[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Kail

How do you define balance? People use the word to mean many different things.

Yeah this is the big question. I think the primary issue is the view of balance leaning toward an RTS. It seems so simple to use the analogy since it's 3 factions with varying vehicles and unit types. In an RTS you have combined arms. Simple right? The problem is with an RTS it's a player controlling the combined arms of the different classes and units rather than a player controlling one unit. This doesn't seem like a big deal since in Planetside 2 we have squad leaders and platoon leaders to command the individual units just like an RTS. When the enemy brings tanks we spawn rocket launcher infantrymen to counter them. When they bring infantry inside we bring infantry and maxes. So what's different? I'm arguing that asymmetrical balance is impossible, so what makes an MMOFPS different from an RTS?

In an RTS each unit has very specific attacks for each faction. This is still a lot of variables. I could list them, but attack range and damage will have to do and modifiers for strengths and weaknesses against every other unit in the other factions. This is a matrix of weights for the damage, 0 if it can't attack at all. (Not all RTS games balance this way but sometimes it's necessary). In an RTS a player at the highest skill level is expected to execute roughly the same actions per minute as their competitor such that overall skill is determined by strategy (global resources and build queues) and tactics (individual unit movements).

In terms of tactics terrain is often simple with attacks that use it defined very simply. Take Starcraft 2 where some units could climb slopes. Simple booleans for yes or no a unit can do something are defined. Same for flying or not flying. SC2 has a unit that transforms between ground and air, but the rules still apply. Limiting a units variables to make balance manageable. Terrain is one of the more important points since how a player uses their special abilities like flight or walking up hills drastically changes balance so keeping these simple is necessary.

In an MMOFPS individual units spawn units of their choice. There is no strategic resource model at the global scale, nor really at the local scale in Planetside 2. What this means is the unit types on the field can be whatever the commander wants at any moment to counter the enemy. Tactics are still there but the strategy that comes with limited resources is missing. (Not advocating global resources, as I'll explain later that's flawed). So what about units. They are specialized in an RTS with rock paper scissors strength and weaknesses in an effort to make their balancing "simple". This still involves, in more complex RTS games, a few attacks, but most limit their specialization. Let's jump to the point units in PS2 are weakly specialized. At any moment a class has a rifle and secondary pistol with sidegraded specializations, grenades, C4/Proxy Mines/Mines/AV Mana Turret, and numerous types of rifles further (un)defining their role. Even maxes are not one role, often quickly switching between AA and AI in a single battle. How does this compare to an RTS with specialized roles. Within the classes a player is specialized right? Not really. An engineer out of a vehicle is both infantry and AV specialist with mines and an AV turret. An HA with a Phoenix is heavy infantry and also AV. What this means is that no unit type can be defined trivially by a set of numbers on the battlefield like damage or range. At any moment they can switch weapons changing those numbers drastically and affecting the weights against every faction specific unit.

Those variables aren't limited to range and damage though. They are range, damage and drop off, bullet drop, base CoF, AV damage, recoil, CoF modifiers, etc where some have modifiers and some don't. In the case of AV damage you have front and back modifiers for simplicity in the matrix. So a tank has modifiers for each faction (could be different, but they aren't) that define how much more damage a weapon does. Now taking into consideration all the variables and combination you come to the other difference. How players use those with terrain and base layouts. Unlike an RTS with usually defined levels in a somewhat 2d restricted world you might attack from a cliff wall down one level. Nothing insane, but that scenario is well defined. In an FPS a player can be essentially anywhere using whatever weapon, almost, with a lot of variables. We've seen what happens when a grenade launcher and ammo pack are combined with high altitude or what a Phoenix does with a rock to hide behind. The number of variables to balance is insanely high. In the case of the grenade launcher each faction has one and its damage and modifiers against every faction unit seems well defined until you take into account flak armor which is essentially random in a large battle and impossible to detect. It would be like in an RTS if units randomly spawned with a 50% resistance to explosions that landed next to them. In the case of the Phoenix there is no faction weapon to compare it to directly. Its hundreds of variables including player position on the map and cover and turning rate, projectile speed, range must all be compared against every faction unit in the game and balanced. Using modifiers to do this is naive. You can easily apply a 0.5 damage across infantry not taking into account that this weapon bypasses flak since it always does direct hits, but that doesn't take into the fact that it can't be compared against any other faction weapons.

You might be thinking, "but this doesn't matter since in an RTS many faction units have no direct comparison and they were balanced", but it doesn't take into account how it's balanced. I've tried to make a point, but the number of variables and how a player chooses to use a weapon in an FPS is drastically higher than what you'd find in an RTS environment. (If it isn't clear. When you target an enemy in an RTS you have a target and possibly accuracy. In an FPS you have 3 dimensional aiming. Slight difference in the number of variables). Even in an RTS environment exploited strategies are found and fixed after a lot of testing. The ramifications of a small change to variables or terrain to stop a weapon's exploit is multiplied by the sheer number of tactics (variables) available in a 3D world.

Originally Posted by Kail

Are the ESRL's balanced in relation to an Empire? In relation to each other? If each other, by damage per clip? Damage per round? Situational usages? Clearly they can never be "perfectly balanced" against each other as they operate differently..

But then again, people don't play games with unique sides to have perfect balance.

That's the issue right there. Getting people to realize they would lose very little and gain a lot if the game had symmetric playstyles by setting all the weapon and hitboxes and stats equal with different graphics and particle effects. I'm a bit biased since I wrote this before tech test with my experience from playing PS1 since launch. It seems like a lot to change, but it takes the number of variables per faction and removes them from the balance equation completely. Surprisingly this doesn't remove the bigger issue which is a lack of specialization. It doesn't have to though. That analogy of Planetside 2 being an RTS is impossible.

It should be obvious in an RTS there are build queues and global resources that define a commanders strategic objectives and how they should best execute them and in what order. There are no build queues or global resources in Planetside 2. Players don't start on the same foot. It's a never-ending war. To go back to the RTS analogy it would be like 30 people on 3 teams playing an RTS but everyone starts at different times jumping in and out of the game every hour to play for a bit but starting with infinite resources to build units with massive customization. As you move your units into the fog of war you rarely know what you'll be fighting against and are forced to think on the spot. Now also imagine 100s of players but some of them are controlling one unit. By the time you spawn counters the target you were fighting against is gone as you're pushed back. The infantry unit you were fighting with a tank has now set down an AV turret and is firing rockets removing what rock paper scissors existed. This isn't an RTS. It's closer to what is known as an MMORTT or MMO real-time tactics game. When everyone controls one player in first person you're at an MMOFPS. The difference between an RTS and MMOFPS should be clear.

So why can't an MMOFPS just implement very strict specialization and spawning rules with global resources? It can and it's called Savage 1 and 2 which had a global commander, global resources, and build queues where each faction started and progressed at the same time with semi-specialized units. It frankly isn't that fun. Even in their goal to make specialized RTS like units they were forced to diversify them with tons of attacks sacrificing rock paper scissors combat to allow skill. They even had to make the factions very similar to remove variables that would completely destroy the balance if exploited. Planetside 1 and 2 aren't those kind of games as much as some people would want them to be.

The nice thing about an MMOFPS like Planetside 2 is it can have symmetric balance and have deep asymmetric balance between players on how they choose their loadouts and playstyles. You don't really need classes for this, but you do need a sane system to limit choices. Dozens of threads have discussed the same basic concept. I have a rough explanation here and better one here. The idea to use resources at the local player level to promote specialization while using player purchasing power denial at the global level. It's a lot to read, but the gist is that global resource supply lines are a failed concept and just play into the idea of an RTS model that isn't suited for how players play the game. That is casual players and small outfits don't want to be burdened in the 1 or 2 hours they play a day, but at the same time a model must exist to limit players on the front lines over a very short period. (Thus resource denial through hurting a player's purchasing power making it harder to acquire specializations for cheap).

Originally Posted by Kail

Balance is then making sure that when a side has an advantage its not too much of an advantage; or when side is at a disadvantage it's not at too much of a disadvantage. And that's entirely possible to do.

Indeed. However, the number of variables involved makes that an interesting challenge when keeping faction asymmetrical balance. Even in the faction symmetric balance model players still specialize their roles. One person might be engineer and have a shotgun and another engineer has a rifle. In this way players define their own asymmetrical balance through their own specialized playstyle. The asymetrical balance isn't gone really except if you want weapons (playstyles) that only one faction can employ. In that case I usually view it as lowering the skill ceiling. I have a serious issue when an FPS game specifically limits a player's playstyle choices to put them at a clear disadvantage to another player no matter their skill level. If someone pulls a sniper another player could pull a sniper. Two players using their best AV weapon even has a clear winner when one has no counter. (Even with the balance changes it won't change the outcome. PS1 tried its best to limit Phoenix damage to infantry, but people still did it). In a biolab if I pull my dual cosmos and my NC friend pulls his dual hacksaw we can try to pretend its a fair fight as he uses his skill to charge and I use my skill to attempt to charge away, but my playstyle has been limited.

The idea that you can balance an FPS with asymmetrical faction playstyles such that a disadvantage is not too much of a disadvantage isn't happening. In fact with that line of thinking the Phoenix would do no damage to Infantry since the damage is so high. In fact that's what the NV scope is attempting to do to make the advantage no longer and advantage. You can still fire without getting sniped. TR and VS have to keep them self open for vehicle and infantry fire to damage a tank. The advantage of hiding is so great in fact that it's what made the Phoenix so hated in PS1. I mean the Lancer and Striker might have been powerful kind of but you could see your enemy. Using your logic the Phoenix should be removed for balance reasons to remove an advantage that is too much of an advantage. In a symmetric model the best course of action would be to give each faction a Phoenix with a different name and colored rockets and aesthetics and compare it to the striker in usefulness when all the factions have on and a Lancer. From that perspective the Striker would be removed for balance since it outshines all other AV lock-on weapons and you are left with the Phoenix and Lancer as unique weapons that add something to the game and are both situational for each empire to take advantage of.

I digress since this is looking a tad long, but playstyles shouldn't be defaulted to one faction. It's the only reason we have the fourth empire at all and accounts for most of the complaint threads. Reading the threads you either come out of them with the realization that they need to be patched or like me, from watching this through Planetside 1, you realize that maybe asymmetrical balance isn't offering people the kind of customization they really want with their playstyles.