Instead of Changing The Game...

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by DeadlyOmen, Apr 22, 2017.

  1. LordKrelas

    You do realize, that I literally explained this kind of thing?
    People have different tastes and preferences for what is balance, let alone what is fun.

    LMGs were altered for long-range balance.

    Medics, are a support class with one deadly *** rifle.
    With an LMG you can still snipe snipers at quite a few ranges, and that's after the changes.

    You think the bases were abandoned due to LMG range changes?
    If that was what kept them going solely, those bases need changes, as long-ranged LMG combat was, and is "Spray enough bullets".
    Considering you just basically described said bases taking zergs.... irony.

    In this manner.
    That's vague.
    You can not just add **** in, as your only solution to making, editing and creating balance.
    In fact, as per stated, and shown, Adding things complicates balance far worse than edits.


    The construction system.
    They added an Orbital Strike Cannon; Which changes the entire balance about base fights,
    And now added the ability to shoot it into Bio-Labs, killing everyone & everything at the place in one shot.
    Now is this balanced? What could you add to balance that out? Oh wait, nothing that wouldn't be damn dreadful.

    Bases were made to be automated completely, with self-repair, and automated defenses, add-in sky-shields, proper gates, spawn-tubes, vehicle & aircraft pads, and You have a base that's incredibly hard to crack, able to built in places where the terrain prevents most forms of attack.
    Add in glaives, ineffective as hell for fixing that.
    Does it achieve solving the problem? No, but it was better than nothing.

    Now, could you add something to change the effective range of automated but not player-manned base turrets? No.
    That is called an edit.
    Now a base turret can't automatically engage at disturbing ranges with the power of the full weapon, with the all-seeing eye of a machine.
    Does this solve the problem? For the most part yes.

    Lattice bases.
    Several have those damn anti-armor cannons, that one-shot infantry at entirely different hexes.
    Can you add anything to fix this? No, not without changing the entire balance of those different hexes' base fights (Not including the turret's influence of course.)
    What can you do? Change the turret type or remove it.
    This achieves the goal, unlike what any addition would do in this case.



    Additions cause more problems than edits. Everything for an edit, already exists. Additions, add another set of variables.
    Balance is not achieved in a vacuum.
    If you have more additions than edits, then nothing is being balanced to the existence of the others - only to the best, or themselves.
    This results in a "balance" between solely the newest additions or the few things in-between the additions that are worth a damn.
  2. DeadlyOmen

    A vehicle capable of laying large minefields (using cortium)
    MCLC munitions
  3. Icehole1999

    A more varied, more satisfying game experience is what i think would come from merging the LA and Infi classes. Instead of thousands of cookie cutter stalker cloak knife ninjas or C-4 LAs a player could actually developer a toon the way they wanted.
  4. LordKrelas

    The LA's weapons are for CQC mostly, with the flanking & light anti-vehicle.
    The infil's aren't, and with the sniper rifle which becomes horrific if used with LA jetpacks, in addition have reduced health.
    Infils specifically have weaponry not suited to LA capabilities, and vice versa.

    If you don't like Jump jets, don't use LA.
    If you don't like cloak, SMGs & Sniper rifles, don't use Infils.
    Just like you don't want LMGs, rocket launchers or Overshields, don't use a heavy.

    Cookie-cutter is every single character on every single game.
    You don't pick a support class & try to make it identical to a front-line tank class, without expecting problems right?

    After you picked the class, if that doesn't match to your style, perhaps not use that class?
  5. DeadlyOmen

    I think it would be cool to give jet pack options to every class. It would open up a brand new teamplay option.
    • Up x 1
  6. Icehole1999

    I love that idea.
  7. BrbImAFK


    No. Jetpacks is literally the only thing that makes the LA class exist. If jetpacks were available to other classes, a jetpack engineer or something would be strictly superior in every way.
    • Up x 3
  8. DeadlyOmen

  9. csvfr

    As you say, balance cannot be acheived in vacuum.
    Can a blind man walk without falling? Yes - for all intents he has balance although he cannot see where he walks.
    Can new content be added to the game? Why not.

    Common is, both create motion into the unknown.
    What is the effect of orbital strike being able to fire into biolabs?
    That is unknown to me and much of the player base.
    Such an addition can be controlled with proper use of edits - like the blind man changing his posture during a step.
    Only after making a step, he can feel the ground with his stick, and prepare to make a new step.
    The worst thing he can do is to consistently make steps in the wrong direction.
    He cannot bend the world to his steps and must adapt his balance as he walks.

    Similarly I look at the game, it is hard to determine the resulting balance after an addition, not to mention several of them.
    I don't view the one-shot base turrets as a problem at all, nor the masamune.
    Simply because they are equipped to deal with incoming threats, generally armor but sporadically interleaved with infantry.
    What would you do then to have the same combat effectiveness? Nerf the AV and add an AI turret right next to it?
    Regardless, you can as the opponent already know where the AV turrets are.
    And the masamune can only kill one guy before needing reload, worse than some shotguns.

    The moral is that in this game, it is better to die when you are uncareful than not be able to kill at all.
  10. LordKrelas

    Can a blind man see the color of the pit.
    As that more appropriate, given that balance requires multiple variables, usually multiples that interact with the previous & each other - IE not in a vacuum, where each is created independent of any consideration for the existence of the others.

    Are you seriously not aware of what an orbital strike does by itself? Anything in the blast radius basically dies.
    We have this forum, a video of it firing into a bio lab, and statements by the players saying it demolished even the spawn room consoles.
    We know what it does, and what effect it causes when fired into the Bio Lab.
    It kills everything inside, and demolishes every console, making attacking & defending a Bio lab center around any PMBs with OSCs in them given those literally can decide the fate of the entire Facility, and therefore Hex.
    That is the result, as it is known.

    You do not need to add things before you change things.
    If a car is off-centered due to a broken axle, do you add new bumpers before changing the axle? No idiot.

    You missed the entire point of why I mentioned them.
    It wasn't the one hit-kill, it was the turrets influencing fights at different hexes for no practical reason.

    Nerf the anti-vehicle fully, so it's less effective, when the problem is literally that the Machine is too effective with it?
    That's akin to setting the barn's roof on fire, since a candle was not bright enough.

    Since it's at an entirely different hex, You wouldn't think a defensive turret in a different hex should be defending the hex you are in.
    As it's not even a defense for that facility IE Hex.

    And missed the entire point of that being mentioned.

    Do you actually get the point of any edits in general?
    Do you get the idea of why anything was added in the first place? If so, prove me wrong, and explain it.
  11. csvfr

    Yeah I know what an orbital strike does, about the damage of 3 C4s at its center. How? I sat in the middle of it inside a deployment shield sunderer, and could safely repair it afterwards. Edits, as additions and removals can be done for a multitude of things I suppose, but thats pointless to talk about as it requires thinking outside-of-the-box; the kind you don't do when exposed to distant lattice turrets.

    If I where to say propose an addition: Give each launcher different ammo types
    • HE Rockets - more effective against infantry (even groups), but less effective against armor
    • AP Rockets - less effective against infantry, but does proper damage to vehicles
    I would not say that immediately requires balancing edits. The countermeasures for infantry (flak armor) is there, and tanks are in any case quite resistant to standard rockets. This is also an addition that could counterbalance a new anti-infantry turret with the tanks - case closed.
  12. LordKrelas

    Distant lattice turrets, that are designed for the defense of the base they are at, not the base they are firing at.
    As apparently outside the box thinking is to account for unintended firepower from turrets in different hexes.
    I even explained defensive measures, however no addition is effective enough in curving the issue created by improper placements.

    Consider the damage of present anti-armor weapons, are these rockets using the present damage base or a new one?
    The Anti-infantry ones, did you account for the TTK, and general effectiveness of these rockets compared to any other weapon?
    If the AP rockets aren't using the original damage, then unless you wanted to shorten vehicle kill times, you need edits off the bat.
    If the HE rockets aren't balanced around present infantry combat or similar, they would eclipse all other AI weapons for infantry.

    The counter measure for a new rocket shell, which is assuming the damage is the same as the original towards infantry but with higher splash.
    In which case, is the existing % effective in providing any sort of counter to it? Is it competitive to other slot choices or dominating?

    Unless the tanks use the turret, they are now at a disadvantage against infantry, making all other AI options useless or the new one useless due to the new rocket type.

    So case not closed.
    Dear lord. Variables aren't your thing at all.
  13. DeadlyOmen

    Weather. Rain and fog come to mind immediately.
  14. csvfr

    AP/HE rockets would be balanced around the same theme as AP/HE MBT cannons. That would mean:
    • AP - high damage, alpha, reload, velocity
    • HE - dunno but with largest explosive radius
    • No ammo attachments - corresponding to HEAT turrets
    In this way one achieves more meaningful vehicle engagements from the infantry side.

    If the tanks would not use the turret, that would be their choice. Its an integrated part of the game already, making compromises in ones loadout. Take the carbines GDF vs Mercenary for example. The GDF has a superior TTK, nice hipfire, and can save you in a close up 1v1. However by equipping this weapon the soldier makes a sacrifice - he can no longer challenge enemies at medium range.
  15. LordKrelas

    So you now have 3 entire new damage profiles per rocket launcher.
    There is 3 tanks, with 3 cannons. We have, what like 6+ rocket launchers? 3x3 = 9 , 6x3 = 18.
    That's a **** ton of damage profiles to work with, and only 1 damn turret on the vehicles designed to match any of AP profiles.
    Vehicles get ****** hard, and infantry can be impossible to properly calculate risk factor; As there is 3 profiles per launcher.
    While any vehicle can be seen to have the Turret, and none wouldn't use the only turret capable of matching the AP rockets...

    Their choice to make themselves vulnerable & be less effective, or use nothing but that turret ; Hell of a choice.

    'This heavier rocket launcher generates a shield that blocks all frontal damage for 4 seconds while firing, you can choose to not use it, and use a standard rocket for less damage & no shield if you choose'
    Same bloody concept.

    Different ranged carbines.
    Side-grades vs Full-on different cannon \ rocket types.
    One destroys armor better, one destroys infantry better, both are better than default.
    Vehicles can pick a superior turret scaled to the best of the rockets, or an inferior turret scaled to the vehicle balance.

    You can't add things rather than edit things.
    There is a time, and place for everything.
    Give up on your dream of "additions solve everything", they don't.
  16. csvfr

    I main NC, I play to win with force.
    I cannot do that when the devs keep "toning" stuff down, and not adding hard hitting stuff in return.
    As statistics show, NC loses the most across all servers and continents, barely reaching second place in some exceptions.
    Give up your illusion of balance, it is not there on the grand-scale, probably never will.

    In any case, I accept that, because even some seemingly loosing battles can be entertaining or have unexpected outcomes.
    Reduction to a handful of 'variables' is not as fun.
    In the casino the slot machines can only spin some number of times before revisiting previous states.
    Its just the same, how development goes today.
    Adding a reel would spice up things, if not fix balance then dilute its problems.
  17. LordKrelas

    I win on NC with tactical destruction.
    Use a weapon poorly, and it preforms poorly, as it should.
    Use a weapon superbly, and it preforms superb, as it should.
    Expect a weapon to achieve without work, and it should fail: otherwise, the achievement is solely the weapon not any skill.
    - Which is bad.

    I know we lose the most; Adding random crap isn't what'll win the day.
    For one thing, You can't just add things to NC only, and if you aren't then you don't do anything but change the meta.

    Balance is there a bit, as it the concept of grand scale: Do recall LMG's.
    Otherwise, TR , VS and NC wouldn't all have loses & wins.

    I am practical.
    Everything is a variable.
    Balance can only be achieved if you consider the variables, regardless if they are "Nice" or "horrific" towards an idea.

    Adding things, without proper thought, without edits, without any foresight, just complicates repairs.
    Imagine if a game added new weapons solely, to act as changes \ edits:
    Everything old would need to be replaced while cluttering everything with the new. - Which must all be superior.

    You don't do development anywhere near a slot machine, unless doing themes or similar for cosmetics.
    Why? As, balance requires consideration of variables.
    You can't have 'fun' that involves only blindly adding things in the belief that "It'll work itself out".
    That is how you destroy a project with half-*** thought.
    You can have your 'fun' in inventing interesting new or altered concepts, enabled by careful consideration, removals & edits.
    New Meta created by not adding, by changing the game;
    - Removal or editing of unintentionally too-effective weapons.
    - Additions of new mechanics, that mesh with the old.

    Balance isn't a stew pot of ideas hashed together.
    Consider why it is called balance.
    If need be, consider the Chinese Ying & Yang.
    That is literal Balance.

    And we can go for all eternity with this.
    Expect it. Understand it.
    I'll rephrase it more than enough, and You seemingly shall not see it each time.
    So, I have fun explaining it; Aka good luck.
  18. csvfr

    The Ying & Yang, or the old-fashioned scale, are both bad metaphors for balance here, because there are three factions.
    The scale would need to have three arms, each equally long and at an angle of 120 degrees to the others.
    Balance, in this sense, would mean that when raised on a straight pole, the scale does not fall over since the "weight" in each arm is equal and balance the others out. No arm has more than half the weight though, that is an important contrast to an ordinary balance scale.

    So you who quibble at additions in the name of balance, tell me why is it so that NC players have 11.7% less chance of winning an alert compared to the VS, and 9.9% less chance compared to the TR. Why do the NC only have 25.3% chance of winning when it should be 33.3%? If the game is balanced, then how can this be? The ternary balance scale have the arms of TR and VS low, but the arm of NC is too light.

    The reason I write in this thread is because I think it would be better to add stuff, than keep shafting NC deeper with every patch. Have you read the PTS? did you see how the NC main battle tank is shafted away, without any edits in proportionality to the other factions? Never did I read "The magrider turbo has been cut because it helped it get to unintended places".
  19. LordKrelas

    Three factions yes.
    And land vehicles, Aircraft, Infantry.

    Ying & Yang is literal balance.
    In their case, Good & Evil.
    However, the concept works with 3's, sixes, 27s and more;
    As regardless of the number of sides, all must be equal to the other in some way.

    NC's flaws are:

    Slow Firing heavy hitting infantry fire-arms that require proper aim using ADS, which increases the ease of head-shots on NC infantry.
    NC infantry lose strafing speed to ADS in addition.
    Our heavy weapon is a short-ranged triple-shot shotgun called the Jack Hammer
    - vs VS Long-range AOA Lasher, Medium range TR chaingun.
    Our starting weapon is murder for new players to use (Gauss Saw),
    - and our standard pistol is near identical in fire rate & damage to it.
    We do have a camera-guided Rocket-Launcher, which renders the user a sitting duck unless in a spawn room for the entire process.
    Directive LMG is often out-preformed by Gauss saw due to ammunition count.
    And is literally out-preformed by TR & VS Directive LMGs severely. - And has the least in service.

    NC MAX units, are reduced to shotgun ranges with limited ammunition for anti-personal, standard slow speeds, and a defensive shield that is ignored by Archer Fire.
    This range for most is around 12 meters, with Slug-based Mattlocks reaching 30 if lucky.
    For anti-vehicle duty, they have access to the NS Gorgons (which preform as average anti-personal bested by every dedicated ES Anti-personal weapon), and an array of slow-firing one-shot rockets, followed by the Laser-Guided Raven rocket-launcher.
    For anti-air, they have the standard Flak cannon.

    For Vehicles, we have the Vanguard, which until the patch hits provides a 6-second shield of extra health to the slowest tank.
    It has the slowest reload of all Tanks, in addition.
    For vehicle ES weapons, we have literal shotguns including on aircraft.

    For our ES aircraft, we have the Reaver with the largest hit box.

    Now, TR has:

    Large Magazine capacity, rapid fire rate.
    LMGs have 37 less damage than the Gauss Saw in general, but fire at 200-300 more RPM.
    Due to not being reliant apparently like NC, on Head-shots TR do not need to use ADS as much, allowing more effective strafing.
    Weapon reload speed in general is also improved.
    The TR standard pistol, can out DPS a Gauss Saw easily - Assuming target is in close-quarters.
    Range is not that Pistol's friend in the slightest.
    The Directive LMG for TR, is the Butcher, a rapid-fire mini-gun with a large-ammo pool.
    It is only out-preformed & solidly by the VS Beetleguise, the Directive LMG.
    It slightly out-preforms the NC directive LMG, and is more common.

    The TR Prowler has the largest hitbox for tanks, but has the fastest reload & fire-rate using a double barreled cannon.
    Their ES ability is to immobilize the tank, enhancing reload & firing rate - aka becoming artillery.
    Per shell, they have less damage, but if both shells hit they deal more damage than even the Vanguard.
    This tank is also the apparent fastest in a singular direction.
    For ES vehicle weapons they have rapid-fire anti-armor chain guns.

    TR MAX units, are essentially chain-guns with large ammo pools, that can fire up to 70 or so meters.
    Reload speed is rapid, and their ES ability mirrors the Prowler: A lockdown, becoming instead of artillery, a weapons platform.
    Beyond chain-guns, they have like NC & VS rockets, but also a anti-armor grenade launcher, called the Pounder which can reliably kill infantry.

    For Aircraft, they have the Mosquito, a small hit-box aircraft armed with effective anti-personal machine-guns.


    For VS:

    They have moderate damage & fire-rate in-between NC & TR.
    Beyond select situations, their weapon's ES trait being No-bullet-drop as Per AFK's post is rarely effective beyond suppressors.
    - Also doesn't effect all but two sniper rifles, making it not aid them there at all.

    Their starting weapon for Heavies is the Orion, a close-combat oriented LMG.
    Which has superior accuracy to NC & TR starter LMGs.
    Their Heavy weapon is the Lasher, an AOA slow-velocity weapon that can effectively counter cover.
    - It is however ineffective without support, or multiple Lashers due to velocity & fire-rate, In groups it exterminates however.
    The VS directive LMG, the beetleguise, is the most common directive LMG, and has the best performance.

    For Tanks, the VS has the under appreciated Magrider; Which is pulled the least, and preforms the best given the fewer numbers.
    - Results are equal or better, to the Prowler & Vanguard, whom are pulled in severely greater numbers.
    A hover tank capable of strafing, allowing it to dodge projectiles easily.
    It's main cannon is embedded in the hull rather than on a turret,preventing Hull-down tactics in most cases.
    Due to the sloped armor on all sides, this tank has the smallest hitbox, added with unpredictable strafing makes it hell to hit.
    These tanks are also known to glide into places all other tanks can not fit or even reach.

    For aircraft, there is the Scythe.
    Which has the slimmest forward profile, aka hit-box when firing at it from the front or rear - its underside however is large.
    Due to the way ESF air-combat and ground attack runs are, this means the Scythe has the hardest to hit body when being engaged by it.

    VS max units, which I left down here for no reason, have for an ability the heavily nerfed ZOE.
    Beyond that, they have effective weapons comparable to TR for anti-personal & anti-armor but lack anything like the Pounder.
    They share similar ranges with TR.

    I am aware in short how often NC is shafted. Yet called OP & favored, while losing constantly.
    However, you don't make balance by literally doing only additions let alone to one side.
    It is never that simple, after all, unless it's NC only, then all get it... which doesn't do anything to NC balance wise beyond adding new toys to kill NC with.

    But you did read VS tears about the directive LMG not being as superior as it was prior to edits.. while still being superior.
    There was literally multiple threads about how VS was plotted to be killed off after an over-performing gun was slightly nerfed.

    I never said the game itself was balanced.
    I state that additions alone can not achieve balance, and said it like every single post in point-blank form.
    • Up x 1
  20. csvfr

    No, even if some sides are unequal, balance would still be possible. A scale with six arms would still stand if every second arm was light, and those in between heavier.

    You did not say that additions alone can't acheive balance, but that
    A removal for every addition could never expand the game, that is a fact. I never said edits are not needed, but neither that there had to be some specified amount seen in relation to the number of removals/additions in order to achieve balance .