Greetings All, This will probably end up being a fairly wordy post, so the TL;DR is such - How are things balanced? By Nanites? By Number of People? What do you think is right? As we all know there is a frequent debate between users - and that is the relative importance in number of people, and Nanite cost, of systems. It doesn't take much digging to find examples of all sides of the arguments on the forums - X Items costs Y and so should beat Z. X Uses N Number of Players so should beat Z Using N(-D) Number of Players. This is a fairly important topic, and one which the Devs have given very little insight into. This is a subject that affects every arena of the game - whether you fight on Foot, in the Air, or on the Ground - and secretly drives the perception of power of certain vehicles, and at some level, must also secretly drive our in game Nanite cost. So what is the Nanite and Nanite cost? Simply, Nanites are an In-Game currency that all players earn at the same rate and that all players can earn the same maximum amount of (50 every minute up to 750), and are used to purchase consumables. A consumable can be defined as any item that is not expected to persist in the players possession permanently after the Nanite cost of the item has been paid, and in return for the cost paid, gives the player something. This is in contrast to the other two currencies in game, Certifications (Certs) and DayBreak Cash (DBC), which are not earned at the same rate by all players though do share maximum limits across all players. For Certs this is 10000 (2500000 exp), while for DBC this limit is unpublished but speculated to be about 50000 ($500). These are used to gain access to items permanently in game; in the case of Certs this is to a single character, and DBC all characters who can use the item. These fundamental definitions stand up to scrutiny in 90% of uses in game - though reviewing them we immediately find exception in the Implant system. Energy for the implant system is best defined as a consumable, but is not purchased with Nanites. Instead it is purchased with Certs or DBC. Additionally, Implants purchased with Certs or DBC are for a single character and not shared account wide. While this is certainly a topic worthy of debate and something I would like to see addressed, thankfully, for the purpose of our discussion Implants are not relevant to the debate in question. The debate in question is the relationship between Nanites and the consumables they purchase, and the powers this purchase imparts onto the user or users of the consumable - and ultimately how it relates to the number of users for the consumable. So our first argument; X Items costs Y and so should beat Z In this argument, the player believes that the pure Nanite cost of a consumable should define its power relative to another consumable. In example - Infantry are Free, a Lightning costs 350 Nanites. Therefor, the Lightning should beat the Infantry. >>> This example generally holds up, with the exception of Heavy Assaults, as Infantry will not win against a Lightning without expending resources of their own. Additionally, it is a convenient parallel because the Lightning has a crew of one. In this case, the expenditure of Nanites has made One Player (Lightning) more powerful than One Player (Infantry). >>> This argument faults in terms of the Heavy Assault, who without Nanite expenditure, can destroy the Lightning using their No-Cost rocket launcher. However in an open field, shot for shot, encounter the Lightning would again beat the Infantry. Following this example, the "open field, shot for shot" comparison is likely the most fair comparison between two players and systems. Taking this comparison it allows for tactical, environmental, and skill differences between engagements to make a difference in the outcome of a battle. Another example - A Lightning costs 350 Nanites, a MAX costs 450 Nanites. Therefor, the MAX should beat the Lightning. >>> In this example the argument faults. For the comparison we will use two examples - a stock NC MAX (1x Falcon, No Suit Slot) and a stock Lightning (Viper, No Defense Slot) as well as a certed NC MAX (2x Falcon, Full Flack Armor) and certed Lightning (HEAT, Front Armor). >> In our first comparison, our NC MAX will be doing 410 (409.5, rounded up) damage every 1.9s. This accounts for the Lightnings front armor resistances and penalties against MAX weapons. >> Our Lightning will be doing 2489 (189.75 direct plus 225 splash x6 shots, rounded up) damage across 1.5s, taking 4.6s to reload. This accounts for the MAXs armor resistances and penalties against the Viper. >> This means it will take the Lightning one salvo of 5 rounds to deplete the MAX's 2000 health, leaving one round and no reload necessary. Time to Kill is approximately 1.25 seconds. >> This means it will take the MAX 8 shots to deplete the Lightnings 3000 health, requiring 7 reloads. Time to Kill is approximately 13.3 seconds. > In our second comparison, our NC MAX will be doing 585 (292.5 x2, rounded up) damage every 1.9s. This accounts for the certed Lightnings front armor resistances and penalties against MAX weapons. > Our Lightning will be doing 889 (701.5 + 187.5, rounded up) damage every 3s. This accounts for the certed MAXs armor resistances and penalties against the Python Heat. > This means it will take the Lightning 3 shots to deplete the MAX's 2000 health, requiring 2 reloads. Time to Kill is approximately 6 seconds. > This means it will take the MAX 6 shots to deplete the Lightning's 3000 health, requiring 5 reloads. Time to Kill is approximately 9.5 seconds. Following this example, Nanites do not relate directly to power gained. We have two individual players, spending different amounts for their consumable, and gaining different relative values. Specifically the player who spent the most did not gain an edge. This leads us into our next argument; X Uses N Number of Players so should beat Z Using N(-D) In this argument, the player believes that the number of players required to use the consumable should define its power relative to another consumable. In Example - A Burster MAX is one person, and a Liberator is 3 Person. Therefor the Liberator should beat a Burster MAX. >>> This example holds up. With any of its belly guns, a Liberator can kill a Dual Burster MAX before the MAX can kill the Liberator. Going further, all of the nosegun options for the Liberator can kill a Dual Burster MAX before the MAX can kill the LIberator. Supplementary Example - Three Burster MAXs take three people, and a LIberator is 3 Person. Therefor this should be an equal fight. >>> This example the argument faults and passes based on loadout and certification investment. For this comparison, I will use three certed Dual Burster MAXs equipped with Flack Armor and Extended Mags engaging a Stock Liberator (AP30 Shredder, No Defense Slot) and a certed Liberator (Dalton, Composite Armor). I will also be assuming that the MAXs are spread out enough that the Liberator has to kill them one at a time. In addition, it is assumed that the MAXes are getting Flak Explosion hits instead of direct hits - in terms of resistances, this favors the MAX. >> In our first comparison, our Liberator will be doing 100 damage per shot after the MAX resistance. It will take 3.75 seconds to fire 50 rounds, and 2 seconds to reload. >> Our Dual Burster MAXes will be doing 84 damage (42 x 2 arms) per shot each. It will take each MAX 15.3 seconds to fire 112 rounds, and a 3.5s reload. >> This means it will take our Liberator 20 rounds to deplete our fist MAXs health (1.5 seconds), 20 additional rounds to deplete our second MAXs health (1.5 seconds), 20 additional rounds with a reload to deplete our final MAXs health (5.25 seconds). Total Time to Kill is approximately 8.25 seconds. >> This means our first MAX will do 504 damage before its death, our second MAX will do 924 damage before its death, and the third will do 2520 damage before its death for a total of 3948 damage - insufficient for the 5000 health pool of the Liberator. >> It would be dishonest not to include that the Time to Kill for three MAXs, without losses, is 5.5 seconds; however in this particular scenario firepower is lost at each threshold, and denying this would not be a fair "open field, shot for shot" comparison. > In our second comparison, our Liberator will be doing 1073 (960 + 112.5, rounded up) damage per shot with a 2.5s reload. > Our Dual Burster MAXes will be doing 76 damage (37.8 x 2 arms, rounded up) per shot each. It will take each MAX 15.3 seconds to fire 112 rounds, and a 3.5s reload. > This means it will take our Liberator two shots to deplete each MAXs 2000 health pool, for a total of 6 shots and 5 reloads. Total Time to Kill approximately 12.5 seconds, taking 2.5 for the first MAX, 5 for the second MAX, and 5 for the final MAX. > This means our first MAX will do 684 damage, our second MAX will do 2052 damage, and our third MAX will do 3420 damage for a total of 6156 damage - depleting the 5000 health pool of the Liberator. This provides a Time to Kill of approximately 8.33 seconds (with the overkill removed). > As before, the time to kill with no losses is 6.09 seconds. Following this example, the number of people does not influence the relative power. If this was the case, our first example of three certed MAXs versus a stock Liberator should have ended in favor of the MAXs - assuming cert investment was the deciding factor - and the second example in the favor of the Liberator. Instead we got a lopsided example in favor of the Liberator, and a closer example in favor of the MAX. I chose this example specifically however as it flows perfectly into the cross argument - that perhaps it is the investment of Nanites that makes the difference. With the Liberator representing an investment of 450 Nanites and Three People, and the MAXs representing an investment of 1350 Nanites and Three People - we should have seen the MAX outperforming the Liberator handily. If we assume it is an investment of Certs and Nanites that makes the difference the argument still doesn't hold up - with our MAXs costing 1350 Nanites and 8700 Certs versus the Liberators 450 Nanites and 1505 Certs. Again, the MAX team should have outperformed the Liberator handily. So what is the point of all of this? Why bring this all up? Because I feel strongly that the players need a meaningful and concrete way of comparing relative power of their different options - as it is a necessary step in threat assessment. It clearly isn't enough to assume that Anti-Air will beat Air and Anti-Armor will beat Armor - as it has been demonstrated this isn't true, and its been further proven that your Nanite and Cert investment do not compensate for these faults in deployment just as the number of people engaging does not. So how does a player really know if they are investing wisely? Or choosing the right platform for what they wish to accomplish? It would be wonderful if the Development Team could provide insight into how the pricing is set then, or if it could be rectified so that there is some logic to it. Ultimately we need to know just what these currencies are worth, and at this point, there should be enough data to know how the average player performs with a given piece of equipment to know how to create this baseline. Myself personally? I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. People, Nanites, Certs / DBC are all resources - and they all carry meaning. So I feel that the first step would, within each class (Infantry, Armor, Air), say that a platform with more people will perform better than a platform with less people, modified by Nanite and Cert investment. How many Nanites is a person worth? Well thats simple. 750. So a 450 Nanite cost consumable should give an individual the relative power of 1.6 individuals. How much a Cert / DBC investment is worth, well, that should go back to the original figures quoted by the Devs during development - that they intended it to equal a 20% difference between players. I will also take this opportunity to tout my campaign that I believe there should be more meaningful loadout choices, and less general purpose loadouts - and this folds perfectly into a relative power revamp. Anti-Something should mean something, and it should mean you are giving up capability against something else. Whether that Anti means it should be 20, 50, or 100% more effective in a 1v1 is up to balance, but if it is gaining that much in 1v1 against that one target, it should be equally losing against others. Per my TL;DR, I would like to hear what the other players thoughts on this are - besides the fact that I wrote too much.
While you do bring up some good points, you are ignoring some details. For example, your lightning vs MAX argument ignores the fact that a MAX can get places that a lightning cannot. Being able to park your MAX-tank somewhere that only infantry can get is well worth the extra 100 certs, even though it does not translate into a win if they just stand there and slug it out.
I think the nanites price cannot be that accurate to take into account every pro and con of each item / vehicle. And after all... who cares? Resources regenerate so quickly it's not even worth to discuss about + or - 100 nanites.
Pure numbers cannot be analyzed in as vacuum. For example the 450 nanite MAX with 3000+ certs spent is outclassed by a 350 nanite lightning in a 1v1. On paper it sounds imbalanced. In reality the MAX can be transported by air. It can also go where the lightning can't. The issue we have is many of us Vets remember the original resource system. MAXes used to use their own resource with Grenades and deployables. Tanks used their own, and air had its own. You could also take territories to make resource gain harder for the opponent and force them to go to another continent to generate resources. The system was favoring the winning factions and kept them in a state that made it hard to combat them. So it was changed to what we have now. So any system of logistics faces these issues: 1. Must allow players to pull what they want, when they want within reason. Maybe not where they want (but without leaving the current continent). 2. Must not cause a snowballing effect when one faction overpowers another. 3. Must be intuitive and easy to understand what you need to do or get at a glance. Reason the current system is what it is, is that it fulfills all of those requirements. Any changes made to the system will have to keep those three criteria in mind.
I agree. What do you think would be the best way to introduce a logic to the system? I specifically chose the "open field, shot for shot" method as it is the only one that provides a fair and equal comparison between two systems - as it is the only one not influenced by player skill, terrain, or circumstance. You bring up a fair point however that the 100 extra Nanites in the cost of the MAX could be a function of its mobility, though I feel this isn't exactly true. Overall Planetside does not specifically limit any vehicle from entering a place it "should not be" besides through logical obstacles - such as not being able to fit through a doorway - and while the Lightning in particular may not be able to go inside of (as example) a point building, it has far superior speed. This allows it to better dictate the terms of its engagement, and shift from battle to battle, with relative ease. All mobility characteristics the MAX lacks. One of the points I was trying to raise was that there is currently no way, besides through word of mouth or trial and error, to access the difference in power between two items. It is logical to assume that spending more resources would gain more power, but this isn't true, just as its logical to assume bringing more people will gain more power, though this also isn't true. So while yes, a difference of 100 nanites is only a difference of two minutes in acquisition time between two players, it doesn't make much sense how I tell the relative value of what I have. Did I lose because I pulled the wrong thing? Did I lose because they did their job better? Did I win because I pulled the right thing? Did I win because I did my job better? This can't be answered unless you know the worth of what you are using - and not having a meaningful way of comparing worth makes it difficult for a non-veteran player to know what to pull. If I see a Liberator tearing up the block, and I pull Anti-Air, and get dusted just as easily as if I haven't... how do I parse what just happened? Did I not spend enough? I picked the counter to my target, but I lost. Is it because they brought more people? Several other people were doing it to. I had addressed the mobility concern in part above, but this is a different angle of it - in this regard the Lightning is not reliant on any other platform for its mobility, so a significant part of the MAX's mobility is coming from the further expenditure of resources. So why does it cost more? Its at this point I will also point out that we may see a future where the capability from Planetside 1, for Galaxies to carry light vehicles (including the Lightning), will return to Planetside 2. The last it was discussed it was more a discussion of how that would work in terms of interface than anything else. This may also see the introduction of dedicated heavy vehicle delivery platforms (the Lodestar). If this were the case, it would be a further discrepancy between their costs. To your final point, I will address the points in a similar point wise fashion. 1) What I am proposing wouldn't necessarily alter this, unless it was done poorly. I am more looking for there to be some correlation to what you spent to what you gain. 2) Again, I am not discussing the "means of production", but moreso the consumption of these resources. 3) This is the point I feel is the most important - because as it exists now I have no idea what I need or what I need to do at a glance. Especially so if I am an experienced player. MAX versus Liberator is the easiest example because it is one most people are familiar with, and also the center of alot of these debates - though it isn't the crux of what I am trying to discuss. It just happens to be the lowest branch on the tree. If I see a Liberator on the horizon, and then grab a Burster MAX, I should have sufficient reason to believe that I am going to win this engagement. Why? Because I spent the same amount of resources as what I am fighting, and, I pulled something that is assumed to be its counter. Fighting Air, I pulled Anti-Air. However, I am then handily destroyed. Why did I fail? Well - if I ask people around me, they may respond it is because that while yes I paid the same, and I pulled Anti-Air, the vehicle was crewed by more people. So it should be more powerful. So, I grab two of my friends. We all pull Burster MAXs... and then are again, handily destroyed. Why did I fail this time? My group of three people spent significantly more than their group of three people, and we were all in Anti-Air fighting an aircraft. It certainly can't JUST be cert investment, as my original example showed that - in a vacuum - a stock Liberator with no investment can kill all three MAXs with maximum investment. And, to me, thats a problem.
I don't want logic in the pricing system. A wide-spanning referential cost balance was something that should have been done a long time ago (it should have been there from day one) because to implement it now is just going to look cumbersome, is going to look unfair to someone, and will expend far too much effort for few tangible results. We would do better to just revel in the nonsense that the illusory economy has induced.
I didn't see if you addressed it, but people with a sub membership actually gain 75 nanites per tick, not 50. Now I shall go back and read again.
I don't see 3 burster MAXes losing to a Liberator. I really don't. And here's why: MAXes can enter buildings. The only other vehicle that can do that is the Flash. There's windows and doors a MAX can fire from without taking any sort of significant damage. I could say they could fire from invulnerability from the spawn, but I'm not as I still think that needs to be fixed. But three MAXes is alot of ordinance going up at that Lib. Can the Lib kill the MAXes? Sure if he's good enough. Can the MAXes kill the Lib if they are good enough and play smartly? Absolutely. That's how it should be. Another thing that MAXes can do that no other Vehicle can, is swap its loadout on the fly. You pay 450 nanites once.. and you can deal with a Lib. If you kill the lib or it decides to go elsewhere, you can switch to AI weapons or AV to deal with tanks. A Lightning driver who deals with a Lib has to well.. pay another 350 nanites (700 total so far), to switch to a AI loadout. Then another 350 (1050 total), for a AV loadout (if they don't simply wish to keep to the Viper). When the nanite system was initially introduced, the MAX cost was rather cheap. Players were pulling these like any other infantry. This was deemed undesirable. They want us to pull what we want, when we want, but within reason. Using MAXes because they are cheaper than an engineer's loadout was not good. So they brought the price up. To 300 or 350 (can't remember the actual number). The number of MAXes being used was still above the threshold they wanted so they were moved to 450. They were balanced around that situation and I think they did a decent job. Now the Lightning used to be a helluva lot cheaper than 350. Used to cost as much as Harassers before we had Harassers. But they had to go up to the price they did because of the Harasser and the change that allows the Lightning to be pulled from any terminal. Used to be only able to pull them from Tank terminals. One nanite does not equal one nanite. It depends on what else is at stake. The situation at hand. And how its used. Basically the nanite serves not as a resource, but a timer. Certs also are not actually a real resource either. You use them sort of like a resource. But in actuality, they are a method of progression and advancement. The two real resources we have to manage is Time and Manpower. Time as in you have a base you are attacking. You have 4 minutes until it caps. Another base that belongs to you is dropping in 3 minutes. What do you do? Manpower is an important resource as well. It governs how well some vehicles do. A 1/2 MBT isn't much of a threat, even to a Lightning.. sometimes not even to a MAX. Same thing with a 1/3 Lib. Sure it can come down and tank bust something. But only under ideal circumstances. Try that on a tank column. That -33% resistance to tank shells will come into play real quick. But manpower is also a factor in the above example. If you have a platoon and can afford to send a squad or two to the failing base before the time runs out, then you may make the choice to do so. Time and Manpower. In this example you have two minutes. What do you do? Try to get people to deploy into a Gal and drop? Maybe get a squad lead to deploy over and drop a beacon (or by simply being there, allow everyone to redeploy in). And then on a strategic level your faction has 9 VP, another has 5VP. You have 30 minutes left on the alert. You have 35% of the territory, they have 38%. Do you go for trying to take territory, or push for a warpgate connection by taking 3 consecutive bases? You'll win the alert and the continent if you don't get bogged down either way.
I agree with your general idea but not the examples given Max suits have certain advantages that are balanced out with tanks The NC max can shield the tanks shots or hide and take advantage of positions that the tank cant easily fire back on Liberators are OP
Taemien nailed it. I've noticed very few people realize that the nanite system is nothing more than the old timer system on vehicles/MAXes but rolled in with all the consumables and hidden by a number to give people the illusion of logistics.
You make a fair argument, though it brings into question why use Nanites at all. At the core of it, the Nanites came with the resource revamp unifying 3 resources into one and making income uniform - but really this could have been done leaving 3 different resources. If you compare what you get per nanite / per person in just one sphere of the game - Infantry, Ground, Air - the pricing makes sense. So, if at the end we knew 1 Nanite would not be 1 Nanite, why bring the 3 together? It would have been just as easy to say everyone gets +10 to each of their resources every minute. Ultimately, with it functioning as a timer - why not just scrap the resource all together and just implement the timers? As it stands now 450 nanites takes ~9 minutes to fill at 50 nanites per tick - so why not just start a 9 minute timer when you pull that 450 nanite item? Or, since our cap is 750, a 3 minute timer (the time to reach 450 again from full)? This would be more beneficial to the "play how you want when you want" mindset overall, while perhaps allowing more dynamic balancing. C4 for example - at 75 Nanites with a pool of 750 Nanites you can do 5 two brick runs assuming no income. If you made the cooldown the same as Nanite income, that means you can use a brick every Minute Fifteen Seconds. That would really slow down the rate of use -particularly for infantry consumables. Obviously each individual one would have its own timer - for example, Landmine 1, Landmine 2, ect... I know in the past vehicles were originally handled by resources AND a timer. This obviously felt too restrictive, but maybe we went the wrong route making it resources only without a timer. Perhaps Planetside 1 had it right - no resources to pull, but everything had a timer.
The resource system is incomplete. When they first did the change, they said they were going to implement the other phases of the logistics. Then they got fired. That's literally what happened lol. That's not why though. Daybreak became what it is and had massive layoffs. The people working on various systems were part of those casualties. That's why many things seem unfinished. Because they are. In the mean time they did balance changes like increasing MAX resource to 450. It was a balance change around the fact of its current system. Not how it would have been with the full changes in. As I mentioned before we get resources in a steady rate. Its predictable. The only shift is when the bonus for being outpopped goes up or down. But if they completed the logistics/resource revamp. That would change. We might not need MAXes to sit at 450. I mean who would pull a MAX if they know they won't get another 450 resources for a while. MAXes are hard to get from one base to another.. they may decide to lower MAX costs. That's just a quick example, not saying it would exactly happen like that. Just something to think about. If and when it comes, the resource stage2 revamp is going to change things up. Alot.
I've been playing since Alpha - so I will believe Phase 2 of anything has a chance of becoming a reality if this Construction System doesn't end up being just another Phase 1 dump onto Live. "Phase 1" has come to mean "Done." in Planetside.
I don't agree.. only because I have some nagging trend not to be cynical about such things. Doesn't mean I disagree though lol.
