Is Skill Overpowered?

I just want to know formside's opinion on skill and such.

Should a person of high-skill always beat a person of low skill?

Is having a high skill ceiling good for the game? (makes people stay longer to learn or does it push away newer players and hurt the game?)

Should all parts of the game be about skill?

Should the "crutches" meant for lower skilled players be more effective than the weapons of higher skilled players?

Is skill Overpowered?

Should a BR1 be able to kill a BR100 because the BR1 has more skill?

Should most weapons have a high "skill ceiling"?

There is no "right answer". I just want to hear everyone's opinions. I see people complaining about weapons like the PPA and maxes because they require no "skill" and I also see people complaining about the dalton because it WAS so effective in the right hands that almost no one could destroy it. I just want people to make up their minds.

I believe that a person of high skill should nearly always beat someone of low skill in a one on one scenario.
I believe that a high skill ceiling and depth of play often coincide, so I think it does good as they seem to be caused by the same things.

No, the 'crutch' weapons should not be more powerful, however, they should be powerful, because as long as they're powerful enough they're competitively viable in high skill vs high skill matchups, and therefore also allow scrubs to get the occasional kill. I believe that, currently, shotguns and explosives are not within the realm of consistent competitive viability across most scenarios, save for perhaps the Jackhammer/Baron.

I believe that all parts of the game involving individual's actions out to be about skill. Therefore, organizing a cohesive force is a skill, and taking skill should be a worthy realm of personal investment.
Skill is, by definition, overpowered, depending on the definition in question. Whether it ought to be nerfed is another question altogether.

I believe a BR1 should be able to kill a BR100 because the BR1 has more skill. In fact, they can do that. But, do not forget that experience often informs skill, therefore it is exceedingly rare for a BR1 to have more skill than a BR100.

I believe that all weapons should not have a high skill ceiling. I believe that some ought to, and that PlanetSide 2 is currently lacking in them overall. Edit: Some examples of high skill weapons that are delicious to use in PS2 right now are as follows: Many of the sniper rifles, Jackhammer/Baron, and the Lancer.

Rather than hate the MAX for being 'skilless' (which it is not), I hate it because it is an unavoidable and inevitable part of nearly every infantry engagement, and is a formidable force multiplying resource investment which requires me to specialize in areas that exist almost solely for countering them, reducing some fights to me throwing AV grenades and running around with a Decimator out. MAXes also have a high investment to be able to git gud with them, which is most unfortunate IMO.

Every time.

EDIT

Provided they are on an equal playing field. Since the playing field is anything but equal in PS2, it balances out.

Skill has been nerfed by the low TTK nature of the game.

Almost always. The whole point of skill is to be better than your competition. If everyone was equalized regardless of how much time and effort he or she put into the game, I guarantee you it would be stale and dead.

Of course, there has to be some small chance that the underdog can win, like in the movies. But it's just that: a chance. Not a game mechanic or decision.

I like how everybody is just answering the one that asks if someone who's better should be someone who's not.
Come on guys, what if someone happens to be better in an instance while not being overall better?
Edit: won't the better person, by definition, win?
Edit 2: disregarding the massive RNG that is PS2's nature atm.

Edit 3: lel nevermind, everyone previous already acknowledged this.

Low TTK? Compared to what shooters?

This is a hard question...

Honestly, I have a knee-jerk reaction to say that skill is the most important aspect, but you do bring up some problems with my notions (which I completely accept). I think that a BR 1 should have enough resources to have some chance to maybe survive a BR 100, but not necessarily be able to outright beat him/her with skill alone.

I think a game needs needs something to work towards. A shiny gun, a better tank, a faster plane, or anything that could give the player an edge on the battlefield, but not enough of an advantage that it crushes those of lower experience and status. I don't think it's the best idea to give the player basically the best guns in your faction as your starter gun. The Orion is one of the best examples of this. It's probably the best gun a VS Heavy could get his hands on, and it's the first gun the VS Heavy is given. Give the player something he can work with for a while, but make it clear that the gun he/she starts with isn't going to get the player through the entire game. Otherwise, there's no point in progressing in the game. (To be completely honest, the progression in this game is rather weak IMHO, but this is coming from a guy that's used to more rigid RPG experiences, so that's probably my bias at work.)

I just think that we have this question come up from time to time because of the very nature of the game, and the fact that you can have a newbie play with against a veteran just because of random luck. There's no separation of skill level in this game, so newbies get pwned by not-so-newbies and complain, essentially, that skill is too much of a determinant in how well you do in the game. While that does seem to be preposterous to suggest, you must remember that this game is very different in the fact that the guys that are good in playing the game and the guys that aren't are in the same battlefield, and you honestly can't tell who's who until they kill you or you kill them (because the BR system really just tells how long you've been playing, and not much else).

To the question about "skill ceilings," I'm rather ambiguous about it. I would like to have a high skill ceiling, so that I have something to achieve, but that would mean that while I'm on the process of achieving that skill level, I have to deal with people who can own me in a few seconds (ask most pilots about how their early flying days were like, and I think you'll get this gist of what I'm talking about). Again, this goes back to the sandbox theme of this game: all people of all skills can go fight each other. So you could go with a lower skill ceiling, but then I, along with a high percentage of the player base, would become instant pros at certain parts of the game, and engagements in the game would turn into either how luck one zerg is or how strategic the zerg is. And while adding strategy would be pretty good for this game IMO, most players just won't go along with it because they want a more relaxed and casual gaming experience, not a RTS with guns in it.

So that's my view on the issue... Sorry for the Great Wall of Text I just wrote, I got carried away by my thoughts on the issue...

In aircraft, skill matters a lot.
Less in ground vehicles.
even less on infantry.

But yes in 1V1 situations or in small fights, skill matters a lot and often make the difference.
It can only be beaten by high organization that only few outfits get. (wich often have skilled players also )

Skill is relative.

A weapon is OP if it's too good outside of its intended function.

Certainly skill can affect a weapons intended function to allow it to be more useful outside of its intended purpose. And that should be applauded, not denounced. But when a weapon becomes better outside its intended function than it should be in its inteded function, and this becomes a consistent pattern more than an occasional exception, the weapon is OP.

The big example was the Libs. They were meant for A2G use. But they became far to useful against everything. Certainly the skygods using those chariots would beg to differ, but hell, if I could fly a Vanguard around I'd probably say the same thing.

Does using an OP weapon make a person using it skill-less? No. It makes them a bunch of other negative words I'll not repeat, but not necessarily skill-less.

Now a balanced example I'd say is, often, with infantry weapons. Anchor, for example. Nice CQC LMG. Can it be used at longer ranges? Sure. But it's not going to dominate at longer ranges. Even a greatly skilled person is going to really have to put their skills to the test to utilize it with efficiency outside it's intended role. IMO, thats how it should be.

In general, I'm of the mindset that you can have weapon systems of varying skill ceilings. But no weapon system, should dominate outside its intended role on a regular basis regardless of an individuals skill.

Well I come from ArmA, which I used to play almost exclusively. To me every shooter seem to have a very low TTK.

Depends what you mean by "skill". I think tactics should generally win over twitch skill. Using the right weapon or tool for the situation. Of course, low BR characters would tend to be more limited equipment-wise.

Skill Matters...But Team work beats skill...That's why it is so important for new players to join outfits and group up.

Isn't Arma TTK like 3-4 bullets (or one on HS)?

Battlefield 3/4 if we take the more mainstream ones. CoD most definetely.

Yes. That's why it's called "skill", and not "RNG".

Define "part of the game". If you mean various forms of combat, (infantry vs infantry, vehicles vs infantry, etc.), then yes.

No. Learn to play or go away. There definetely should be easy to use and reliable weapons, but starter weapons already do a good job of it most of the time.
Those who can't adapt don't survive in real life, why should they survive in the game? And why would they want to adapt, when they have a perfectly usable crutch.

Yes. This is not MMORPG, this is FPS, equipment upgrades don't mean that whole much here, and level itself doesn't provide any advantages.
If we're talking about BR1 consistently beating a lower-skill BR100 in ALL FORMS of combat, then BR1 will have a hard time in vehicular combat, but infantry play - certainly.

Sure, why not. As long as there are always easy to use options to go back to.

Did you just tell me that this game's TTK is low compared to CoD?

Last time I checked you killed in 3-4 shots in those games, with weapons that shoot 800-1000 rounds per minute

Yeah, exactly, PS2 average rof is significantly lower than BF ones. So in reality PS2 is a bit slower in terms of TTK

Ah, the age old argument that lower TTK/faster gameplay/movement somehow magically takes tactical skill out of the game or lessens its worth and also somehow lessens the amount of gameplay depth.