Think before you cry OP.

TL;DR:
Buck up and play the game for what it is. If you get owned by something, learn to counter it, or try it out firsthand before crying that it needs to be nerfed.


If you find in your opinion that something is overpowered... USE IT!

It amazes me how many people complain about something, but have literally zero information from the other side.

Having played a lot of games with worse balance than PS2, I can firmly say that its more about skill than anything else. If someone can walk into a room with a clearly UP weapon, and wreak everyone, does it make that UP gun OP now, or does it make that player an exceptional player? The latter, obviously.

There are a couple things that could use a tweak ( Looking at you Vulcan-H ), but I don't think that anything in this game, weapons wise is OP. Some are better than others, but very very few weapons directly outclass another across the board ( Which, btw, is the root definition of OP ). Many get outclassed in certain situations, but in my time here, I've yet to find a go-to gun for every situation on any of the 3 factions, which leads me to believe that everything is fairly well balanced.

Look to CS if you don't believe me. The M4/AK/AWP/DEAGLE are the only weapons being used, due to them directly outclassing other weapons. If you're not running one of those guns, you're severely handicapping yourself.

PS2 did a great job of taking asymmetrical balance on a large scale, and making it work. You don't see every heavy running only the NS-15M(1/2/AE), or any other specific weapon. Yes, there are some weapons that are more versatile, but they are all outclassed in a certain area by another, more specialized weapon.

Take your pick, would you rather have what we have now, or would you rather people run 1 gun per class, with no variety? If you want the latter, go play WoW. You can keep your cookie cutter characters.

/Anti-OP rant

One issue here is that not all situations are equally important.

Most infantry combat occurs at fairly short ranges. This is a product of render limitations (not going to have infantry combat at ranges over 300m) as well as the location and style of objectives (most infantry fights occur inside bases around an arbitrary indoor objective point).

For example, consider the NC MAX. It is geared towards extreme CQB, while the other MAXes have AI weapons that are decent out to medium range but not as effective in CQB. In theory and on paper it might sound balanced as there are certain situations where the NC MAX is most effective but also certain situations where the TR and VS MAXes are better.

The problem in practice is that most MAXes get used for AI work at very close range, so the "advantage" that VS and TR MAXes get isn't as significant. Hence VS and TR players might be rightfully disappointed.

You could look at the Vulcan-H as another example where the NC are stuck with a long-range, low-DPS AT weapon and the VS get a weapon that is good at extremes (very long range or very short range). The Vulcan-H on the other hand is only good at short range... but the problem is that the Harasser is an excellent short range platform.

Overall in terms of infantry weapons while each faction has short, medium, and long-range options, it can be said that generally the factions are geared towards particular ranges. This can result in issues.

Finally there is the element of balance between different types of infantry or vehicles, not between factions. For example, the A2G Dalton cannon is about twice as effective as the AA Skyguard cannon at killing aircraft, which would strike most people as being unbalanced. Or a Sunderer capable of taking out a MBT. These are situations that most definitely need to be addressed.

The problem isn't necessarily that certain things are op, the problem is that some things in the game can tend to be unfun to play against. This is not particularly bad, but the focus shouldn't be on nerfing the object but finding the root of these gut feelings and changing it so that the weapon/ability ect. is interesting for both the person using it and the person it is being used on.

Sadly however the Planetside 2s community has seemed to be adamant in demanding that not only should things be nerfed but that the players using them originally deserve to have it become horrible to play with.

PSA won't work.

What will work is peer pressure. They're trying to use it against people who use the so called OP stuff. Its time to turn the tables around on them and use it right back.

We used to do this back in the 90s. If you got stomped and complained, you were laughed at. Players would help you out if you asked. But if you whined, you were ostracized, made fun of, and laughed at. I think that should return.

Personally I do it now. If someone's whining in proxy chat, I call them out on it. If they are in my squad, I boot them. Outfits can do the same, tell them to suck it up or get booted. Its time to marginalize such players, ostracize them, make them feel alone, left out, and outcast.

Its the worst thing you can do to someone on the internet, and it will get their attention. And the best part is, as long as you don't use profanity, its not against the rules. You can make your outfit or squad with anyone you wish. There's not a damned thing they can do about it cept quit or shape up.

IMHO, what I see is people complaining about OP stuff because they are unwilling to learn or adapt. I can trace most of the issues to the phrases "I dont want to do X", "I shouldnt have to do Y", "I cba doing Z". I simply dismiss those complaints.

Responses in green:
This is from a VS perspective as I have the most experience there, but have played all three factions a fair amount.

I can see where you're coming from. Dying isn't fun, but realistically, people need to see that its a necessary evil. In order to enjoy those soaring highs of a killstreak, you have to get crushed a couple times by something that isn't fun to fight. Its human nature. By watering down the things that aren't fun, you're also watering down the upper bound of fun that can be had by things that are. Basically, you can't enjoy a great steak, if you've never had a mediocre or a bad one.

Ah the 90's. I miss those days.
I agree though, I think we need to stop holding people's hands, and pandering to people who demand that the game changes to suit their wants.

I have several things that annoy me in this game, but instead of crying about them constantly, I've devised strategies and tactics to avoid, or dispose of them. Its the natural progression of a player in an online game. You get wrecked, say "What the F*** was that", and either adapt or get wrecked over and over again.

Same goes for life, when you get a new job, you can demand the job changes to suit you, but chances are you're going to be told "Buck up and deal with it, you're not the only one that works here".

This 10000000000 times.
Thats the core point to my post. Its a matter of learning to adapt to the environment around you. That is the human race's single greatest quality, its why we've advanced far enough to be having this conversation in the first place, and by eschewing it, you are throwing away your humanity.

Below not directed at you, DrPapaPenguin

It amazes me that natural selection no longer applies. If you can't keep up, you don't matter. That goes for me, for you, and for everyone else in the world.

You don't see any of us becoming millionaires by crying that other people's bank accounts and business prowess is overpowered, no, we do that by hard work, perseverance, or in some cases, just plain old dumb luck. In other words, they saw that others made a lot of money, went "Hey, I can do that too", and adapted their actions to follow suit.

So much entitlement these days. Shut up and work towards becoming a better player, or shut up and fall by the wayside. Those are the choices I see in this game.

As an aside, I generally agree with your posts and line of thinking, so don't think of that last post as an attack, just voicing my thoughts.

As per the above quote:
I am on the fence here. The role of the sundy is too broad for that to be an issue. It can be used as an attack bus if needed. Thats just part of the game. Despite it being deemed a support vehicle, it falls somewhere between support and combat. There are no real support vehicles in the game. ( even with my own argument above about the skyguard being one, thats relevant to the weapon, not the vehicle. The only possible exception being the Valkyrie. )

Thinking might hurt Infantry players.

We can't have that.

I agree with most of the post except the Skyguard bit... I don't mind deterrence not equating to KDR stat padding, but the XP given for such a "valued" role is woefully lacking... On a platform that's only 100 resources less than a MAX that can swap weapons freely and be revived.

I definitely agree that the XP gain isn't worth it, but that doesn't mean the system itself is unbalanced or useless, just less enticing. As for resources and 1 weapon per vehicle, that was poor design IMHO, but it does have it's tradeoff. I regularly take out lone bursters/skyguards in an aircraft because they're not doing what they should be doing, which again, is supporting their team, not trying to rambo every ESF/LIB they see.

Skyguards/Bursters take ESFs out regularly. They have more trouble with libs ( and rightly so ), because they are no longer on a 1v1 playing field. They're now on a 1 v 1-3 playing field, and I think people are forgetting that.

If your lone skyguard can take a lib on toe to toe, what do you think is going to happen with there are 2 skyguards? 3? How about a squad?

Alas, if only it were so easy to convince people.

While there are certainly plenty of things that people cry OP about that really aren't, this isn't always the case. There are some things that were genuinely just way too overpowered.

The problem with multiple skyguards versus 1 lib is that libs are 1 platform with multiple guns and the Skyguard is 1 platform with 1 gun.
The lib doesn't gain any bonus HP or direct survivability enhancements with more crew members but it does gain more firepower with more crewmembers while Skyguards spend more resources for more Survivability and Firepower.

If 1 1/3 lib versus 1 skyguard favours each equally depending on the occurrence of the engagement then 2 skyguards versus 1 2/3 lib would heavily favour the 2 skyguards since they would have 2X the initial DPS and HP while the Lib gains additional firepower but no increase in HP. What happens when you bring 2 1/3 libs versus 2 skyguards, you effectively both parties gain 2X HP and Damage so now we're back to that 50/50 chance.

When considering gunner seats, you must consider when they can be used in conjunction with the pilot weapon because even though it's 2 guns they aren't firing at the same target at the same time so their fighting a 1v2 as apposed to a 2v2.

The lib would have been easier to balance if the pilot didn't get a weapon, then it'd be truly a multi crewed vehicle so the Gunners can get a very powerful weapon while the pilot focuses on flying instead of having the potential to kill things.

Lets put it this way;
If you're taking two solo libs against two skyguards, you're most likely going to lose.
A lib can only take a skyguard from the front if the pilot lands every single tankbuster shot, and the dalton does not miss.
You're no longer relying on a single person, but the communication of 2 or more players, and the way the game is designed, it caters to those players working together. Always has, always will. Honestly, it should be this way, because the game is designed entirely around teamwork, why would you penalize a good lib team for taking the time to work well together.

They cannot be used in conjuction. A Dalton gunner cannot hit the same target you're aiming at. Trust me, I've spent enough time in one to know that. Succession, yes, conjunction, no. Big difference.

The platform wasn't designed that way, so we deal with what we've got. Besides, it would make it so liberators stayed at flight ceiling and just bombarded everything. Thats not fun for liberator pilots, or gunners, and would lead to some really stale airplay.

Basically, people need to realize that teamwork is going to trump solo players, time and time and time again. This is exactly what we have here, the solo skyguard is not meant to be strong enough to hold its own against a well oiled lib crew... It has a chance on its own, but if even a single heavy, or hell, even a basilisk is there, and they work as a team the lib is going to die. Hands down.

We can go around and around about neutering the Lib/buffing the skyguard, but in the end, the one who is working closer with their team should be the one to win. If I can get two gunners competent enough to focus fire on the target I just tankbusted, then we should win, because we're working as a team. Same thing goes for a skyguard, if the driver is smart enough to use cover/team support, then I should be the one to get taken out. Its not a matter of stats, or overpoweredness, its a matter of teamwork, and people forget that in the end, the game is built around teamwork, thrives on it, and the players who get behind that are the ones who succeed.

Me and my two gunners have spent a fair amount of time practicing communication, and let me tell you that we could absolutely not take on skyguards consistantly when we started out. We can now, because we know to flank, and have improved our communication to the point that if I'm pitching down, they know to aim forward. Should we be penalized for learning how to work together? No, the guy trying to rambo everything with a skyguard should be because he's not coordinating with his team. As a lib pilot, if I see 2 skyguards, I ****. I don't engage them. I might try to flank, but if they let that succeed, then thats their fault. Any lib thats taking on skyguards headfirst without a well oiled crew has a death wish.

Were.

I can agree that some things did need some tweaks, but I feel that we've come to a place where we should really really thoroughly think about what we want to change, because the balance is so close, that any minor change could have unintended effects.

Your right i'm going to put a vulcan on my vanu harrasser right now, oh wait...
I use it on my tr character and yes on the harrasser it need to be nerf, kind like the light ppa for the scythe i think we need a light vulcan for the harrasser.

There's a difference between OP and gamebreaking elements.

OP is something that consistently kills without a chance of fighting back, something that allows anyone to rack up kills and do incredible damage they really shouldn't be doing.

Gamebreaking elements are things like Ravens flying around in every tank battle, breaking up the flow of fight because NOBODY can be ****** fighting in a battle with those things. They aren't OP, they don't do too much damage, they don't kill too much ****, but their mechanic just screws up the game, so people complain, and rightly so.