Instead of Changing The Game...

Add to it:

New Grenade Types
Poison Gas/Chemicals
Environmental Fire
Fire Weapons
Vehicle Control Surface Damage Instead of Hit Points
"Like Unit Types" e.g. Jet Packs, Heavy Armor, etc.

One is only limited by their imagination regarding what can be added to the game instead of taken away.

Other grenades (like the glorious Acid Grenade of ps1 were in the beta certs tree.
And the Flamethrower... Shall we tall talk about it again?

I would like to see fuel bombs for the galaxy, since it is hardly used for anything now except post continent-lock mass transport. Something with say a third of orbital strike power, sufficient to clear a landing spot.

I want to see splash damage that actually does damage. None of this 450 at impact and 1 at 5 meters crap.

I want to see classes that make sense. I might make another thread about this.

I would like to see the whole resources thing done differently but I really don't know how this could be done to make it fair for everyone.

I really like the flamethrower idea. I'd buy some DB to get one provided it actually did AoE and none of that no dmg outside of 0m crap.

The Valkyrie needs a fixed weapon that the pilot can use. So does the Harasser. Even if it's just a fixed LMG.

I hate the Infiltrator class and think it should be combined with Light Assault. Again, subject for a different thread.

More underbarrel weapons for everyone! And make them not suck!

Dual pistols or SMGs for light classes.

How about a cloak for Infiltrators that actually hides them? I can't imagine why anyone plays that class. Also give them real OHK weapons.

Well, adding things changes the balance.
If it's not properly updated to address additions, and similar, it becomes a far worse mess.

I like environmental dangers, makes the battlefield more interesting, however.
But again, this requires changes, it's not like you can just add things without those additions being changes in of themselves.
And if you don't address these changes, and make adjustments to the rest, you can easily nullify the point of the old, and make only the new worth any of the time used.

Apparently the flame thrower was a lag machine or something.

Infils with jet-packs, whom wield sniper rifles.

Under-barrel weapons like what.

It does hide infils if used wisely, it's meant to be the perfect invisibility so you can stand 2 milimeters ahead of someone whom can't react or do anything while you place a commissioner on their nose.
Sniper rifles with the ability of the user to aim, are OHK weapons, so clarify?

I've got 1 OHK with a bolt action sniper rifle. It was a point blank hip shot. I would like to see sniper rifles that are deadly from the waist up. Maybe two shots total to kill a heavy with a full shield. TTK in this game doesn't make any sense at all. Infis are supposed to be light on the armor and heavy on the DPS. Instead it's the opposite.

It's the same though with LA vs HA. I've found that I can be face to face with a LA when I'm HA and usually it's 50/50 whether or not I win the encounter. That's if all my bullets hit and all their bullets hit. Just doesn't make sense. Same thing for a decloaked Infiltrator. Given that they have a cloak (which really only works at night and when nobody is looking) why don't they have decent mega DPS weapons and only a handful of hp? Instead the cloak sucks, the weapon choices are abysmal, and they take as long to kill as a LA? Poorly implemented mechanics.

I could go on and on but I'll save it for another thread.

Infils have less health, a sniper rifle in general is meant to be used at range not in CQC.
Heavy rifles, those are.

SMGs are heavy on the DPS.

Depends on whom can aim & react better & faster.

LA have more health than infiils not using armor cloaking.
Used wisely the cloak is very tactical, and very lethal.
If an camouflaged target had the ability to out DPS any infantry at all practical ranges, without it being dependent on accuracy & distance, why use a heavy?

Infiltrators are not camouflaged when they act. They have to decloak first. The cloak also really sucks the big one. If it lets the infi get into position and get the drop on me then who am I to argue when he OHKs me?

As unless that OHK weapon is only at long-range with proper aim, then the second or less of decloaking allowing it to literally kill you before your client even registers them on your screen, will be utter bull.

Decloaking doesn't take long, in the case you didn't know, and often screws with rendering on the opponent's side.
At present, a sniper rifle shot to the head is fatal at close range & long range, but that takes skill.

But more OHK weaponry, that doesn't take aim to pull off, isn't likely to be limited to the sniper rifles which have very effective down sides.

Used properly, the cloak allows the infil to always have the "drop" or advantage on a target.
With present weaponry, you can kill a shielded heavy without dying rapidly in closer-ranges.
At long range, infils snipe you with one shot.

So the cloak is glorious in the hands of the skilled or practical.
In the hands of an idiot, or novice, even a OHK weapon is useless.
It's all about how you use the tools given.

Better to let the balance be determined by the tools, than the other way around.
Because currently many frustrations comes from inherent limitations of the game.
Like when 50+ players are trapped inside the spawnroom, with the enemies safely fortified in the very next building.
Or the impenetrable roadblock preemtively stopping an attack, disembanding a force of several platoons.
Excuse if I sound Vanu-like, but only by giving effective ordanance can the game reach its next level of existence.
Nerfing stuff removes oppurtunities for varied gameplay and gives a more repetive outcome of fights.

Additions are changes.
Removals are changes.
To add anything is to alter the balance, just like any edits, or removals.

That was the point I was making there.

That's a way of looking at things yes, but it conveys more information to separate the meaning of an addition, a removal, and a change. And I would rather see additions more so than removals and/or changes in efforts to manipulate the balance.

If you add say, a new cannon to the mix of cannons, to alter the vehicle game in some way, the result will be different and less effective than if you changed the cannons to make way for the new cannon.

If you wish to improve anti-infantry capabilities for certain vehicles or weapons, you need to change & edit these vehicles' themselves or their weapons.
You can not manipulate the balance with additions.

We have a dozen new NSX weapons, do these alter the game-play? Yes.
Does a New LMG change the way all LMGs are used? No, but adjusting all LMGs did & does.

Balance can not be manipulated properly, by additions alone.
Additions require edits, removals, reworks, or similar to have the intended effect often enough.
How? The balance was created by the existing capabilities & stats, to add a LR new weapon to not dilate the pool of them, either it must be capable of feats the others can not do, or some edits made to focus other LR weapons to their roles so the new may not eclipse the old - and vice versa.

Additions are not as easy as edits, for controlling balance.
ZOE for example, what would you add to make the original balanced? Something equal, which causes more problems.
However, for that example, they edited it to uselessness rather than edit it to have different capabilities better suited to the role.
IE they decreased the capabilities directly in excess, however the original was Excessive in capabilities.

Balance is complicated.
It can not be achieved by edits, additions or removals alone, as it is achieved and maintained only by all three.

It is easier to change something, then to add a new thing to the mix, to achieve balance.
It is harder to avoid removal by only adding new things - Edits, however allow things to remain & for new things to exist.

So, all is needed in equal measure, to actually have balance.
After all, it is balance.

You hate the infiltrator class so you are basically proposing to get ride of a quarter of the games population... dont be selfish man you knovv that if a quarter of the population of planetside2 goes avvay right novv the game vvould close?

Go play generals and heros make us all a favor there are plenty games out there without cloaks.

I think there are at least two ways to define balance, call them micro- and macro-scale balance

Comparing guns, different types of cannons, LA vs Heavies etc. would fall into the first category.
The same would complaints about MAX units, air-farmers and overshields.

Macro-scale balance would focus on the phenomena that occurs in the game.
Zergs, spawnlocks, ambushes, stalemates, etc. falls into this category.

Then define what is a good- and bad-balanced game.
I myself would call fights solely won by the greatest numbered faction as bad.
When no single planetman can do anything to increase the "against-him" odds of facility-wide success.
When there are no effective weapons or tools available for an experience better than respawning.

This is where additions, fuel bombs, gas grenades, and developer creativity are appreciated.
It can be better to address the larger problems firstly and do adjustments afterwards.
In any case I would argue that the most recent nerfs have adverse macro-scale consequences on the balance between zerging and ambushing.
So I am skeptical to the PTS, which mostly contains nerfs.

I never used ZOE that much to give any opinion on that btw.

Infiltrators aren't supposed to be anything in particular. They can be whatever a game decides to go with.

Micro is small scale.
Macro is large scale.

Unless you are only balancing with singular applications & sources, You are macro.
Balancing out weaponry, classes, vehicles etc is Macro - None are a singular thing.

Balancing out a single weapon, not weapon class is Micro; Small modifications ( such as addition of traits)

Modifying any weapon class: Macro, why? as you are altering an entire class of weapons which are more than one or two.

Macro, affects a great number of variables.
Micro can have a similar effect, but usually on a smaller scale.

They are presently doing large-scale changes, additions, removals.
Anything that changes the combat system by definition needs macro changes than micro, due to the fact it's a broad thing using many weapons, vehicles, variables and more.
It's incredibly inefficient to use micro-changes given in general, it requires a large number of changes regardless if addition, subtraction or edits ; All are edits.

Balance on the large scale is Macro.
Balance on the small scale is micro.

Balance isn't simple, and is generally a concept based in perception.
Hence why there can be any disagreements about it, using the same exact data.
Which you just proved in your own post, Fights won by numbers bad.

Unless those additions are properly adjusted, or have combat adjusted to them, it warps any balance existing to their existence & use, or are completely ignored by the balance, resulting in time spent working on it as wasted.
Again, additions need more work than edits.

To build a house, is harder than to change a house.
Unless you are rebuilding entire floors.

Larger problems, are not as easily solved with "add more of other things"
As this adds more variables, more things to balance, more things to account for.
Aka in simple words: More things = more things to balance.
As nothing can be balanced by simply inserting it into a system, regardless of that system being balanced prior or lacking balance prior to addition - Balance in games, war, whatever, isn't like balancing the scale with identical weights.

The 'scale' isn't provided identical pieces.
The 'weights' are not equal, so the equation to balance it out, isn't just "add another to the other side"
It can be in some cases, given balance in this game isn't like balance on a physical scale; It's not only one variable.

Lets use my weapon comparison example for this:
Damage, range, ammunition capacity, clip-size, projectile speed, spread, these are all characteristics available to weapons.
So any "weight" that is a weapon, has all or some of these with values, that can be different from another "weight"
It's value or weight, isn't a set number.
So you can not add the value or weight directly to the other side, in equal pairing without issue.

What is a nerf, and what is a buff is debatable.
The real thing to care about is reasoning.

Some things preform too well, rather than raise other things above the intended level to match, you reduce the exception to the proper level: This is the Beetleguese directive-LMG for VS, when it was 'nerfed'.

TR Landmine, Claymore, delay added before detonation, putting in line with VS & NC land mines in theory:
Another outperforming weapon;
Rather than raise NC & VS land mines to instant kills like it, they added a delay to TR's, to match NC & VS whom had a delay.

You can't always just add new toys, or buff something else, to address a balance issue.
In fact, adding new toys alters the balance of everything severely, more so than an edit, as it is one more thing in the mix.
Add a new rocket launcher; To get use, and be of value beyond the rest, it must be better in some regard yes?
Now vehicles, how can they handle this weapon? Cert costs? Is it more effective against them?
If yes for the last, then you just changed the balance between vehicles & infantry, around this one weapon.
Now what could you add to alter the balance if that original level, was the wanted balance?
A new Vehicle weapon? Would that not then alter the balance between all infantry & those who aren't using the new rocket launcher as much if not more than those who are using it?
If it cuts down on the time available to fire, which was why the new rocket launcher was more effective than the rest, then you just reduced the ability to use any rocket launcher outside of the new one.

And also forced vehicles to be less effective against one target & all others, if they lack the new vehicle weapon.
So now the entire balance is focused around two weapons, to the exclusion of all prior weapons.
How? As you only added weapons, rather than do any adjustments instead or with the additions.

Creativity isn't just "what can I add today"
As it's certaintly not creative to just add another weapon that for all extensive purposes is useless compared to the rest if not superior in some aspect, which changes the entire balance around the new weapon more often than not.

Example:
The quad shotgun-of-a-rocket-launcher, Masume (?) which was effective against galaxies, and was better for Rocket-primary heavies, since it shoots 4 rockets directly into the face of the target without making it harder to hit the target.

There's an addition.
How the hell do you change any problem caused by that launcher by adding something else?
Nothing, that wouldn't be near identical in problem caused.
Hence edits.


Buffs are rarely noticed, when indirect, or when not as flashy.
Nerfs are always noticed, since usually they are the result of weapons over-preforming.

Example: The original LOLpods aka Rocket-Pods were far deadlier than they are now.
IE they were nerfed. Was that bad? not if you liked living for more than seconds to any ESF at mock 10.

Agreed, this is known as power creep. A problem in Warframe, as they keep adding new stuff without balancing the preexisting stuff. There's a ton of cool weapons, but less than half of them are endgame viable.

For PS2, I'd be interested in more variety for, or repurposing of, existing assets. There's plenty of things to "get creative" with or at least tweak.

Electrified wire
Razor wire
Vehicles with firing ports
Magic
Drones
Building Collapse

No I did not mean macro-balance as adjustments to whole weapon classes, but the in game reaction to such changes.
Before there were the most beautiful fights on the edges of Amerish's "The Ascent", fights which could last for hours, and fights which could hold off greater numbers. It was truly delighting to spawn into great infantry fights after participating in more vehicle focused battles - a good gaming experience. After nerfing all the LMG+ARs I don't see such fights anymore = less varied gameplay. Perhaps the reason is that medics are less efficient outside and HAs can't challenge opponents at variable ranges. Now those bases are abandoned and derelict, with "the balance" of the game shifting towards arcade-style CQC, players more likely to only participate in zergs, and less people willing flank as they now lack the tools for it.

Therefore I don't think the game should change in this manner, and if anything it should come as additions. Kind-of like construction, you create value in something new, not by deteriorating the old.