Why Balance Doesn't Matter

+1

NC = missiles = advantage.

When I think NC I think WoW's Alliance and paladin burst; and EvE's Caldari and their missile perks.

If they did that, the whining would escalate. Every faction would whine about every other faction's niche, and would downplay their own.

No, but if you pull a PPA you're completely screwed against tanks. On the other hand, if you pull a HEAT prowler with a halberd, you can defend yourself quite well against tanks, so yeah, let's talk about nerfing your HEAT farming machine at the same time we talk about nerfing the PPA

You're talking as if the Prowler was bad against infantry, I'd rather have a tank that can do everything very well at once instead of a tank that can be extremely good against infantry while being defenseless against tanks.

charge solves

The stats between all the tanks are pretty close. If the prowler is getting 3 times the amount of the other main cannons then we should. But i don't think it has 3 times.

I thought the magrider was good against infantry because of how fast it was and being able to climb mountains to shoot down. like farming with a lighting sort of

Then that's game breaking.

To be good at anything is a specialization. To specialize isn't a "Jack of all Trades, master of none".

Always had to be this.
This should have been the main focus right of the bat.

In chess you don't complain about horses moving in the L direction. You just stop taking it for granted, be aware of what it can do, and anticipate your enemies' strategies around the fact that that's the way they roll.

The whole "BALANCE" mentality is a toxic byproduct of the CoD and korean MMORPG metagame. These sound mutually exclusive but thats where the motion comes from.

It's better than the Vanguard for killing infantry, that's for sure, but definitely not better than the Prowler

In chess you would complain if a single piece could move 20 times in any direction and as may spaces as you wanted every turn.

You need good balance to create more viable strategies.

Also, it is done even more difficult because of the lack of alternatives, so I dont have much faith in asymetric balance in PS2.

If, say, I want a game where one faction is goin to be strong at sea and another one at land, if the game must be won at land and I dont provide the mechanics that allow the seaworth faction to influence the combat at land with their ships, balance is impossible.

So, if PS2 is about capturing bases in QC combat, the faction with this trait is going to be at an advantage whatever I give the other factions.

Not if the long range faction can hold the CQC faction in between bases.

Yea, that would be exactly an example of good asymmetric balance, if it where possible. But we can bypass it with the Galaxy, that is generic.

Personally, I would prefer every faction to be exactly the same than the other two, because I didnt choose a faction because of their weapons or fancy clothing, but because the outfit I joined played VS and would enjoy the fights beiing unbalanced only by population, that can be easily balanced.

Then balancing threads would be reduced to those saying tanks are OP because they kill infantry

Really, I think we are doomed.

Except in PS1 the Lasher wasn't just a "fun" weapon. It was amazing. It was a staple of the VS army, a force to be reckoned with, and changed the way you played when fighting the VS. It made the game more diverse due to its utility.

If the PS2 Lasher was equally versatile and powerful, it would make the game much more interesting, because then everyone wouldn't just be shooting boring normal bullets at each other.

Most of the time, balance=fun.

That's the thing, in MMOs that largely managed it eventually (like WAR or DAoC) there wasn't Air, Infantry/MAX and Vehicles/Armour, it was more spreading and balancing spell/weapon effects to counter each other.

The main example of this would be the orginalyPS2 Striker and AA - basically that was probably impossible to balance asymmetrically because to do so the NC and VS would have had to have been given super-tough Air (which would have raise a whole manner of other issues/imbalances).

In a game like PS2 the best they are likely to achieve is for example 3 different MBT all performing the same statstically through different methods, as one faction having a super-MBT is likely impossible (or so difficult as to almost be) to balance out with the other factions being "super" elsewhere.

Agreed, it would cause problems if one faction was know to have the best snipers or one faction as know to have the best LA.

Players that like the style would move towards that faction making the imbalances even worse. People wouldn't want to be one the on the gimped sniper side

We can definitely say 3x isn't the cutoff for something being imbalanced. (Unless you're fine going back to old ZOE which was probably 1.5-2.0x killing rate of regular MAXes. Clearly within an acceptable range, right?)

For me I cut if off at about 1.07x (7% better or worse.) (I literally work in game balance and actually do use that number in games I work on.) And it seems very possible the aggregate stats would show at least that much advantage for Prowlers. Certainly in my own stats show some pretty massive advantages in VKPH and SPM over the other two tanks.

OP?

Original Poster.

The old ZOE max could wipe out a 8 man squad easily.... so if you fight in a 12 v 12... and one enemy dicedit to pull a old ZOE max, and wipe you all out... this doesent matters??? Idk...