PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation
View Single Post
Old 2011-07-30, 01:52 AM   [Ignore Me] #8
MasterChief096
Sergeant Major
 
MasterChief096's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
yeah this needs an indifference option in the poll.

I just don't care if a veteran is better. Players can specialize in different things and be better at it. Is it unfair if someone beats you in a dogfight in the air because you specialized in using a tank? To me no.

I've never really cared about minor imbalances to Planetside. There's always that group of people that call for nerfs and buffs. I was never part of that group. I just played the game and had fun. (lol I didn't care when BFRs were overpowered. I just took it as part of the game and had fun killing/dying to them).

I guess this is in the same respect to things like black-ops. Those players had a huge advantage. Did I get mad? Nah I was like "ooh a challenge". I guess if you're obsessed about keeping a perfect k/d or something it could be a problem.

Taking this a step further I'd love to see massive differences in power between specialized players. Like a Reaver launching a barrage of MIRV rockets or a tank with upgraded AA rockets on the top and such. Seriously these kinds of things don't bother me in the slightest.
Is it possible for a moderator to add this option? I don't think I can do it.

Well, there are a few things I can see in your post where you might be misunderstanding what I tried to express in my OP.

I'm not calling for nerfs or buffs yet as we have not even play tested any of the games features.

I completely agree that I have no problem with veterans being better than new players, but for the right reasons. A veteran should be better because he's a veteran, he has play time experience, he's developed skill and tactics with his weapons, vehicles, and outfit. He knows the game better and thus has a personal advantage over a new player, not an advantage as a result of game mechanics that assist him because he's a veteran.

I am also all for specialization, but you can have specialization and character advancement without the use of raw power advancement. You can have specialization and progression that is both cosmetic and effects vehicles and weapons etc but does not simply add more power with no drawbacks.

What I'm referring to is modifications for weapons. Lets use a standard MA rifle for example. As you gain experience and unlock things, you can add modifications that effect damage, rate of fire, accuracy, clip size, noise the weapon makes, etc. However, the game should not have modifications that just add an increase to one of these and that's it. If you are going to add a higher caliber bullet modification that increases damage, it should either reduce clip size, accuracy, or rate of fire. For example say this bullet type provides a 20% damage increase. This means that 20% must be taken from the other categories. To add more specialization for the player, allow them to choose which category or categories its taken from. The player can take that entire 20% from rate of fire, or he can take 5% from ROF, 5% from accuracy, and 10% from clip size. Maybe he even wants something odd like 17% from ROF, and 3% from accuracy or something. It would add to the uniqueness of each player's weapon and add to personalization, without giving veterans raw upgrades to power with no drawbacks.

This same concept can be applied to vehicles in terms of weapon damage, speed of the vehicle, armor that the vehicle has, and any other stat that can be applied to vehicles.

Scopes for weapons I don't really see as being a power advancement as long as they don't effect the actual stats. Scopes are more of a tactical decision that a player makes. He must choose the right scope for the current battle that is taking place. This adds to player skill and how smart he is playing.

Also you say you have no problem with a veteran beating a tank specialist in the air because he specialized in a tank. Naturally a vet thats been using a reaver for 2 years versus a new player who has been playing tank and is trying out a reaver should have a significant chance of losing just because the veteran is better in terms of how long he's played.

But I don't want that veteran to beat that new player in the air because his reaver has +20% damage.

Maybe that veteran has customized his reaver to sacrifice damage and armor for extreme speed and maneuverability, whereas the tank driver who is trying out the vanilla reaver has more general stats, more armor, less maneuverability and speed, and more damage. This means that the veteran might win because he is more maneuverable and faster in the air than the vanilla reaver, but he is not winning because his reaver does more damage and thats it. He's winning because he's customized his reaver to fit what he wants to see in terms of his aircraft, and he's gotten good using that type of customized aircraft.

If the new player was replaced by a player using a heavily armored, slower reaver that does more damage, then he still has a chance of winning, but he's going to have to figure out how to fight reavers that are weak but fast and maneuverable.

See what I'm saying? I'm all for multitudes of customization that come with battle rank and unlocks, I just am not in favor of these unlocks simply adding benefits with no drawbacks in other areas.

Last edited by MasterChief096; 2011-07-30 at 01:55 AM.
MasterChief096 is offline  
Reply With Quote