PlanetSide Universe - View Single Post - Meaningful Customization & Balance via Tradeoff Decisions
View Single Post
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-08-04, 11:06 AM   [Ignore Me] #32
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
Re: Meaningful Customization & Balance via Tradeoff Decisions

Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
Not seeing a misunderstanding.

Me: If I cert damage for an infantry weapon, I want to be able to put that on the weapon when I pull that weapon.

You: That damage bonus for an infantry weapon would be an implant like thing you must make a side trip for to change out
You only need to make a side trip if you didn't already have it slotted.

This is no different from how BFBC2 does gadget slots. You can choose to have damage, or you can choose to have armor. But you cannot have both. You can choose to have an a run sped bonus, or you can choose to carry more grenades. But you cannot have both.

Thus, tradeoff and meaningful specialization. Its meaningful because it is significant and you the player had to make a choice as to which strengths you want your character have based on your playstyle. Its also meaningful because not every player will have the same benefits you do. If you choose a bunch of infantry bonuses, you will be more suited for infantry than players who chose vehicle oriented bonuses or different types.

If you got the bonus all the time, it means
1) the bonus will be small and insignificant
2) many other people will have the bonus, making it meaningless except against nubs that haven't trained it yet.

Do you not want your bonuses on your character to actually convey an advantage in a field of your choosing?

Just because eve did it does not mean PS will as well. People who stick around in a game for a couple years do not do so because of the leveling mechanics, but because they like the gameplay.
We are in agreement - gameplay makes people stay, not power "progression" and other meaningless carrots. Putting these things in is unnecessary and as I state, potentially dangerous, so it should not go in, even if it's "no big deal" right now.

Last edited by Malorn; 2011-08-04 at 11:11 AM.
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote