the facility. Also the enemy may deploy Skyguards or ESFs to shoot down your Gals before they reach their destination so you will have to start over or find another way.

Zerging would become a very low-efficiency strategy because too many soldiers will be wasting their time starring at a spawnroom and when they're done they won't be able to instantly warp somewhere else to defend. If you had one VS (ofc) platoon of 48 people zerging one TR facility and 4 TR platoons of 12 people each attacking four different VS facilities at the same time then VS would take that one facility but would be unable to stop the TR from ghostcapping four other facilities. That would force VS to split up or loose very quickly without much resistance.

Fixing balance? That is overwhelmingly simple:
1. Advertise.
2. Fix bugs.
3. Give VS actual plasma weaponry.
4. Give TR better weapon flavor.
5. Make the NC more professional.
Ultimate Reward: Awesome game.

What joy does the ability to overpop enemy bring you?

If my faction wins with 66% pop the victory feels unsatisfying.
If my factions losses with 33% the battle feels frustrating.

I honestly can't comprehend why you guys defend pop imbalance so much. What does bring to the game? It only makes it nominally "sandbox" but in reality such overpopulation adds nothing to strategic depth. Or am I wrong?

You will get plenty of those suggestions because most players interested in fair and competitive FPS matches have left. Those remaining are sandbox aficionados who mostly approve of current situation although I will never understand why. Sandbox is just a label, unbalanced pop adds nothing to the depth.

Strategy. All players on the field are assets, as are those waiting to redeploy. Mindgames are a huge part of the PS2 experience and not only on a tactical flank-me-flank-you level.

Gauging the strength and acumen of an enemy force ("How many MACS/KAIN tags did you see in that base?"), baiting and funneling the opposition into a Biolab meatgrinder ("Good. A whole platoon will be preoccupied for the next 30 minutes."), trying to predict their movements and attempting to be one step ahead ("Four minutes left on the timer, redeploy. They will move on to Regent Rock any minute now.") - it's all what I consider fun. All that would be pretty much impossible in a static and perfectly balanced setting.

That depends on the circumstances. Sure - balanced fights tend to be the most intense, but all those "unfair" uphill, or cakewalk battles provide a huge variety

People tend to complain a lot abound the PL/SL mechanics and I too find them a bit bland and oftentimes unrewarding. However, once you establish the premise that all you need to turn PS2 into a MMORTS is communication it turns out all the tools are there. No bells and whistles, but they're there and at the ready. It's the players that fail (at) the game, not the other way around.

Well, if you'd ask me - you're wrong.

I reviewed the responses to my post and find them typical. PS2 is dying in part because balance is an issue which game design in PS2 makes worse. There's a reason why every other successful MMO on the market balances matches.

if you like playing 75-25% pop with 12 players on one side and 3 on the other, keep the faith and keep the game as it is.

That's exactly what you'll get.

Have fun because everyone else, including me, is moving on.

You have to be joking. You like walking out of any given door and having 10 people shooting at your head? Believe me, you're in a minority.

Why is it that every other game, including sandbox games have balancing mechanisms?

It should be noted that population balance says nothing about how many tanks, sundies, aircraft, etc there are on the field, let alone how many maxes, engies, medics, etc. Like most MMO games, team strategy is based on how people use their characters in order to win. Every other MMO has a built in balance mechanism, why not PS2?

In my experience, being on the winning or losing side of a big population imbalance are both boring. Fights begin to stop being fun when the population reaches 60-40%.

OK so platoon leaders have access to strategy element. What about other 97% of players? They just have to follow orders. Where is strategic depth in that?

On the other hand if you sacrifice strategic depth for tactical depth (even teams so your actions matter much more) then you get something that all players can benefit from.

Why do you blame the game for something the players do? thats what pop is its based on what players join its depended on our chocies why do you guys keep blaming the game for our choices?

First of all many of you fail to understand that this game requires strategy as well and as you mentioned it has it but you dont seem to understand that outnumbering the enemy is also a strategy so you blame the game for allowing that to happen?what kind of **** logic is this?
If you want to fight a zerg you obviously will have to fight with another zerg or with a more coordinated platoon and thats the way it is a smaller number of players CAN win vs a larger number of players but most of them tend to stick in the spawn room and try to farm,you cant blame the game for that.
Planetside allows you to fight in MANY ways for example is saw my team stougle so many times vs a large number of people and all i had to do is just take my small squad place a beacon let them drop on the spawn point an GG WP we wrecked them.
Planetside already has what u mentioned it did drop the spawn ability after certain % but you guys try to blame the game for what it is?its an open world ******* fight and you are telling me you dont like when people group large numbers? WHAT THE ****?

Plus you also tell me you havent seen that in any other mmo? zerg fights?i played a LOT of them and i saw it to happen in every last one of them this is a strategy and you should deal with it plus the game is not 100% finished the devs are making more progress bringing new stuff in it for example the new sundy that removes the ability for enemys to spawn near it did you check this out? i would guess no you didnt but you did take the time to complain about the POP

The POP is our concern this is what PLAYERS do not what the GAME does you dont need to pay too much attention to understand the obvious

Also did you check the black ops? nooooo you didnt check this either did you? well maybe you should before you come crying to the forum about the obvious mechanics of the game.

If you cant handle big fights then this game is simply not suited for you.I personaly have managed to keep a base 1v6 plenty of times you know why?because i did the thing you said i knew how to fight better so some times fighting better and knowing more DOESSSS help.


Also this game is not ******* Call of lame duty or the battlefield so if you like TEAM DEATH MATCH AND CAPTURE THE flag maybe you should go play them instead of planetside did you ever think about that?

"What about other 97% of players? They just have to follow orders. Where is strategic depth in that?" sooo i nearly had a heart attack...okay explain what strategy means to you when a General gives commands to his soldiers what do they do?isnt that strategy ?what the **** is this logic?

YES they follow orders to move on the map accordingly THATS WHAT SOLDIERS DO WHEN THEY TRY TO FOLLOW A COMMAND IN A PLATOOOOON THEY FOLLOOWWW ORDERSSSSS IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

definition of strategy :A plan of action designed to achieve a long-term or overall aim.

definition of tactical:Relating to or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.

These two go together in this game so you cant freaking say where is the strategic depth in people following orders...

BECAUSE PLANETSIDE IS AN MMOFPS GAME THAT LETS YOU CHOOSE YOUR OWN **** THAT IS WHYYYYY honestly does this game really need to explain the obvious?
Planetside would be total **** with restrictions over to what we want to play.
Also planetside did implement the ability to spend specific amount or points in order to buy all that stuff and pull them if your team cant destroy thema nd they sit on their ***** farming then DONT BLAME THE GAME FOR IT ffs

[/quote]
In my experience, being on the winning or losing side of a big population imbalance are both boring. Fights begin to stop being fun when the population reaches 60-40%.[/quote]

THAT IS WHY YOU GOT A TEAM IN ORDER TO BRING REINFORCMENTS WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU ffs this game has a mechanic on the map that says REINFORSMENTS ARE NEEDED did you ever check on that ****?!

yOUR POSTS GAVE ME CANCER RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK PLEASEEE