Why Asymetrical Balance doesnt work in Planetside 2

Over all threads different players start to discuss if the Asymetrical Balance in Planetside 2 works or not and if it should be maintained or not. Based on this i want to share some points why i think Asymetrical Balance can not work in Planetside 2.

The short Version:

Asymetrical balance cannot work in Planetside 2 because only around 25% of all stuff is Faction based and parts of Faction based stuff are generalized (the same for everyone). This creates problems with balancing Faction vs Neutral. It also creates problems when trying to add faction based solutions for problems as the very high symetrical balance leaves only small room for implementations.

The long Version:

First, for all that didnt encounter any good asymetrical balanced games yet, i want to give an example for one: Starcraft. Starcraft is a perfect example how asymetrical balance can work. You get 3 Factions, every faction has completely different units with different strengths and weaknesses. If you dont know this game you should have a look as it is a realy good example.

Planetside 2 is a game where some players and developers allways tend to talk about the asymetrical balance the game has and how good it is. But how much of the game is realy asymetrical?

Lets first look at the Infantry. Except the MAXes shape, every Infantry class is exact the same for all empires, including health, resistence, suit slots, utility slots. The only exception here are the 3 MAX abilities (most ability slot items are equal anyway). They also share the same weapon type restrictions. When it comes to weapon groups you can devide them in to types. The Asymetrical group, they are Pistols, Carbines, Asault Rifles, SMGs, LMGs, MAX AI and AV. These weapons dont have any copies or close copies around and are unique, besides some NS weapons. The second group is the Symetrical group, these are Bolt Action Snipers, Semi Auto Snipers, Scout Rifles, Battle Rifles, Shotguns, Pump Action Shotguns, Rocket Launchers (Except the latest added ones), MAX AA, while most of these weapons look Faction based (and Asymetrical) most of them are simple copies of each other, some with slightly changes, but overall they are completely the same. Infantry combat has not much room for Asymetrical aproaches, especialy if classes get copied around the possible aproaches get alot smaller. Thats the reason why we only see some weapon groups with faction flavored guns, there is simply no more room. This is also the point where you need to question if this is the right aproach. Some players might simply perfom better when they could get there hands on some weapons the other empires have.

When it comes to vehicles the situation gets a bit more complicated. Only 2 out of 8 Vehciles currently in the game are faction based and only 3 have Empire specific weapons. Liberators, Galaxies, Flashes, Lightnings and Sunderers are completely the same for all Empires, along with statical base defences (AA, AI, AV). For the differences you get harassers wich only have 2 of 8 weapons Faction based. ESFs and MBTs are the only vehicles that are faction based but they share the most statts. All share the same resistence, health, armor, utility and defence slots. They mostly get balanced by Agility, RoF, Reload, Mag Sizes and Dmg, but they are not truely Faction based as ESF secondarys are copys or faction based copys and MBTs only have 2 out of 7 secondary weapons faction based. We get the same picture like we got with infantry, there are only a few items that are truely faction specific and asymetrical and if you believe it or not this is exactly the problem why Asymetrical Balance doesnt work in this game.

Now that all the Data is out, here are the reasons why asymetrical balance doesnt work:

1.) The issue of generalization:
Alot of the stuff in the game is generalized, Infantry classes, Suits, Utilitys etc. In some cases players might not care, but some cases bring up real balancing issues. For example all MBT guns get the same 0.5s reload speed reduction for there main guns. Since all MBT guns have different DPS and Reload speed values the faster canons will profit more then the slower ones. For AP the Prowlers reload speed gets reduced by 20% while Magrider get 13% and Vanguards get 12.5%. The result is a different increase of DPS and the Question what you want to balance for? Base values or Reload 5 values?

2.) The issue of Balancing Faction vs Neutral:
Since alot of the stuff on faction vehicles is geeneralized, this makes it impossible to correctly balance versus neutral stuff. The Liberator for example can be shot down by Tank AP, while projectile speeds make it easier or harder to hit them, the differences in DPS from MBTs are the Key here. The time it takes to shoot down a Liberatior varies pretty much between tanks. As Prowlers can get out 4 Shots (including reloads) way faster then other Tanks (wich need 2 of course) this creates a balancing problem from the view of Liberators as the reaction time to the attack gets much smaller when hit by a Prowler compared to a Vanguard, since all Tanks share the same Projectile Type there is also no way to Balance the neutral Lib vs the 3 faction MBTs (the issue with generalization). The same issue applies to station turrets, as these are also directly effected by the differences in DPS and an attacked turret can be destroyed faster or slower, giving different times to react (also note that Faction abilities from MBTs only apply partialy here).

3.) Missing Faction Solutions
For some solutions in the game Factions need to get Neutral solutions while other can solve the issue with Faction based Solutions. A good point here is the Phoenix. With it NC is the only Faction that can fire on targets behind cover. There are no other solutions available to solve this issue. Since its assymetrical the solution doesnt need to be a launcher copy, it can be something else as long as its a good solution for the problem, the problem here is yet again that most parts of the game are symetrical wich leaves way less room for a Faction based solution. Other issues that can be added to the list are sieged Prowlers vs Vanguards or Mags on Range, Mags or Prowlers in close combat with Vanguards etc.


Overall i think the game wont change much if every faction specific stuff would be copied over to all factions and only get faction specific models and sounds. The game is allready very symetrical and as i wrote the way it got developed leaves not much room to solve issues that are allready there. If a game gets made Asymetrical is simply needs to be from the ground or it needs to have differences between factional stuff to correctly wire them to everything else. We now have seen that with the Colosus we may get a new vehicle thats again neutral and might actually fit into the holes that Factions currently have with there MBTs in different situations.

What do you guys think?

Its far simpler then that. The gun play and movement favor one particular play style. Its hard to build asymmetrical balance in a combat system whose most powerful aspects are common to all players. Specifically..... ADS, Sprint, short TTKs, and equipment variations of less then 15% in basic statistics.

This system favors fast reaction times, first strike capability, high rates of fire (which directly attributes to better error tolerance), and high accuracy under sustained fire. Most notably this played very well into TR's faction traits during early development, and took significant nerfing to nearly every aspect to bring it in line with the other empire traits (which were all sub-par if you think about it). Even after the TR nerfs, any weapon with high RoF and good recoil control still manage to top the performance charts across all empires.


Real Asymmetrical balance can't be achieved so long as the gun play is homogenous like this.

You bring up a good point. Sadly this thread doesnt turn into a discussion, most palyers dont seem to be interested.

disclaimer- read the short version, and only skimmed the long version (it's half past midnight where i'm at, and i've been getting my baby daughter to sleep for the past 3 hours... so give me a break)

this is a subject close to my heart, so i want to weigh in here....

i disagree with only 25% being faction spesifc... i think it's the other way around. 75% is faction, even if the difference is small. (I play NC and TR- and i have to adjust the way I play just because of the size of my magazine and that the first bullets just do more damage)
I dont think all factions need to be able to do the same either.... as long as the over all amount of kills are the same, it's ok for one faction to be able to fire indirect, another to hover and a third to have.... double barrels? better guns? not sure. I'd even like the difference to be bigger, but the whinyness of the general populance probably wont allow it.

if SOE could just show a monthly number killed by each faction, and do their damnest to keep the numbers close to each other, i'd welcome the looniest differences between factions.

Most of the posts I've seen on this forum prefers the side to be as identical as possible, in order to not give an advantage to the other side, which I feel is a shame. I had originally wanted the 3 sides to be very distinct so that you could really get the feel for the faction you played. But I don't think Planetside 2 can really get more asymetrical anymore. I think the playerbase that have remained will object strongly to that.

Isn't it more important that the ability to hold and capture territory remains equal? If the kills didn't have to be as close to 100% equal as possible, that might open up for more freedom in faction traits. Then again, it might be hard to make fun. and I might not be this game's demography anymore anyways ^_^

You know what true balance brings? One class, one gun, one faction. Complete homogenization. Balance is a myth, something that people believe can be done and push for but is ultimately impossible to achieve unless you want to completely ruin the game.

To some MLG types, what you just proposed would be perfect.

Of course to me and a lot of other people it'd be boring and horrible.

But...but my constant training needs to count for everything.

And peripheral equipment (that is tied in commerically with MLG of course) and quickscope reflexed fueled by peripheral energy drinks, and other absurdly silly stuff.

If I was following you. Maybe I was not. I'm tired.

It can be done, or at least as close as possible........ the problem is it takes a long time and a lot of balancing.

Warhammer Online and DAoC got close to this (eventually) in their time, PS1 did, PS2 is now at the closest it has ever been.



The biggest bugbear of asymetric balance is when one faction gets something to generally and specifically good (like the original Striker, ZOE etc.) which helps tip everything else out of balance too...... the ultimate example of this would be the Lasher 2.0 from PS1.

Sarcasm is funny that way.

Of course it can be done, have you never played Starcraft? Starcraft has three entirely different factions, and yet it has one of the largest MLG communities in the world. Because despite the different factions Starcraft is VERY well balanced.

The only reason the factions in Planetside 2 aren't as good as in Starcraft is simply because SOE doesn't spend nearly as much time as they should balancing and differentiating the factions.

It wouldn't work here.

Reason why? Think of what each unit in Starcraft offers. Imagine if the little Marines each had a choice of many different guns. And the Hydralisks had a choice of many different spit/claw attacks. And so on.

It's a geometrically larger layer to "balance", moreso than merely unit against unit. Saying its possible and SOE just failed to do so at this level is going too hard on them. Yes, I said it.

nice thread.

In my opinion the base design does not favour low fire rate weapons, even if they have high base damage. The new Amerish base redesign with the introduction of underdground bases will change the game i hope.

For example, with the latest hip fire nerfs and laser sight nerfs, 90% of the players still go with SMGs or Carbines for close range combat and performing well or even better than shotguns, in my opinion this is unacceptable even knowing that shotguns are the hardest weapons to balance, the line between underpower and overpower is thin.

I think the biggest balance patches are coming after the competitive season.

Yep, in terms of an MMOFPS or MMORPG with aysemetric balance, SOE are actually doing pretty well with PS2 time from Live-wise (although still some things were left unchanged for far, far too long when they were clearly overbalanced).

There's a huge difference besides the fact that Starcraft is a RTS . That's because units there have varying different TTK's against other units ( or are extremely weak/ strong against different unit types ) . IF SC2 had units that ALL had similar TTK's , the game would be far more different and i bet faction " flavor" would be nerfed into the ground for the sake of "competitive balance".

You don't have that here for 2 reasons :

1) The TTK across most weapons are TOO similar ( ala they're all mostly .5 -.7 TTKS against infantry ) . More or less this rewards one or two specific play styles ( which means you have far less counter play ) . This is why everyone grabs the next "FOTM" weapon since there isn't really any counter play outside of the load out screen that a player encounters. The only thing that matters is that the TTK for that weapon is low , and that its effective against most of the units in the game while being versatile across all shooting ranges .

PS1 *seemed* balanced around that time because ( I don't know how that game is now , just drawing on the experience from the Core combat xpack ) had different TTK's against different " classes" . Someone fresh from the spawn tube would die extremely fast ( but were the fastest "unit" on foot in the game) , but the TTK's are noticeably different if one were to equip an agile suit or a rexo suit or a max, etc . Top that off, movement penalties would be instituted if you equipped more and more armor ( going from spawn to agile to rexo, etc) . Also there weren't " all round" great weapons ( outside of infantry explosive spam ) . If you equipped a Guass + AV ammo, your TTK's going to be better against Maxes , but terrible against infantry . Decimators had better TTK's against vehicles but they were terrible against regular infantry . While AI ammo was amazing for infantry but terrible against vehicles/ maxes ( did 0 damage ) , etc. Top that off each " suit" had drawbacks as to how much ammo you could carry (which makes logistics even at the micro level relevant versus what we have today in PS2 where logistics outside of a galaxy / spawn beacon seem to barely play any role if any ) .

Due to how weapons in that game operated(PS1 are, if you don't count the explosive spam from infantry weapons) because there are different TTK's against varying classes / vehicles; this would provide *some* counter play . Which means that you can have faction " flavors" . Here you can't have faction flavors because the TTK"s (save for maxes / HA shields ) are almost IDENTICAL . The TTK's between a LMG and a carbine are basically the same. Ditto with a SMG / commissioner, etc . All of them have TTK's in this game are around 0-.7 seconds which is faster then anyone's reaction time if you factor in lag ( network / video / cpu, etc ) in general .

In this game only Maxes have a significant TTK difference ( And even then a single brick of C4 / AV nade changes that equation fast both of which have low TTK's against other units as well ) . Outside of HA shields , there isn't any significant difference in TTK's . Doesn't matter if your weapon kills in .3 or .5 or 0 seconds . Anything under 1 second ( given that there will always be different types of lag) will always seem as if you died in a blink of an eye unable to react to anything.

To put this in SC terms. If say a SCV could one shot hydralisks or marines could 2 shot zerglings but if a zergling managed to get to a ranged unit it'll one shot them if they're not upgraded..... Since the units TTK's have to be similar , that's what PS2's is really at the moment. TTK's that are homogenized across multiple classes / units which means that you can't have any extreme faction differences without making that faction the next " FOTM " . If SC2 units had the same TTK's against other units , then you'd see little or no counter play , I'd be it'll be the same thing as well ( players jumping from one FOTM strategy to another ) .

2) Though there is a drawback to making huge differences in TTK's against different units, which means that competitively ( given how the FPS scene is these days ) , this wouldn't do too well. Just look at most of the competitive games (FPS wise) . Most of them devolve into players that use only a FEW different weapons ( because there isn't a huge difference in TTK for top weapons) . Do you see players ( in general during competitions) constantly using a shotgun/ Mac-10 / Kerig , etc,etc in CS when the game's on the line in round 3/5, etc ( and they're not facing scrubs) ? No . Do you see players using a grenade launcher / shotty / nailgun ,etc in quake if the frag count is even and there's 30 seconds left on the map ? No ( It'll devolve down to rockets / LG / rails most of the time if they have one of those weapons ) .

That's the problem... how do you balance this game competitively , yet allow counter play without having the game devolve down to just a few classes/ weapons that only everyone uses because its " acceptable " competitively ? Versus " he beat me because he's got the correct load out against me in that situation , that's skill less " .

TlDR :

1) TTK's are similar across all factions and classes , thus lowering the range/ variety of weapons one can choose for counter play in that instance .

I gotta say, some good arguments in here.

And I'm going to agree both with Xebov and basil.

1) To much normalization.
2) TTK is to fast.

I'm also going to throw in, there are elements NOT currently in game which extended the TTK to players in PS1 that basil didn't mention. These were options people had to weigh between taking or not into the battle with them. Now don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying "zomg add this stuff!" but it made huge differences in PS1:

People were forced to specialize or be limited in what they could/couldn't pull. Unless they recerted enough times to change their loadouts. Sometimes it only took a day or two, sometimes it took a week, depending on how much they wanted to recert. (with the exception of BR40s, but that was a cash grab by SOE)

Exactly. MLG types want a uniform game where the only difference between 2 people is their "skill." Then there are people like me (and I assume you) who embrace asymmertrical balance, precisely because it adds variety and differentiation to the game. Without it, it would be incredibly boring and a glorified Call of Duty.

Asymmetrical "balance" can never be "balanced" and it shouldn't be. Some weapons will be "OP" against other weapons in certain situations, some of those weapons are available to only 1 faction. THAT'S OK! That gives each empire some flavor. On the aggregate, I think they've done a good job balancing the empires overall, while giving each some unique things.

In this game, you have to think: what are my strengths? What are their weaknesses? What situations should I try to avoid, what situations should I try to engage? It adds depth other games don't have. Otherwise, the only difference is who reacts quicker or has the better computer or internet connection. How boring. If you want that, there are plenty vanilla shooters that cater to that sort of playstyle. Thank god this is not one of them, and that's why I pay to support it.

Well it makes PS2 different from other FPS shooters. I think they should expand on this since I don't see that with most of the others ( save for maybe MWO , which plays similarly to PS1 , but has a capped # of players per map , Dunno if tribes atm is like that I haven't tried that FPS yet )

#1 doesn't mean asymmetric doesn't work in Planetside 2. It means asymmetric guns need to have their slot items balanced asymmetrically. Actually it doesn't even mean that since the slot item could universally be expressed in terms of reload speed percentage ("Reduces reload speed by 10%") and that would affect each asymmetric gun equally. Obviously you balance for rank 1 and rank 5 values, ensuring the total reload speed is balanced across the board.

#2 is just a statement that yes, obviously balancing 3 AP weapons involves more time/effort than balancing 1 universal AP weapon. But it's worth it to have different factions. And the Prowler AP is simply overpowered right now and needs to be fixed as part of that ongoing time/effort investment necessary to keep the game balanced (my vehicle KPH is nearly double with Prowler AP than the other two tanks, and this sort of thing is visible via player stats sites, and is probably even easier to spot for SOE themselves.)

But to be clear, #2 definitely does not mean asymmetric balance is unworkable. It just takes more effort.

#3 just has to be addressed by better weapon design. Although the Phoenix is really a rather cruddy example next to the Lancer, which provides way more unique firing opportunities than the Phoenix does. With the Phoenix you're very limited by range, and also limited by the awkward "Stay still for the sniper headshot! Smile!" mechanic. So when implementing 3 new weapons those weapons should all come from the same core design: for example, the Lancer's design would be "skill-requiring AV sniper rifle", and you could easily imagine all three empires getting their unique asymmetric take on that core design. The total capabilities of an empire within each role need to be balanced overall, and that's going to be harder to achieve with too much asymmetry.