The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation - Page 11 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Who needs food, I've got planetside.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

View Poll Results: What do you think of Power Advancement for Charaters, Weapons, and Vehicles in PS2?
Power advancement is not necessary in PlanetSide 2 49 39.52%
Power advancement is necessary in PlanetSide 2 53 42.74%
Indifferent 22 17.74%
Voters: 124. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2011-08-01, 03:32 PM   [Ignore Me] #151
Tatwi
Contributor
Major
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Bags View Post
If they'll own the noobs already why do they need 10% more damage? (I know we won't get that much, just an example).

I already own new players in PS, I don't need more damage to do it lol.
That's it in a nut shell.

If the vets "need something", then give them stuff like a bonus to their faction's influence/ownership of a zone while they are logged in and fighting. So the more vets in a battle, the less time is required to capture an area.

That bonus wouldn't put new people off from trying the game and sticking it out for the couple months it might take to get the hang of things, but it would absolutely play into the dynamic of the game in a positive way. Leaders on all sides would actively want to place their vets in the battles where their presence would be most beneficial.

That's just one character development concept that would be fun, but is more than simply making the best players able to pwn the worse ones even more efficiently. It is possible to create such systems.
__________________
Tatwi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 03:41 PM   [Ignore Me] #152
Soothsayer
Contributor
Sergeant Major
 
Soothsayer's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


The power isn't the issue here as to why the system is in.

Its the customization. Skilling up a weapon to modify via upgrades to suit your playstyle. That's why its in.

Right now in PS1 there are a couple cookie cutter loadouts. With this system there may be cookie cutter setups, but it will only be due to the self imposed limitation of copying someone else.

More options, more ability to try stuff that's outside of what everybody else is doing.

Customization.
Soothsayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 03:44 PM   [Ignore Me] #153
Bags
Lieutenant General
 
Bags's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Soothsayer View Post
The power isn't the issue here as to why the system is in.

Its the customization. Skilling up a weapon to modify via upgrades to suit your playstyle. That's why its in.

Right now in PS1 there are a couple cookie cutter loadouts. With this system there may be cookie cutter setups, but it will only be due to the self imposed limitation of copying someone else.

More options, more ability to try stuff that's outside of what everybody else is doing.

Customization.
I'm fine with trade-offs, but these have pure power increases.
__________________
Bags is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 03:46 PM   [Ignore Me] #154
Baron
First Sergeant
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


While I agree that there needs to be some sort of holistic balance, what is the problem with having a little unbalance in certain areas?

I mean, I've always thought that NC heavy assault was better at close range, TR heavy assault the best at range and VS better in tight spaces. This is not balanced, in some respect...and it's better that way.

I like some aspects of specialization for empire specific things...maybe I missed the entire point of this thread

*shrug*
Baron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 03:51 PM   [Ignore Me] #155
Soothsayer
Contributor
Sergeant Major
 
Soothsayer's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Bags View Post
I'm fine with trade-offs, but these have pure power increases.
Yes, there is a bit of that. I'm still not sold that its a bad thing. As long as its reasonable.

My comment was more reflecting the shift around pg 9 where people were wondering why the system was in place at all if they accepted the explanation that power increase was negligible.
Soothsayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-08-01, 04:00 PM   [Ignore Me] #156
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Soothsayer View Post
Yes, there is a bit of that. I'm still not sold that its a bad thing. As long as its reasonable.

My comment was more reflecting the shift around pg 9 where people were wondering why the system was in place at all if they accepted the explanation that power increase was negligible.
Why have non-tradeoffs at all?
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 04:03 PM   [Ignore Me] #157
Bags
Lieutenant General
 
Bags's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Soothsayer View Post
Yes, there is a bit of that. I'm still not sold that its a bad thing. As long as its reasonable.

My comment was more reflecting the shift around pg 9 where people were wondering why the system was in place at all if they accepted the explanation that power increase was negligible.
It's not necessarily a bad thing it's just unnecessary.

Will slight power growth ruin the game? Not likely. Is it needed? Not likely.
__________________
Bags is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 04:10 PM   [Ignore Me] #158
Soothsayer
Contributor
Sergeant Major
 
Soothsayer's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Why have non-tradeoffs at all?
I never indicated that I felt that power differentiation was a problem. I definitely have stated that tradeoffs are great because it encourages greater diversity in how people set themselves up.

For example, in most modern shooters, I prefer semi-auto rifles that hit hard, have decent accuracy for the first two or three shots and a red dot sight.

Would be awesome if I could take the base cycler, remove the option for full auto and take it down to semi auto, while at the same time receiving a bonus to how it operates in one of my preferred rifle styles be it accuracy or range.

That is what I envision, that's what I'm arguing for.
Soothsayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 05:36 PM   [Ignore Me] #159
kaffis
Contributor
Major
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


To start out on topic, I answered that I'm indifferent. I won't say that I would have advocated for straight-up power increases (holistic or otherwise) based on knowlege of Planetside's cert system. I didn't find the old system broken, per se, until they started handing out too many battle ranks and consolidating the certs because the populations couldn't support all the vehicle diversity.

On the other hand, I can recognize the reasons to put power increases in, and, given that, believe that Mr. Higby and his team have chosen a good approach (lots of small bonuses that lead up to a holistic maximum to consciously balance around), and have identified what I would estimate to be a reasonable starting ground for that holistic limit. Given that perceived wisdom, I have some faith that they'll be actively analyzing and tuning these things, particularly in beta, to find the most balanced thresholds.

Originally Posted by Higby View Post
We're going to have hundreds if not thousands of certs at launch. These will vary from certs that unlock new weapons, implants, vehicles, weapon/vehicle attachments and class skills to ones that allow for faster reloading, less cone of fire
To stray and stay off topic with you briefly, you just said three words that make me very, very happy. I was seriously worried that CoF and bloom management were pretty much dead and buried when I heard you guys talking about iron sights and the like.

Originally Posted by MasterChief096 View Post
Traditional MMO fans that are used to stat increases are traditional MMORPG fans. MMO can take any suffix, RPG, FPS, RTS, etc. It is not a traditional part of MMOFPSes to have stat increases. This is in large due to the fact there aren't really any MMOFPS games out there. So in my opinion, its up to SOE to decide now with this game how the standards of the MMOFPS genre are going to be set, and I believe that they should be set by not offering raw stat increases.
You know the reason there aren't really any MMOFPS games out there?

It's because SOE, then the industry giant of the MMO genre, tried it with Planetside 1, and the game couldn't keep a large enough subscription base for other companies to say "wow, that's really profitable, and there's room in the market for us to attack it and steal a slice of that pie -- and still be profitable!"

Now, the reasons for this are, I believe, two-fold. MMO was still a pretty small market, all told. As a percentage of gamers, the number of MMORPGers was probably something like 5%. So not a lot of people were used to the idea of paying a subscription fee to play a game. *Especially* not a lot of FPS players. They might've bought the game, tried it for the free month, and then said "okay, that's great, and all, but I can play Counter-Strike for free."

The second reason is that Planetside, with its very flat advancement system that promoted diversifying your options rather than becoming more powerful in any one thing, doesn't appeal to role playing gamers. So Planetside didn't draw in the audience that *was* amenable to the notion of paying a subscription fee. Really, what PS did was to appeal to the subset of MMO gamers who were also FPS fans, rather than conquer the FPS market the way they thought they would.

As such, I have no problem with offering modest, overcomable power gains if the development team believes that will help to expand the market PS2 appeals to, and ensure that the game has a thriving population to provide a fun and exciting community and play experience for years to come.

Could they take the approach that the MMO market is much, much bigger today, and that thus the subset of MMO players who also enjoy FPS is large enough to sustain the game by itself? Probably; except, I suspect, that here in 2011, that's largely irrelevant, because the subscription model of MMO is dying off in favor of microtransaction supported F2P models in various incarnations. If they had tried that 3 or 4 years ago, it probably would have succeeded on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Tatwi View Post
Most of the my time in WoW has been on PvP servers and the biggest complaint about "world pvp" has always been that the low level character don't have any chance at all against the high level ones. And I mean none - there's a miss chance that grows exponentially when attacking enemies higher level than you. People never cared so much when they were killed multiple times by someone around their own level, because it was a fair fight.
This is very much the case. And this should prove heartening -- there are some out there who will dive into a mature world PvP environment as newbies in WoW, regardless, despite the fact that the power level differential is many, many orders of magnitude greater than 20%. We should look at that for perspective to realize how manageable 20% is, especially if it's on a sliding scale where the rate of power increase starts fast and slows.

Furthermore, this can honestly be seen as limiting power growth, if you think about it.

As we've already established, newbies start out without a lot of game knowledge, and with varying degrees of hand-eye coordination, and with no familiarity with the characteristics (fire rate, bloom characteristics, bullet drop/fire arc) of the diverse range of weapons with which they can choose to equip themselves. As shorthand, I'll choose to equate these three factors, as an aggregate, to the simple term, "skill."

So we already know that the newbie has a vast "skill" difference compared to a veteran. Whether they have some skill that carries over from outside the game (be it studying wikis to glean maps and statistics for different weapons, having friends recount basic tenets of strategy such as what does and does not represent a favorable engagement based on a given weapon on hand, or carrying over hand-eye coordination from other FPS games), the gulf is likely formidable, and will heavily favor the veteran.

Now, two of those three skill factors will carry over regardless of specialization, as the newbie plays the game and slowly becomes a veteran. So he can get a new cert, and, suddenly, is considered significantly more veteran than another newbie who just started the game, despite having similar time devoted to a particular specialization, role, or cert!

With a system that builds in power advancement, that veteran does NOT get the full benefit of his play in other areas of specialization, merely by being a veteran of the GAME. Thus, it slows his power advancement down, because he has to earn his veteran status in each SPECIALIZATION he wants to tackle.

In other words, a newbie who earns his 20% in a specialization over 6 months (or whatever), can go up against a 3-year veteran who has only been focusing on this specialization for a month, and will be at an advantage! Despite facing somebody with 6 times the game time as himself. That's because the more veteran player's advancement has been, effectively, *slowed* by the system.

Originally Posted by Soothsayer View Post
I want to specialization to mean something, the time I've put in to the game should translate to a meaningful increase in whatever abilities I choose to develop.

To the people who are saying that having vets who are specc'ed into whatever will be a deterrent to new players, I've heard the same argument from people who haven't tried EVE. Its the first two weeks that really matter, once you're in and you have a good time you don't leave for a while... then you come back for more later. The main reason you don't have a good time is when you try to play it like a single player game. If PS2 has engaging gameplay for all levels of player, people will like what they see and stick around longer.
I basically agree with all this. Except, I haven't played EVE specifically. People are forgetting that the 20% for veterans is in a specialty, not character-wide. Sure, given infinite time, that 20% could be character-wide, but every impression I've gotten from Matt talking has indicated that it will take a considerable amount of time to reach that 20% in a single specialty. If we're talking attaining 20% over the course of a year, or even 6 months, you're still going to have to either be a day-1 newbie in some areas of the game, or spread your attention so you're not that 20% in anything. So it's not accurate to say that if everybody has 20%, then vet on vet is the same as 0% bonus. That's only the case if both vets are singularly specialized in the same thing. It's far more likely that you'll see two equal time vets in a 20% on 15%, or a 15% on 5% power differential, and challenge them to make their skill overcome being "out of their element" (or, conversely, reward them for the specialization they chose to engage in when they're in their element). I'm heartily behind this.

Originally Posted by Bags View Post
If everyone gets 20% more power, nobody has 20% more power.

All this does is make vets 20% stronger than noobs, which is completely unnecessary.
As I just said above, it makes specialized vets 20% stronger than vets who specialized elsewhere, which is, if not strictly necessary, very rewarding and makes the specialization meaningful.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn View Post
RPG aspects are hooks to keep you playing so they can earn more $. They serve no other purpose in an fps. Which I don't care for, but also don't care much about so long as its reasonable. But the proper foundation for an fps is everyone is always on an equal footing, and skill is all that differs. The fact that you have to earn something means the developers took something away from you so you could 'earn' it back.
I agree on all points. It should be noted, however, that competing FPS franchises have adopted power advancement, too. And they seem to have no problems with complaints that "good" weapons are locked away, and need to be earned, or attracting new players who have to overcome the fact that they're more poorly equipped than some of their opponents.
kaffis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 07:24 PM   [Ignore Me] #160
Noyjitatps
Private
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


The fact that anyone at all voted to have that 20% power difference really does sadden me.
Noyjitatps is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 07:33 PM   [Ignore Me] #161
Raymac
Brigadier General
 
Raymac's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Noyjitatps View Post
The fact that anyone at all voted to have that 20% power difference really does sadden me.
The fact that there's an 11 page thread debating a theoretical balance issue of "hundreds if not thousands" of skills we know nothing about is probably sadder.
__________________
"Before you say anything, prepare to stfu." -Kenny F-ing Powers

Raymac is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 08:05 PM   [Ignore Me] #162
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Noyjitatps View Post
The fact that anyone at all voted to have that 20% power difference really does sadden me.
I know what you mean. Like I said pages ago I'd like specialization to mean something. 100-200% bonuses is a meaningful upgrade system. If I spend certs into something I want the values to signify something. I don't want to spend a cert to upgrade armor for my liberator and realize "oh cool it can take 2 more bullets!". I want someone to see the upgraded armor plates and go "woah he specialized in the heavy armor. This could take a while!"

There's so many examples I could list where someone's specialization would actually be beneficial instead of this 20% nothingness.
Sirisian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 08:23 PM   [Ignore Me] #163
kaffis
Contributor
Major
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Kran De Loy View Post
Cone of Fire almost always uses random bullet spread to simulate inaccuracy due to a host of more specific problems such as weapon mishandling, inexperience and fatigue as well as the cone is directly influenced by the some of the same factors that you could still implement into a game without a the use of a Cone of Fire mechanic such as player movement and recoil.SilverText=Edited

Examples of something that would replace the general Cone of Fire mechanics would be Weapon Sway during and shortly after any movement, Recoil and Recoil Recovery, Muzzle Drooping with heavier weapons...
See, I'd rather a bullet not go where the weapon's pointed (and, let's be honest, cones of fire are small enough that it's not like you have that perfect an idea of where the weapon's pointed for it to be *that* jarring, anyways) than have my camera view taken out of my control or have my crosshairs walking randomly around the screen.

You want to put sights over something and then try to jerk your mouse around to keep it over the head, I'd rather put something in the center of my screen and be conscious of how much of the bloom indicator it's filling and how well I'm controlling my bursts.

In addition, I should point out that the placement of a shot within the cone of fire wasn't strictly random. It was weighted to land more often near the center of the crosshairs than near the edge of the cone. And that made for a good system with a lot of character to each of the weapons, as some would start more heavily weighted but "flatten" the probability curve as you fired, which provides a very different feel from a weapon which blooms almost immediately but retains a relatively heavy center-weighting as it does.

Originally Posted by Princess Frosty View Post
I believe power on the battlefield comes primarily from versatility, if I can heal myself and shoot heavy weapons for example then I'm more combat effective than some newb who doesn't have enough certs for that combo.

My only worry now is with the class system you're locked out of that diversity unless you die and select another loadout.
and
Originally Posted by opticalshadow View Post
like is ps1, ther poiwer of a vet should be the ability to apply any needed role to a battle field. their guns fire no stronger, but they have versitility.
Roles mean that everybody will have "low level" access to all that versatility, though.

I'd rather take a system like that with a little bit of power progression to replace the versatility progression, than one where you have to tell the newbie "Oh, I'm sorry, you chose basilisk, you can't get a tank yet" or "Oh, you wanted to drive a tank, so you've got nothing to fight with now that the fight's moved indoors" or "Oh, well, see, he's got heavy assault AND medic, so despite the good job you did of getting him to 10 hp, you're still screwed because he ducked around the corner and is healing up."

Last edited by kaffis; 2011-08-01 at 08:30 PM.
kaffis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2011-08-01, 08:36 PM   [Ignore Me] #164
NapalmEnima
Contributor
AGN Field Reporter
 
NapalmEnima's Avatar
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


Originally Posted by Kaffis
Roles mean that everybody will have "low level" access to all that versatility, though.
I get the feeling that not all roles will be available to everyone out of the gate. Anyone might be able to pull a mossy pilot, but not anyone could pull a bomber pilot, for example. You might need some progression down an "assault" skill tree in order to unlock the different MAX armors.

Originally Posted by Sirisian View Post
I know what you mean. Like I said pages ago I'd like specialization to mean something. 100-200% bonuses is a meaningful upgrade system. If I spend certs into something I want the values to signify something. I don't want to spend a cert to upgrade armor for my liberator and realize "oh cool it can take 2 more bullets!". I want someone to see the upgraded armor plates and go "woah he specialized in the heavy armor. This could take a while!"

There's so many examples I could list where someone's specialization would actually be beneficial instead of this 20% nothingness.
Nothingness? No. A Big Deal, no, but certainly not nothing.

And a heavy-bomber unlock on the regular bomber might have 80% more health, but be 50% slower, for example. Significant side-grades, relatively small up-grades. Or maybe some ship gear would have the same effect. Shifting stats around significantly, but not a flat-out Mega Buff

100/200% bonus There, with no balancing penalty? Hell no. People who want that should head back to WoW.

This here is PLANETSIDE.

Player skill matters the most. Not cert-based stat bonuses. There have been numerous comments from the devs about "speeding up gameplay" and increased lethality and so forth. If someone with remotely appropriate gear gets the drop on you, you're probably going to die. Period.

HOWEVER, if two squads are slugging it out, and their player-skill-levels are about the same, character-skill-levels will matter.

"Tactical versatility" can matter A Lot if you can create the right situation, but a couple % one way or the other can make a difference when you're otherwise on an even footing. A 5% smaller cone of fire, 1% more damage, and medics that can heal/revive you a tad faster Can Make A Difference.

The stat/skill mods in Global Agenda bugged the hell out of me (what's the point?!) until that concept seeped into my head.

I get it now. SMALL power progression has some benefits:

1) It lets people feel they're getting something (psychologically addictive games have that sort of thing designed into them). I get the feeling I'm gonna be Hooked Bad on PS2. Needs me another fix.
2) In Competitive Play, a couple % one way or the other can Actually Matter.
3) Yes, it matters a little more against folks who are untrained, but frankly I think the unlocks (air timed grenades vs impact grenades fer instance) will matter more in those cases.
4) Leave the majority of the importance in the player's hands, not the character's.

Addiction & Competitive Play. Probably in that order.

You don't want to make the buffs utterly irrelevant, or they'll be seen as utterly irrelevant. No bueno. But you also don't want to have an RPG-grade power boost based on character training/level. The victory is in the hands of the player, not the character.

It's a tough line to walk. Pretty damn narrow. Kudos to them if they can manage that particular tight-rope. And being that they Do This For A Living, and have a whole shit-ton of data to mine (from the current version), I think they'll be okay.
__________________

Last edited by NapalmEnima; 2011-08-01 at 08:46 PM.
NapalmEnima is offline  
Reply With Quote
Click here to go to the next VIP post in this thread.   Old 2011-08-02, 01:53 AM   [Ignore Me] #165
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: The Issue of the 10%-20% Power Differentiation


This thread boils down to

...about a third of the participants saying they don't get why there's power progression at all in the game (and not getting answers).

...about a third of the participants arguing that the difference is no big deal and therefore it is OK (and bypassing the whole "why?" question entirely)

...and about a third of the participants saying some combination of dont' care, too soon, etc.


I'd really like some concrete rationale as to why this is even being discussed and at least what context under which this power gain is leveraged.


The key question boils down to...

How is the power progression activated?

A) Is it an always-on thing once you train it? As in, once I train assault rifle damage whatever I forever have like 1% more assault rifle damage no matter what I am doing?

OR

B) do you have a limited set that you custom configure to use at any one time and training the cert unlocks more options? This would be more like the Warhammer Tactics system or the BFBC2 Gadget slots.


A is a terrible design. B is absolutely awesome.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.