Limiting asymmetrical balance is a good thing

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Paperlamp, Apr 12, 2014.

  1. TheShrapnelKing

    Well then WTF is the point of factions anyway if there's not going to be any difference? Hell, why stop there? Let characters be transferable between factions on the same server, switching just changes the visuals since the guns are all the same anyway.

    I'm telling you, the way to go is MORE asymmetry but make the faction traits pronounced enough that no matter which faction you pick your weapons arsenal will still kick ***.

    Specifically, I want everything I wrote in the Weaponry section here:
    • Up x 5
  2. z1967

    Do you want the horizontal recoil that comes with it? Trust me, you don't :|

    In my little silly version of the game, main focuses of gun stats (DMG, ROF, accuracy etc.) would be available to all factions with some factions favoring certain traits. So all sides would have a high ROF weapon, a high damage weapon, and a ultra accurate weapon. This would solve 90% (made up stat) of our whining and complaining as everyone gets what they want to an extent. VS will still have a focus on accuracy, NC on damage etc. Each faction would, however, posses the best example (ex. NC have only 200 dmg, TR have only 900+ ROF etc.)

    Now for the fun part, secondary traits (mag size, reload speed, velocity etc.) would be the major distinguishers between factions. VS would have fast reloads (bonus points for every weapon having the same reload speed bar a few), NC would have faster velocity, TR would have bigger clips mags. Guns that carry the other faction's traits would just be rip offs (or maybe we could collect and horde guns, hint hint) that don't perform quite to the other gun's standards. Eg, 35 round TR/VS gun instead of a 40 round TR/VS gun. You get the idea.

    Regardless, asymmetric balance is something the game should bend towards, but not go too far overboard trying to get it.
  3. minhalexus

    Recoil comes for the DPS.
    Just saying, i dont mind horizontal recoil for CQC guns such as the GD-7F, Carnage, GR-22 etc, for that magazine increase.

    To me, recoil comes in the way when I'm shooting at ranged targets from 20m+.

    Honestly if you want me to choose between higher Mag size, smaller reloads and higher velocity, i would generally prefer the mag-size.

    If you only want the game to bend towards asymmetric balance, then it already has. This thread talks about removing it.
    • Up x 1
  4. Quicknick42

    I like asymmetrical balance with one caveat : All factions need weapons which fill the same roles and be roughly as effective at that role (even if they do this in different ways i.e. charge times vs lock ons). For example currently the VS (no bias, just an example) have neat area suppression weapons like the Lasher and the PPA which have no TR or NC equal, there is no equivalent for the lancer's range either.

    Here are a list of things which I perceive as not having an appropriate faction option or only an NS choice:
    AV Secondary (close range) - NC and VS have no Vulcan-ranged equivalent.
    AV Secondary (long range) - TR require an ES solution.
    AI Secondary (close range) - VS require a specialized close range weapon (PPA is more medium range).
    AI Secondary (long range) - NC and TR require longer range AI secondaries.
    AI MAX (close) - TR and VS could use a very close range weapon like the NC has (flamethrowers are WIP but most likely going to be NS)
    AI MAX (medium range) - NC forced to use AV weaponry or unreliable slugs.
    Infantry AT (medium range) - the Striker is currently outclassed by every other lock-on, with the annihilator having the exact same role but having higher dps and range without the poor lock-on mechanics imposed during the Striker nerf.
    Infantry AT (long-extreme range) - nothing in the TR or NC infantry arsenal besides the AV turret can reach out past standard lock on range, unlike the lancer.
    Indirect fire AT - VS and TR have nothing which can destroy armor over hills etc. in a similar fashion to the phoenix.
    AOE Suppression - TR and NC have nothing comparable to the "disco ball" weaponry, especially on infantry.
    AI ESF - the NC Airhammer is considerably worse at killing infantry than the PPA or banshee

    You get the idea. There should be no single faction who are better at any given role or even be completely unable to preform in that role, by all means though have different mechanics for each but there needs to be that long range NC AI MAX, a useful Striker and some less niche VS heavy weapons.

    P.S. it would be nice to see TR get some additional new mechanics in the future because it basically boils down to slight spin up times and worse lock-on mechanics when it comes to their mechanically different gear. The NC also have a lot of uncreative weaponry, I mean this is the faction who have access to Gauss weaponry (rail guns) and presumably mining lasers but the best they could come up with is a rapid fire halberd and shotguns for our ESF, MAX and AI secondaries.
  5. Dieter Perras

    I would love for this game to be like red alert 3, where each faction feels unique because they all follow a theme. That said I hate stat based differences, it only serves to limit what could be made for a faction.
    • Up x 1
  6. Sebastien

    Sucks to be you then.
    • Up x 1
  7. TheMercator

    If I understood right what you mean I like this idea. Like instead of saying TR vehicle are faster than the other fasctions eqivalents, they are more flavored to support infantryfights, while NC tanks have to fight alone because the infantry has to stay behind the frontlines in tank battles?
  8. Paperlamp

    I have a battle rifle and yes I am serious, they are terrible.

    A SAW is better at pretty much any range, way, way more versatile for no major loss in ranged effectiveness.

    Battle Rifle's damage:RoF model is terrible because they kick so much you can't even use the RoF at most ranges if you want to place precision shots. You have to wait for gun to settle. And the damage sucks unless you go for headshots, but if you're going for headshots a bolt action or vandal is just way better - really the Vandal is just a superior Battle Rifle in every way.

    A SAW is 200 damage @ 500 RoF(drops to 167 @ 85m) and you can actually use that 500 RoF by controlling its recoil. Battle Rifles are 250 damage @ 333 RoF and you will rarely use the full RoF because it's semi-auto and you have to re-aim shots due to the high kick. You'll still have to burst a SAW at longer ranges to control CoF, but overall it's just a far better weapon. You have more control over how you use it at various ranges to get the most out of it. You can frantically spam click a battle rifle at closer/mid ranges but it's just not going to match a SAW. Plus SAW has way more damage per magazine. Plus it has literally no CoF for the first shot vs. the .1 of the Battle Rifles, so it's technically a more precise long range weapon if you single shot mode it.

    I also believe the Battle Rifles are exactly the same on NC and TR, VS has less velocity for no-bullet drop but other than that they seem identical. Not seeing this lower recoil for AMR-66.
  9. phreec

    I agree.

    As NC I'm very privileged for having access to such diverse arsenal. I wish both TR and VS had the same.
  10. Paperlamp

    PS2 has other things keeping it from being generic. It still has infantry that can fly, turn invisible, take a tank shell to the face and live, bring people back from the dead(well BF has this but still), etc. etc. It has hover tanks and teleporters and a gigantic map.

    Empire specific funky niche weapons could still exist(lasher being best example), but how much worse could infantry guns really be if, say, the Serpent and GD-7F ended up the same gun? They're very similar already. So are most infantry weapons. Often one equivalent gun just has a slightly better statistic balance - MSW-R vs. Orion for example, who wants the MSW-R if they have the choice?

    The few empire specific guns NC has that aren't really matched are the only genuinely different weapons. VS and TR have very similar guns with stat tweaks and lolnobullet drop vs. larger carbine/AR mag size that often comes at an unfavorable stat reduction in other areas anyway.

    They've already had to sacrifice tons of empire-specific-ness to balance infantry weapons.

    We also know they're not comfortable letting TR's RoF actually make them superior at close ranges, defeating the whole point really. There's not much functional gameplay advantage for TR's trait now, and even less for VS's.

    Yes, for some reason they're fine with NC having the best longer range automatics and the best shotguns/MAX units for close range. NC defending asymmetry doesn't surprise because they get the most benefit from it now that they got competitive close range automatic weapons without losing any of their advantages to get them.

    They could also just make NS variations of everything, so players can opt to stay faction-specific, or use NS for whatever weapon they perceive as being superior on the other factions. Make an "NS custom" gun for each weapon type, you can buy it, pick any gun to copy stats from, and name it. NS are opportunistic war profiteers of a sort right? Why wouldn't they be selling one faction's guns to another?
  11. Devrailis

    The most balls out broken thing in the game for the past few months that was just recently patched was the Viper Lightning, which is NS. One of the most complained about things in the game since the last few patches was the Liberator, which is also NS. SOE nerfed the Heavy Assault's shield because players are complaining about it being a crutch - which is insane, and the shield is identical across all factions. People complain about cloaks being cheesy, about suicide Flashes and mines (yes, even the TR ones), about the Heavy Assault Rawket Primary Master Race, about shotgunz, about every little possible thing that could kill them in ways that they take far, far too personally.

    Asymmetric balance is not the problem. Lack of balance is the problem. Lack of Balance != Asymmetric Balance.

    Toxic and lazy player attitudes are also a big problem, but I do hope that is mitigated by the devs' ability to ignore the worst of the bullHigby that infests Forumside. Fingers crossed.

    Even if you reduced this game to nothing but instanced 12v12 arenas filled with Heavy Assaults slapping each other with NS Wiffle Bats - something that many in this playerbase are clearly rooting for once you take their garbage demands to their logical conclusion - you are still going to get complaints about balance.
  12. Kill2This

    Hey Paperlamp!
    What is the state of your Battlefield 4 download? Because,you know, you start to really irritate the planetside community with all your unfounded and bad suggestions.
    • Up x 1
  13. Paperlamp

    Playing BF4 already. Using the assault class to start with, and a bit of engi to noob tube people/shoot vehicles. Already unlocked the SCAR, working on the M416 which I'll probably use for awhile.

    Broke 1 KD pretty fast, was very worried since BF games are pretty unforgiving when you haven't played them awhile. I planted a bomb this morning, was the most objective feeling thing ever. There was a clear point to what I was doing and it won the game. A sense of closure that PS2 doesn't have.

    Maps are hit and miss but they're more varied than PS2 and have more interesting cover and verticality. There's also way fewer vehicles on the smaller maps which makes a ton of sense.

    And of course it looks way better, and guns feel, look, sound better. I can't speak much on weapon balance itself though.

    Then there's the balance. Autobalance server filter + equal numbers = fun and fair fights something that's quite rare in PS2.

    PS2 could learn a lot from it. Not that PS2 doesn't have its own charms, but I think BF4 is the better game - too early to really say though. I've only got the base game w/no expansions, but I'm considering premium. Depends on how things go yet.

    Expect me to post more on PS2 forums with comparisons to how BF4 does things mixed into my complaints.
  14. Astriania

    Faction traits and asymmetric balance make games more interesting. We need better faction traits, not to get rid of them. There should be a set of NS weapons that are normal guns that do a decent job in all the standard combat situations, and empire specific stuff that plays on the faction theme (e.g. railguns, energy weapons, high-ROF bullet hoses).

    Perfect example: ES rocket launchers. Each of them fulfils a different but useful role, is very situational and usually outclassed for utility by the NS ones (Deci/Anni), but fun to use and add to the feel of being part of something more than just the Blue Team. (Striker probably needs its role better defined, it was nerfed because it was just an upgrade from NS RLs but now it is pretty much just a downgrade. Perhaps allow the user to pick up a lock after firing, giving it some degree of shoot-around-corners?) MBT secondaries are another good example: the NS Halberd is always a good option but the ES secondaries are more effective in particular scenarios.
  15. Tbone

    Biggest BullS..t i've ever read.
    How can a high RoF fire gun which maybe kills you under0.5 sec superior like a OHK NC shotgun??Maybe you are the guy who plays SC2 and want shield to the siege tank and burrow ability right ??Asymmetrical balance is good no matter what.The problem is in the head of the "neighbors grass is always greener" minded players who can not accept that yes in asymmetrical balance the are areas where you have to put in 2 times more effort like the others but in other areas other have to put in that 2 time effort.That is the only problem the 80% of the modern players.I van everything to be good ,anytime ,against everything players.
    • Up x 2
  16. Kanil

    If I had to choose between asymmetrical balance where certain factions couldn't use a certain playstyle, or completely identical factions, I'd take the latter. The idea that you have to play for a few hundred hours to only discover that you should have picked the other faction is a really terrible thing.

    'course, ideally you have asymmetrical balance, but any given playstyle will be viable across all factions. We have that in some places, but not so much in others.
    • Up x 1
  17. Kill2This

    Nice. I'm coming from battlefield 1942 and all episodes after and I have way more admiration and pleasure in Planetside 2. I'm a long time PC gamer and those two games are totally different.
    So the good choice for you and me is that you stay there and go terrorise all the battelfield community because the game is not exactly of your taste and... never come back. I'm just staying here. Deal?
    • Up x 1
  18. Kill2This

    The truth.

    And for those who don't like asymetric games, to them I just say: There is a pletora of generic post 2006 games that awaits you.
    • Up x 3
  19. Mxiter

    The main issue is that the devs used to gives statistics to weapons depending of the damage tier.

    What about 143/125 low ROF weapons with 0.175H.recoil and 0.03 COF while immobile?
    What about giving 0.225H recoil and 0.1 COF to a high ROF 167/200 damage tier weapon (with better moving COFs for 200 damage tier weapons)?

    The only exeptions are:
    -The Cougar first version (the gun was nice, but on the wrong faction)
    -The Flare: 167 weapons with 0.2H.Recoil but 0.03 immobile COF.
    -The Reaper DMR with 0.2Hrecoil, but 0 immobile COF and worse moving COF.

    What about a ~=536ROF-200 damage or cougar style weapons with 0.225H.Recoil average V.Recoil. 0.1 immobile COF and 0.4-0.35 moving COF?

    What about a kind of AR/LMG/Carabine version of the NS-7. 125dmge 750 weapon with standard damage degradation (like AR/LMG) high velocity and 167-200 horizontal recoils and COFs values?
  20. GaBeRock

    Just a note, the airhammer may be the worst anti-infantry gun, but it lends itself to superclose range engagements well, making it effectively the best anti-air AI gun.