A Wee Balance Scenario: AA vs Aircraft

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

Because its not balanced if it costs me $15 to have you killed while it costs you $30 to do the same to me.

I don't think real life money is going to factor into this. But you've made me realize something else: If I'm driving along in my aircraft that I spent a ton of in-game resources to spec out into whatever I spec'ed it out to, did it cost you a lot of resources to customize your infantry soldier into AA? Probably not. Why should a X resources spec'ed aircraft die easily to a .2X resources infantry?

Also, I daresay, even AA infantry might get involved with capturing. PS1 captures were hacking, PS2 will be about physical presence on the capture point. Even AA soldiers can help with zerging them. More often than not they won't, due to KDR-centric play, but they could.

[Pyreal]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I disagree. Infantry should not be able to 1 to 1 toe to toe an aircraft period, and cert costs don't change that. Otherwise vehicles mean nothing. I don't even fly in integrated battlefield games but I recognize that aircraft can't just be flying infantry.

Stingers beat the Russians. Don't forget that for infantry to menace an air unit they have to lose their ability to menace other infantry or ground units.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I don't think real life money is going to factor into this. But you've made me realize something else: If I'm driving along in my aircraft that I spent a ton of in-game resources to spec out into whatever I spec'ed it out to, did it cost you a lot of resources to customize your infantry soldier into AA? Probably not. Why should a X resources spec'ed aircraft die easily to a .2X resources infantry?

I'm using basic AA against a basic (assumed to be cheap) one-man aircraft for this example.

I agree that if the pilot has spent resources on flares, jammers, etc. then the grunt is rightly toast unless they've invested in the anti-countermeasures they should also have access too.

But in the interests of fun, the fictional basic AA grunt should have a fighting chance against a basic, unupgraded aircraft.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

I'm using basic AA against a basic (assumed to be cheap) one-man aircraft for this example.

I agree that if the pilot has spent resources on flares, jammers, etc. then the grunt is rightly toast unless they've invested in the anti-countermeasures they should also have access too.

But in the interests of fun, the fictional basic AA grunt should have a fighting chance against a basic, unupgraded aircraft.

A grunt spec'ed to AA isn't basic though is he?

Anyway - the other question becomes, what do you have to give up to carry all those flares/jammers? I don't mean what does it cost, I mean, does it take up space that limits your rocket ammo, etc?

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

There is no doubt that air vehicles are the most powerful type of weapon available.

Let me brainstorm a few things linked to that weapon:
- fast movement
- movement in 3 dimensions unimpeded by terrain
- no weather conditions preventing its use
- quantity unlimited both in time and numbers (we have yet to see how restrictive resources and spawn timers will be)
- heavy firepower
- hard to hit from the ground
- need for dedicated weaponry to counter air targets (i.e. AA)
- no need for dedicated weaponry to farm ground targets from air
- no heavy logistics required to maintain such a weapon
- even with planetside scale, maps still not large enough
- players want to dogfight
- players don't want to wait for action
- etc...

True, but most of the things mentioned are inherent to air vehicles by their definition and are usually balanced out by other inherent traits to them.

Let's say fast movement and movement in 3 dimensions unimpeded by terrain are balanced by the fact that these vehicles are hardest to learn to maneuver properly and pose highest danger if failed to do so (you will rarely kill yourself when driving a ground vehicles - so impediment by terrain to aircraft is perhaps rare but mostly is fatal when it occurs). Also your movement will be restricted from covered areas like domes and caves and even if you enter them you'll be sitting duck there. When it comes to "weather" conditions those aren't preventing use of anything else in the game also. However playing during night for flyers will definitely be harder to adjust to then let's say for tank drivers. And so on, almost every such advantage has a drawback or high skills requirements at least.

Good pilots should be much appreciated by the rest - I myself for instance never played the role of pilot in any multiplayer shooter with aerial combat included, it was simply too much of a bother for me and yes they should be rewarded by being most powerful 1 to 1 units for going through the whole shabang of mastering them. Also you must think of target priority - as a pilot you're a high priority target for everyone, as footsoldier you're lowest priority target so making infantry have equal chances to aircraft is just silly. Aircrafts will mostly be engaging one another or tanks, adding a serious infantry threat to them would simply make their life a living hell. Anyway we'll be playing an MMO so there will probably be enough friendly pilots backing your side up and dealing with enemy aircrafts.

[Pyreal]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I don't think real life money is going to factor into this. But you've made me realize something else: If I'm driving along in my aircraft that I spent a ton of in-game resources to spec out into whatever I spec'ed it out to, did it cost you a lot of resources to customize your infantry soldier into AA? Probably not. Why should a X resources spec'ed aircraft die easily to a .2X resources infantry?

Bad analogy on my part. I forgot about the cash shop stuff. In my first post I stated that assuming CERT costs were equal, there should be an equal chance of taking out your opponent.

There is no way to know the resources costs at this time, and countering with an assumed fact doesn't go anywhere. That said, things that fly cost more, regardless of how well they are flown.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Also, I daresay, even AA infantry might get involved with capturing. PS1 captures were hacking, PS2 will be about physical presence on the capture point. Even AA soldiers can help with zerging them. More often than not they won't, due to KDR-centric play, but they could.

Yes, he may, but if he did he would be foolish and not likely to survive.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

That said, things that fly cost more, regardless of how well they are flown.

Well, the reason that I used an assumed cost of spec'ing was that apparently, and I guess we won't know for sure until E3, but apparently, unspec'ed vehicles don't cost anything.....which I disagree with, of course, as you ought to be able to deny to the enemy vehicles by denying the resources.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

Good pilots should be much appreciated by the rest - I myself for instance never played the role of pilot in any multiplayer shooter with aerial combat included, it was simply too much of a bother for me and yes they should be rewarded by being most powerful 1 to 1 units for going through the whole shabang of mastering them. Also you must think of target priority - as a pilot you're a high priority target for everyone, as footsoldier you're lowest priority target so making infantry have equal chances to aircraft is just silly. Aircrafts will mostly be engaging one another or tanks, adding a serious infantry threat to them would simply make their life a living hell. Anyway we'll be playing an MMO so there will probably be enough friendly pilots backing your side up and dealing with enemy aircrafts.

As you say, good pilots should be good pilots because they've put the time in to learn how to fly well. That includes picking up the nous to attack from the sun, from unexpected angles, to pop up from behind trees. Simply sitting at the "wheel" of a basic plane should not give better than 50/50 odds of beating a footsoldier equipped with any relatively modern AA weapon. Any other weapon and the grunt dies, but AA should give him a chance.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

unspec'ed vehicles don't cost anything....

I don't think this is true. Maybe in "game" currency/credits but there will be different resource types beside that and I clearly remember I heard Higby saying that by denying enemy specific resource type you'll be able to prevent them from producing certain vehicle type or something like that.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

I don't think this is true. Maybe in "game" currency/credits but there will be different resource types beside that and I clearly remember I heard Higby saying that by denying enemy specific resource type you'll be able to prevent them from producing certain vehicle type or something like that.

I certainly don't want it to be true but it's how some people are interpreting it. As for "vehicle type", if you can pull a basic tank for free but not spec it into an AA tank, then technically that vehicle type (AA tank) has been denied even if a basic tank is free.

[Pyreal]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

I don't think this is true. Maybe in "game" currency/credits but there will be different resource types beside that and I clearly remember I heard Higby saying that by denying enemy specific resource type you'll be able to prevent them from producing certain vehicle type or something like that.

Perhaps some of the common pool vehicles cost nothing? The ATV obviously should cost very little if anything at all. The Flash and the Lightning, who's to say.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I certainly don't want it to be true but it's how some people are interpreting it. As for "vehicle type", if you can pull a basic tank for free but not spec it into an AA tank, then technically that vehicle type (AA tank) has been denied even if a basic tank is free.

Listen from 3:15


Edit: An embarrassing confession by the interviewer included there.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Pyreal

Perhaps some of the common pool vehicles cost nothing? The ATV obviously should cost very little if anything at all. The Flash and the Lightning, who's to say.

The lightning will be a relatively cheap AA platform and should be a viable counter to aircraft when it's out in the field. However, when you're defending a base it will be next to useless as its manoueverability will be negated. In that scenario, the viable AA will aqlso not be a static turret - a static turret will be a coffin to AV. The viable AA for a base defence will be either a Max or an AA-equipped grunt.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

True, but most of the things mentioned are inherent to air vehicles by [...] playing an MMO so there will probably be enough friendly pilots backing your side up and dealing with enemy aircrafts.

Oh definitely and that's what I meant by my main point being about how we want to define the roles/range of action for each class/vehicle rather than attempting to tackle the problem from a "X needs to be buffed because so and so" perspective.

I mentioned weather because in the real world, I imagine it to be a big factor for air vehicles (much more so than ground vehicles). I could be wrong, I don't know and never worked in anything related to aerospace. So to me weather was to a 3D movement vehicle, what forests were to ground vehicles in PS1.

Let's say that as designers, we want troopers to have some possibility of movement but no way to retaliate vs. aircraft, we could change the maps and offer more ground cover (thick forests, canyons, bases, roofs on bridges, etc...). Now let's say that we want aircav to be able to hunt this infantry when they are AI-spec: we can give infrared optics to see in forests, missiles that hit through bunker roofs, etc...

To me, what's important is the intent and the balance comes after. In PS1, the greatest equalizer was the jammer. It made vehicles/troopers interaction really good imo. It could force vehicles to stay far away but at the same time, it did not overpower ground vehicles. It also naturally increased the advantage of troops over vehicles in places were troops were naturally advantaged (forests, bases, higher ground). However, when troops were where they were not designed to be (i.e. roads, plains, bare ground), vehicles could easily pick them off.

What you say is right, we will definitely need good aircraft players to have a fun game and what may seem like a witch hunt against aircav is actually a healthy discussion about balance concerns. Without good AA options, what's the need for ace pilots when any dummy can align a good shot and rocket spam ?

I want challenging aircav play because I want outsanding players to stand out. I want challenging grunt play because I want good squads with successful leaders to show what they're capable of. I also want challenging ground vehicle gameplay because it's what I love the most and I also like challenges.

The key is to bring all of that together so that each of those "ecosystems" can live concurrently on a relatively small battlefield and all be fun to play !

I try to convey my vision and hope for PS2 but it's hard to share and explain ideas... Anyways, I hope you see what I mean. What I really want is for this game to be fun for everyone and every kind of player. I want it to be AWESOME !

EDIT: and sorry for the long post... I got carried away.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

Listen from 3:15 PAX East 2012 - Planetside 2 Interview with Matt Higby - FPSGuru.com - YouTube



Edit: An embarrassing confession by the interviewer included there.

Hey, I agree, based on how Higbee tells it there, vehicles should cost something even for a basic one. But some people are saying they think otherwise.

What's the embarrassing confession? Being a Vanoob?