PTS Patch Notes - 8/1

Discussion in 'Test Server: Announcements' started by d_carey, Aug 2, 2014.

  1. TheBand1t

    I sincerely implore to reconsider those buffs to the A20 and A30.

    The Ground walker can use the love, sure, but Battle Gals really don't need a pair of hitscan rotaries mounted on them.
  2. Neckaru

    The one that shoots guns.
  3. Scr1nRusher


    Do you play medic, or Engineer or max?


    what is your most played/most used class currently?
  4. Neckaru

    The one that's okay with the rocket changes. ;)
  5. Scr1nRusher


    So Max or Medic.
  6. Neckaru

    Seems to be about a three way tie between Infiltrator, Medic, and Engineer. Coincidentally, a close fourth is Heavy Assault.
  7. Scr1nRusher


    rocket splash doesn't effect the infiltrators job......
  8. Neckaru

    And now it will even less, I love it.
  9. Scr1nRusher


    o_O
  10. Ranik

    If a rocket somehow interfered with your Infiltrator gameplay. You are at fault. Not the other player or the rocket. You.
    • Up x 4
  11. Jaedrik

    Even though I was vehemently opposed to the changes due my fondness for vehicle mounted explosives regardless of me maining infantry, I will be the first to give this a thumbs up.

    I was fortunate enough to open a correspondence with RadarX some time ago, and one of his responses sparked my interest in particular. It was said that the developers know for the most part how the community will respond to x balance change, and how his job is not so much to collect the feedback of "yeah they're freaking out like we expected, we should totally change our stance."
    It is reflected in your statement, David, that you cannot balance in a vacuum, that you need some empirical justification to 'feel' out if the changes had the desired effect. It seems adverse to 'theory-crafting', as it is called.

    I had come to the point where I believed, in my arrogance, to know more about balance and rightly ordered design than even the most senior developers in the video games industry. I realize I am far from them, yet I recognize that they are far from the ideal. Indeed, it seems there is not an asymmetrical game on the planet where there are zero balance concerns.

    Then what I ask next is difficult, it would require a lengthy write up, it would be painful for both developers and players, but I believe it would be the most important step, that it might even revolutionize the industry, if my vision is realized, however unlikely and presumptuous it may be.
    I want you to share, articulate, and enumerate with us, the industry, the public, everyone, the axioms of the balance and design philosophy by which every decision is made by the PlanetSide 2 team.

    I shall use the PPA as an example, seeing as it is one of the least controversial changes as I see it. Simply stating the intention of the adjustment as such: "We want to address how much the weapon can be spammed and how effective it is at suppressing an area, so we will be reducing its magazine size and ammo capacity" Is insufficient for what I am asking. I am asking, what method has the team of distinguishing that which is qualitatively (not quantitatively) too effective at suppression, and what is its epistemological origin? What is the cardinal (or ordinal) lodestar the team is attempting to balance this change around? Just by me asking these questions, I believe that one can tell I look with almost a haughtiness on 'experimenting' with balance, that I spit at the enshrinement of 'data'. But, I truly believe there is a better, middle way.

    For example, the folks at Uber Entertainment have taken an interesting approach which is starkly opposite of most of the industry, and they have given me some insight into the industry which I know so little about. They have said they see fellow developers in fellow studios, their dear friends, following a few methods of balancing, in their 4/24/2014 PA livestream after the smore eating. I don't know if I can post the YT vod, since it would kinda be advertising for another game. But I feel it highly relevant, please check it out!
    Anyways, John Comes says that he sees many balance strictly via theorycraft and formulas, and what happens is it's either wrong, or it's bland. He says that they are taking the approach of doing everything by feel. Now, don't get me wrong, their balance is nowhere near perfect as of present, and their methods are not entirely flawless, nor do I suggest that PlanetSide 2's balance team is using either method. The fact of the matter is that I do not know. I want these things explained and discussed with as much depth that they are in house.

    And then, I am asking these axioms, once clearly defined and openly admitted, be peaceably open to contention. My fear is that we do not strike at the root, we merely peddle about harping on semantic hitches and arguing about what is best, while we all are clearly divergent on our principles and definitions, yet nobody speaks of those things AT ALL. We must, I declare, clearly define these things before we could progress.
    We are players, and our experiences span numerous games, just as the team, so surely, if properly guided with a community revolving around substantially defining and openly discussing such subjects of great breadth and depth, we have important feedback to add?

    I know this isn't anywhere near the job description. It would take a massive amount of time, I think. The team would rather focus on actually making the game instead. Nobody expects anyone to converse on a high level with someone who doesn't know the jargon or who doesn't have a degree in design or who has no experience in the industry, but it's what I ask.
    Maybe I should just go to design school so I can argue with the teachers. I'm not sure they'd appreciate that. Once I get my doctorate in game balance and become prolific in publishing in scholarly game design journals my vision would be realized.

    Edit: I just googled and confirmed my suspicions. There are tons of game design journals. How come nobody ever references them when they talk to the playerbase? That should totally be a thing.

    Edit 2: Why did I stay up so late writing this? I have to cantor in the morning! Goodnight.
    • Up x 2
  12. Klypto



    [IMG]

    Vehicle cruise control has a purpose now!
    • Up x 10
  13. Demon013

    :( PLEASE do not remove the option to turn off Blur!!!

    it gives me a headache after a short while and I was appreciative this was an option
  14. Revanmug

    I wish the vehicle dev could understand simple concept and realise this won't fix a bad design. The weapon is broken to its core and those bandaids won't... do... a... thing.
    • Up x 1
  15. Jaedrik

    Read the bottom of the second post. They're actually disabling blur entirely until they can fix it :D
  16. drhead

    This becomes insignificant when you consider that Flak Armor 5 is going to be one of the rarer things to encounter. In addition, any level of Flak Armor protects you from a one-hit from rocket or HE/HEAT splash currently. However, you must restrict yourself to Flak Armor in order to benefit from this, hence why this isn't a great solution. This rebalance gives infantry a decent chance of survival against the current system of cheesy, instant rocket deaths that they can do nothing about by requiring the rocket to directly hit them in order to kill them from full health. It also allows players to invest into additional protection that will allow them to survive one direct hit. It also keeps infantry with downed shields remain very vulnerable to rockets, but most importantly rewards accuracy. Previously, there was no reward for hitting directly other than a guaranteed instant kill on the off chance your opponent has Flak Armor. Now, you get a lesser effect for anything but a direct hit.



    The entire theme of the splash changes is rewarding accuracy. They want to reward you for hitting your opponent directly instead of giving you the same credit for firing in their general direction.

    Correction: That benefit is conveyed by level 1 flak armor. These changes are equivalent to giving infantry level 2.5 flak armor.

    It will allow you to survive two of the aforementioned explosives. You'll die on the third. And really, what would be the point of certing beyond level 1 if you were going to die in two shots anyways?

    I'll mention it for you, then, since I have Flak Armor 5 on my MAX.

    MAXes have 50% default resistance to regular explosives (basically anything that does splash and is not a C4, tank mine, or AV grenade). Since I don't become immortal to splash upon equipping flak armor, I'm going to assume that it gives me 75% total resistance to regular splash. MAXes have 2000 health. Currently, it would take 8 rocket indirect hits to kill a Flak Armor 5 MAX with splash damage alone. How often have you shot 8 rockets at a MAX's feet without even trying to shoot them directly? Considering this, the increase to 11 rockets to kill with splash doesn't seem like it would have much of an impact.



    Maybe because they were doing the same thing to every launcher in the game regardless of what it is, and wanted to keep it consistent? A few teammates have met unfortunate deaths due to the wacko behavior of my Annihilator and lock-ons in general.


    As a tank user, I have only purchased the AP cannon, and use the default HEAT for all other purposes. Why have I not purchased HE? Because the only benefit it offers is 0.5 meters more of 1-hit splash radius, and more outer splash radius, and I pay for it with extreme impotency against other tanks and a 1 second longer reload time. This makes HEAT a superior option in almost every anti-infantry case, at least for the Magrider, and HEAT is more of a HE without all of the downsides.
    • Up x 1
  17. Scr1nRusher


    i was waiting for you to conveniently show up to defend SOE.

    its like you decided to purposely wreck any valid points I made.
  18. Ripshaft

    Hmmm well i've lightly browsed the pages and nobody seems to have mentioned it...

    But aren't all those listed ribbons already in game?
  19. drhead

    We both have interest in the things being balanced here, and we each want things to go a different way. The fact that we both came here shouldn't surprise either of us.


    By showing them to be either misleading (any hypotheticals dealing with killing infantry with splash damage only, when in reality direct hits can be scored, also any hypotheticals dealing with flak armor 5 on non-MAX classes since that is quite expensive and will be rare on the live servers) or based on false premises (anything stating that the benefit of flak armor 5 is surviving two rockets, when this is really given from flak armor 1).

    The point about the Annihilator was more of an Occam's razor issue, where we are presented with two explanations for the nerf: that the developers just wanted all rocket launchers to have the same splash damage except the Decimator, or that the developers have gone insane and are nerfing things that will almost never affect gameplay. The simplest explanation is the one most likely to be true, and in this case, it is simpler to explain it by saying that the developers wanted consistent splash damage.

    To my knowledge, I have not misrepresented any of your statements, and as long as you have no clarifications to make nor any statements in defense of your points, then there is no point in continuing, although that would mean that your points have been refuted and that you have not defended them. (if you wish to do this though, it would probably be best taken to another thread in order to not clutter this one up)
    • Up x 2
  20. Pherlofsky


    Maybe we like decals displaying on both sides...