Thoughts after my Return

You didn't have to. I've been given estimates like that for years by a long line of esteemed SkyKnights. The exact number will vary, but months of calendar time or hundreds of hours of practice are the most common 'git gud' times.

Yeah, they the 2 terms are not used as bookends: same meaning, but opposite sides of the spectrum. But they do work very well for addressing important Design parameters.

Well, I think Skill Floor does define a Barrier To Entry. It really us the low edge of the bar to play. And players who have skills below that point don't have a practical change to really compete in the game.

As a Designer, I think that Skill Floor and Skill Ceiling should be set relative to a game's parameters and the goals of the Dev/Player/Other. Some games segregate their playerbase, and can have different Floors/Ceilings at different tiers. Others can have different Floors/Tiers allocated to different Unit/Role types. In Street Fighter 2, they bundle different skills in different characters, so that the Floor/Ceiling is different across different characters.

In Planetside, I think it's essential (at least for the game as it's been since launch) to offer entry level playable Units that are both Free and Low Skill Floor. In addition, while I think a high Skill Ceiling is neat, the extra bang for that Higher Skill should be limited, with a good balance between sheer high skill and enough numbers needed to counteract the edge that skill provides.

It defintely takes longer than most other aspects of the game, absolutely, but I'd hardly say it takes months. Maybe a week or two of solid training to hit mid-tier and really start affecting the field. As for hitting the skill ceiling, yeah that could take months, but the alternative is to have a system similar to Flak, where within 10 minutes you're hitting the skill ceiling, and thats as effective as you'll ever be regardless of any amount of skill you have.

If you spent any amount of time actively training for something, and John Q. Pubbie Esq. jumps in and can match your performance shot for shot, was the training even worth it? Was learning it even worth it?

And you're right. In an environment like Planetside (PvP without matchmaking) giving new players a leg up is going to be necessary to gameplay longevity.

Which is where the 'noob tube' style of weapons come from. You give players two (or more) options: One which has a high skill ceiling, but also likely has a low skill floor or large barrier to entry, and another which has a higher skill floor but lower skill ceiling. That way a new player can pose a threat even to practiced players, without their 'crutch' being the most desirable option.

It's not perfectly implemented with the A2AM, but I think that's more just because of the poorly thought out inclusion of fuel tanks rather than a real issue with the wing weapons.

Then ask yourself: If somebody with those months of training to hit the skill ceiling is enforcing air superiority over a base, what should a new player do about it?

Exactly. PvP without matchmaking, the need to get a lot of players into the game to reach optimal populations, the need for a number of those players (at least for PS2 in its current setup from launch til now) to be the basic Infantry fodder that more skilled/experienced/paying players farm (that the game's in-game action Reward system is based on), etc.

The (current) demands to

Agreed, except I would swap some of those assigned values/terms:

Low Skill Floor = Low Barrier To Entry
So:
* Noob Tube = Low Skill Floor, Low Skill Ceiling
* Advanced Weapon = High Skill Floor, High Skill Ceiling

Also, while the concept of a Noob Tube is conceptually powerful at conveying the idea or designing for tiered skill level playability. And the simplicity of its system is seductively appealing to many people for it's simpleness and purity. I don't think it actually defines an optimum system for all games.

Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo has many characters that *appear* to follow the Noob Tube concept. But actually all the characters can be dangerous at the high end game. They achieve this by bundling different skill subsets in different characters, such that each character has a handful of built in "Noob Tube" components, and a handful of "Advanced Weapon" components. It also seizes on the concept that "skills" don't just cover basic dexterity, but also situational awareness, strategy, positioning, mind games, mind reading, knowledge of move properties, etc.

That makes great sense. The Fuel Tanks create confusion because they provide such a general (and unique) ability. Of course A2AM is further complicated by the multiple barriers to entry to advance along the ESF learning curve. Not to mention the self-serving and myopic rants of most of those at the high end of that curve.

Exactly why I hate using "skill floor = barrier to entry". I need to use both the concept of needing a lot of skill to use minimally effectively, and the minimum effectiveness being low. But the second one doesn't have a 'name' for most people. And 'Low Skill Ceiling' doesn't really get across the idea that the weapon has to be very effective, but easy to master.

At least I'm not trying to define what makes gameplay 'tactical'.

Most of the SkyKnights argue (and I can't really disagree) that the top end effectiveness of an A2AM loadout is higher than the fuel pods, but the skill required is lower. I don't care about the "nosegun only" e-bushido, so it doesn't get my panties in a bunch. And it's that difference in priorities (they want honorubu combat, I want skies filled with aircraft) that is the source of our difference in solution: They say get rid of A2AM, I say get rid of fuel pods.

Well, I like the terms and find them handy. But I appreciate that jargon is slippery and different people like (or dislike... or vibe/not vibe with, etc.) different ones.

Tactics and Strategy are already confusing terms. It gets worse when trying to graft them onto games. And still worse when you're working with a player population that is stuck in as cryptic and fractured a game as PS2 (and it's community, meta, player support, etc.) is.

But Fuel Pods are not pure A2A Loadouts. They come in handy to deal with many situations and threats that are not A2A. Why should pilots expet Fuel Tanks to be better at A2A than A2AM?

The difference between ESF top speeds (cruising and [even more] afterburner) is also a mess.

Most SkyKnights just complain about things that limit their ability to dominate. It doesn't matter what it is, or why, they just want their edge. The same is true for most players in the game. As a designer, you just can't listen to what they "ask for", but you can learn a lot by listening to their comments. You have to either create a game that has segregated players (so you can better appease each group's play preference), or you have to set up the game with uniform setup to provide best for the desired demographic (in PS2's case, that's general audience).

A while back I wrote down a long list of things that motivate players/rewards (fun, grinding rewards, griefing, stats, etc.: not all players want the same ones, or value each one the same). It's important to identify which of these you want to make players able to do, then make sure to attach a sufficient (and worthwhile to the game and its goals) cost to each, such that you have a give-and-take system that both fulfills players and also achieves game goals. PS2 in its silliness has a warped give-and-take system, where the game pushes players to do things that don't fit what they want, cause affects that don't fit what other players want, and don't fit the goals of the game or Dev itself.

I agree. I think getting rid of Fuel Pods (or making them default) is a very good idea.

You may have answered your own question there.