loss-loss and loss-win relationships in class utilities

Hello everyone,

I've come to a recent theory that the biggest problem with utilities is that some tools are in a loss-loss relationship with other classes, which make them universaly hated by people who are harmed with it.

For exemple, the C4 on LA, while being one of the funniest thing with that class, is such loss-loss relationship: an enemy tank driver will be killed by that tool... and an allied tank driver will see its kill stolen by that tool.
Thus, for the tank drivers, it's a loss whatever side the C4 fairies are, and so, they univeraly hate C4 faires.

On the other side, there are loss-win relationships with other classes, who makes powerful universaly accepted as a part of the gameplay.

Two exemples are medic healing pistols and infiltrator radar tools: They hinder the enemy infantry.... but helps the allied infantry. Loss against win. Those tools are accepted because what you loose when they are on the oppositive side is what you gain when you are in their side.



Let's now take a theorical exemple: the lack of AV option of infiltrators.
If you give C4 to infiltrator, you will bring the same loss-loss relationship with tank drivers that they already have with C4 fairies: enemy infiltrator will kill them, allied infiltrators will steal their kills.... but what about if you make them EMP grenade bring a concussion-like effects on vehicle (screen scrambling + movement/turn impairing) ?

Such changes would be a loss-win buff: An infiltrator can't damage the tank himself, but if they hit a tank being attacked with such grenade, the tank will have hardship to avoid rockets and enemy tank shells, making him much more endangered for a short amount of time.
If you are the enemy tank infiltrators will become a huge problem... on the other side, everytime an allied infiltrator will hit your target with its EMP grenade, you will gain a strong advantage to hit it with your shots.
Loss-win relationship. What you lose on a side, is what you gain on the other side.



Wouldn't such a change be much more acceptable than the former option?
I feel it's the way most improvement should be thought, rather than aiming to obtain buffs on class that are unilateral. Naturaly, it's easier to do with support tools than killing tools, but comunity will never gain anything speaking during month of the same desires for improvement when, on the other side, there is clearly a class that will be at loss whatever they are allies or enemies.

i'm sorry but the purpose of reducing infantry lethality vs tanks would be partially reversed by this, you can cloak and avoid being spotted if you are skillful enough. i see squads organizing ganks with an infiltrator EMPing vehicles and then multiple HAs firing rockets at the same time. do not want more cheese.

tanks in this game are not real tanks and why should infantry>tanks in almost every instance? tanks should be tanks, you should in some cases choose not to engage and avoid them, not always move towards them hoping to drop C4 on them or hit them with rockets or your proposed EMP.

tanks are subject to tactical decisions whether to engage or not. infantry seem to not like doing that as infantry so they whine for changes that favor them because 9/10 or 10/10 when they have an AV weapon they use it and sometime die.

The reason why infantry > tanks has been explained by 100 players on probably 30 threads already, and is not the topic here, Pelojian. What I will only retain from your post is that you feel that the change on the proposed EMP grenade will not be a true loss-win relationship due to use that HAs could do of it.

So let me propose something more clear as a loss-win change for the sake of the exemple given: every vehicle hit by an EMP get 50% more damage from vehicle weapons during the effect.
Is it more like a true loss-win relationship that way?

you are trying to push a change that buffs infantry when the devs are already balancing infantry vs vehicle to reduce lethality on both sides. that would see the favor slanted in favor of infantry and trying to say it's still a win because X and Y even with Z attached.

EMPs should not affect vehicles, vehicles should not be subject to concussion like effects that removes their ability to fire or maneuver or any other sort of temporary debuff.

infantry already have enough ways of dealing with vehicles, infantry can hide in a dozen more places then a tank can. a tank affected by a concussion like effect will not be able to escape unless the attackers are killed by friendlies or a teammate covers said tank with their own vehicle as a shield.

I feel like you didn't even read what I wrote. Please explain me how the later exemple allows infantry to kill vehicles?

I'm sure if you C4 a HE prawler shelling your allies - your infantry friends won't see it as a loss, so maybe not loss-loss situation?

It's loss-loss for the tank drivers, which makes in return they will never stop complaining about it, and raise constant concerns and issues about it.... they did during the past 2 years, and will continue as long it exist.

To have a change accepted in the game, that change should not bring that kind of loss-loss relationship between two classes. Or then, a part of the player base will be alienated with it.

your later addition was merely an attempt at a concession to get an AV type debuff weapon added to a class that is not designed to destroy/attack vehicles and which would not be balanced with skillful use of any cloaking.

regardless of whatever modifiers you add any infantry/vehicle/aircraft weapon designed to concussion or any sort of debuff to any other vehicle would not be balanced.

I'm not sure I understand this thread:

• Infiltrators are primarily an anti infantry and equipment hacking class
• EMP grenades are meant to disrupt all electronics, not specifically tanks
• Why would an LA using C4 to kill a tank be considered as stealing someone else's kill in a team game where one assumes allies both want the same thing?
• An infiltrator disrupting a tanks performance so that allies can blast the poo out of it just sounds like good team play (much to be desired in this game).

I appreciate there are questions of infantry versus tank balance that I am not competent to talk about so I am now waiting for the EMP/C4 rocks to be thrown at me but I think some of the examples given so far are kind of confusing.

Look, infantry vs vehicle balance is beside the point. Point is that devs should add weapons and equipment which is focused on debuffing enemies or buffing allies instead of just dealing damage.

If tanks lost ability to kill infantry but could bombard bases with high radius EMP shells which drain enemy shields we would have more of a combined arms game than we did with old HE Prowlers shelling the spawnroom.

And vice-versa, tanks should get some kind of shield which can only be penetrated by other tanks and maybe air. Infantry should only be given tools which somehow debuff the tank (perhaps lower its speed) and once the tank's shield is penetrated by other thanks then infantry could finish it off with rocket launchers.

These are just some random examples I dreamed up. There are many other ways to implement this concept OP talks about.

This is where I disagree.
A proper loss/win relationship, to me, balance itself, because what you gain is EXACTLY the same that what you loose.

Tell me exactly what is the difference between the alter proposal I made for exemple, and the loss/win relationship you currently have with enginneers?

Engineers are infantry too. And their repairs can be seen exactly as a debuff of the enemy DPS. And they don't need to walk to the enemy tank to do it... which makes them even more efficient.
However, I never heard a tank driver complain about engineers (probably because, in addition, they exploit this synergy by being engineers themselves)

repair on an enemy is not a debuff, you are not loosing ether damage or DPS those remain consistent. your enemy is regaining health as you are firing on it ether deal enough damage to overcome the healing rate of the repair tool or get help, you can do exactly the same thing with a teammate or with a repair sundie in tow.

a debuff is when your own attributes and perception are reduced, as in -X% less damage dealt, -X% armor penalty, -% less speed, loss of clarity of vision etc.

From combined arms perspective it is a loss because it allows infantry to deal with enemy armor without armor of their own. Same logic applies to tank splash damage weapons.

If C4(and other infantry AV) could only lower tank's health to no more than say 33% then we would have win/lose relationship because you would still need friendly tank or aircraft to finish that enemy tank off.

This is not an infantry vs tank thread. And even less a infiltrator vs tank thread. At all. I used those exemple only because it's a common topic, but the thread is speaking about how future changes to class could be designed on the global scale.

Want another exemple perhaps? Not speaking of vehicles? Then let's talk about HA's class ability.

HA overshield is a loss-loss relationship with every other infantry class.
On the enemy side, it lower your chances as a non-HAD to survive the encounter. When on the allied side, it makes that people will aim at YOU first because the HA is harder to kill.

No, let's imagine instead a loss-win mechanic for this ability: when the overshield is activated, it raise the hit point of every nearby infantry by 300 (allowing them to temporary go above their maximum if needed).
The relationship become different because when on the allied side, you gain exactly what you lost when it was on the opposite side. And thus, it starts to balance itself.

you are suggesting a change to an AI grenade so it can affect AV targets and you claim this don't have to do with infantry vs vehicles?

I'm sorry but if you really meant to discuss 'the future' in a general sense to infiltrator changes you would have stated so in your original post.

Doesn't anyone have a feeling that combined arms usually degenerates into friendly infantry and vehicles compete among each other who will get more kills? This is lose/lose. If vehicles are able to farm infantry like they used to then it is lose/lose relationship.
Enemy infantry is pissed of because they can't fight back and friendly infantry is pissed of as well because they could get more kills if there were no friendly tanks around.

On the other hand if you have vehicles which have say portable shield generators which buff infantry HP within its radius or EMP shells which are only able to damage shields then you remove this competition between friendly tanks and infantry - this is win/lose relationship.

You should have added more disclaimers in original post for all the people who have issue with reading comprehension.

If you think this, then you should learn to read, Pelojian.
Since the very first words, my topic has been talking in a general fashion, of "class utilities" and "relationship with others classes" as a whole... the only moment it spoke to EMP grenade, it has been clearly disclaimed as a "theorical exemple" just before it entered that matter.

An exemple, is NOT the main topic. This is a single case into a more general matter.

So if you want to talk about infantry vs vehicle, could you please open a separate thread?
This way, people could explain you for they 101th time why it is currently normal that your tanks are so vulnerable without flooding the current topic I opened this thread for.

I wish to push the very concept proposed by the thread - the distinction of some utility or tactic being considered a loss-loss compared to a loss-win. The terminology seems to present an incorrect message about what is being discussed. Your example with C4 discusses how each side views the application of the C4 and makes the assumption that enemy tank drivers are somehow bothered by the Light Assault's use of C4 against their enemies. Your analysis is "Those tools are accepted because what you loose(sic) when they are on the oppositive side is what you gain when you are in their side." You go on to ascribe that the "first loss" indicates whether the enemy would benefit from the act. You present C4 as an example of ally tank drivers losing out due to strong competition. The "second loss" indicates whether your allies would benefit from the act. You present C4 as an example of enemy tank drivers losing due to being strongly countered. I am merely establishing my rendition of your position; you may exclude the rest and correct me here.

Your analysis and your explanation of the terminology ("losses" and "wins") do not match, and the examples do not match either. The whole position you are attempting to build is one of subtle semantics, where it is consistent enough to attempt such. For starters, you are mixing an unspoken argument about teamplay into the definition and terminology without properly introducing it. Even your C4 argument underlines the concept of a teamplay aspect, and your ultimate "we don't have it" example of the re-introduction of Jammer grenades also suggests as much. Your substitution of C4 for grenades in the "second loss" would not work if not for the teamplay aspect. But, to start with, let us ignore the said teamplay aspect that you did not directly express by name and instead examine C4 and tanks and Jammers by themselves.

It should not matter how the enemy is removed from the field of play, only that the methods to do so are within contraints of the game's emchanics behaving properly. A C4'd tank is one less tank to threaten ally tanks. An ESF beaten down by flak, or distracted in the middle of dogfighting by flak, is one less ESF that is dealing with allies. Painting the situation of giving C4 to the Infiltrator so that he could theoretically handle the tank himself as a "loss" - as I think you are doing - as opposed giving them a grenade that disables the tank temporarily or presents status bonuses for the benefit of other players as a "win" has nothing to do with "the enemy being able to do it to me is okay because I can do it to my enemy." Both C4 and the proposed Grenade satisfy the "loss-win" situation you have described because it inconveniences the enemy (their tank is destroyed/disabled) and removes a threatening condition for allies (their tank is destroyed/disabled). Until otherwise expressed, all factions would have Jammer access, so it does not contradict with your analysis, either.

If this is a thinly-veiled attempt at building a case for providing Infiltrators with Jammer Grenades, then you are being inconsiderate by not making that point from the introductory phase of your argument and instead attempting to wax game design philosophy. If you are attempting to build an argument for support being preferrable to direct engagement when distributing "powers" then from the get-go C4 should not exist as it currently does and utilizing it in your contrast makes this into an argument against strong C4. (This, you can not avoid. You have already defined that scope and introduced C4 into it.)

I return, just to press the point, that your premise with C4 is incorrect. Tank drivers who dislike C4 do not like C4 in conjunction with Light Assaults due to the way the encounter plays out and how the very existence of C4 promotes awkward behavior in players. The checklist for working to avoid tank traps and pitfalls - of which being C4'd is one - is so obtrusive and convoluted at this point that that the act of driving a tank is more about how far one stays away from encounters. That then becomes something that the targets complain about as they are pommelled from a distance. This is nothing about ally tanks seeing ally C4 fairies as selfish kill-takers, or being disgruntled that a stronger counter than themselves exists.

My eyes hurts. Let's see if I understood correctly those walls of text...

No, it's simplier than that.

Players often see things from an egocentrical point of view: if something is detrimental to the class they play when played by their ennemies, and brings in return to them nothing as important when played by their allies, it will be regarded as nocive to them, hated, and will become of constant source of complaint.

To not take always a vehicle exemple, you can speak about the stalker cloak: if played by the ennemy, you go to a terminal, and get killed while in the menu.... if played by the ally.... what? Nothing useful.
As such, the tool will be disregarded by non-infiltrators because it's only painful and bring nothing truly positive. What saved this feature is that the stalker currently get often killed in return, so people don't complain too much, but they don't like it overall.

My point is that changes that we asked for every of our classes should, if we want to see them accepted by SOE, rather focus on building a situation were its naturaly a hindrance for opponents, but also an equal advantage for the allies.
This is a consideration that need to be made also class by class, because perception of each player will depend of what it plays.

If a "buff" brings to each class an advantage equal as an ally to the disavantage they suffer from it as an opponent, it will far less likely to become a topic of whine and "oh my god, this is OP", and thus, will be more likely to be implemented someday.
Also, such buffs to a class improve the cross-classes interaction, and thus, probably, the teamplay, which is far better than a buff that help you to be a better soloer.