Meaningful Customization & Balance via Tradeoff Decisions

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Not everyone agrees there is a disaster that is impending. Your interpretation is not the only one. If, years down the line, everyone has access to everything, my opinion will be Great! Finally!

We've already seen what happens years down the line, both with the time-based power progression and with when "everyone has everything."

EVE Online shows how time-based power progression turns out - with many alts and a lot of missed opportunities from players who wanted to feel competitive but know they can't possibly catch up to vets with many years of skill points. They're effectivley operating at a handicap which they can never overcome. This is bad.

When everyone has everything we get the behavior we are seeing in PS now where cert points become meaningless. There is no specialization, there is only the universal soldier. Even with classes you will still see a lack of specialization as every player has access to the same things at hte same time as every other player. Therefore your "customization" only goes as far as what class you choose to play. I do not believe that is what they are going for when they want a rich customization model.


You say my interpretation is not the only one, yet you have not provided counter-examples and reasons where my logic is flawed. Please provide these.


I also don't need to wait to see what will happen. Like the mathematical concept of limits, I don't need to actually count to infinity to see what value it is approaching.

For low values of t differentiation is possible with a pure time-based power progression, but as t -> infinity, all players will have the same set of skills. Thus purely skill-based differentiation fails because as time goes on differentiation and specialization decreases. The trend with a time based system is that player skill trees converge. This convergence is bad. You actually want the opposite with divergence so the possibilities and specializations available among the playerbase increase over time, not converge.

If options increase with t but total active options stays constant, then you have the opposite effect. Differentiation increases over time and specialization becomes more refined and meaningful.

What I understand of the current system is the former. What I am proposing is the latter. I dont' need to wait 6 years to see that the first system fails to achieve customization.


And I agree on personal taste in FPS games. I like that. I want that. I want a world where specialization is meaningful and valuable thoughout the lifetime of PS. Thus, this thread.

[Maverick]

For the most part I concur with Malorn.

Any power gain traits should be designed with express purpose of giving a player a way to build a character to fit a role that aligns with their favored play style with respect still for general balance of gameplay.

I am confident that the devs are aware of the importance of the game balance and will strive ensure it while providing an in depth experience, whatever your flavor.

[Raymac]

Dude, if it's too early to freak out about what these type of balance issues will look like at launch, then it is waaaayyyy too early to worry about what it will look like in 5-6 years.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Malorn

EVE Online shows how time-based power progression turns out - with many alts and a lot of missed opportunities from players who wanted to feel competitive but know they can't possibly catch up to vets with many years of skill points. They're effectivley operating at a handicap which they can never overcome. This is bad.

While not being able to ever "catch up" is bad, this is an example of a very common misconception of EVE's skill system. It's not hard at all for a new player to catch up in one particular area. If your goal is T1 Battleships with T2 guns and 4s and 5s in support skills, you can get there. Don't deviate and dabble, just stick to your plan. Can your vet buddy also fly a covert ops boat, produce T2 missiles and run a 1000 man corporation? Sure. Does any of this matter when you're smashing your ships together? Not at all.

Age in EVE equates very early on to power but that plateaus quickly. Eventually all age really means is role versatility. An old PS2 player could be able to grunt and pilot and infiltrate and drive a tank and... None of that matters when it's him versus a relatively new player in a stand up rexo/ha/med/engi* brawl. Will role versatility matter in the overall scheme of things? Of course. Does it matter when that relative, aggregate 20% is nullified? Again, not at all.

As an EVE player without any alts, the only place I feel like I'm missing out -is- alts and only then because I can't perform two independent actions at once. I don't like the game enough to pay for it 2x per month or grid enough cash to pay for it in game. I've never felt like my combat skills lagging behind my peers except when I choose to put points into Mining Drone Frigate 5 or max out my Astrometrics. I'm choosing versatility before power and even then I still catch up with them when they get their 4s and 5s and move on to logistics boats or command skills that I don't need.

I have no doubt that PS2 will forever suffer from the same fundamental "I'll never be able to play now that the game has been out for X." misunderstanding. Hopefully, like EVE, this won't be the reality.

*Skill stacking example for PS2 relative to EVE's T2 gunned T1 boat with viable support skills (armor, hull, shield, nav, cap, etc.)

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

EVE Online shows how time-based power progression turns out - with many alts and a lot of missed opportunities from players who wanted to feel competitive but know they can't possibly catch up to vets with many years of skill points. They're effectivley operating at a handicap which they can never overcome. This is bad.

EVEs skills provide a considerable advantage, both in direct bonuses, and in upgraded equipment you can use. Its not 20% more effective, total. Its 25% more hitpoints, more shields, more repairs, 25% more damage(Plus another 10% and another 10%), 25% faster RoF, etc, etc, etc, etc. Every single facet of your ship has 25% + bonuses associated with it, plus having those skills qualifies you to use tech2/tech3 gear that is wildly superior, and offers roles and capabilities completely unavailable to newbs in their t1 ships.

The original eve, when there was no t2, no level 5 prereqs, was pretty nice and didn't offer vets a giant advantage over newbs. A few weeks training got you to level 4 in most things, where you were 80 or 90% as capable as a dedicated vet.

When everyone has everything we get the behavior we are seeing in PS now where cert points become meaningless. There is no specialization, there is only the universal soldier. Even with classes you will still see a lack of specialization as every player has access to the same things at hte same time as every other player. Therefore your "customization" only goes as far as what class you choose to play. I do not believe that is what they are going for when they want a rich customization model.

The players themselves will specialize, because you don't just get good at everything as soon as you unlock it. Nor do you enjoy doing everything. It fails in PS1 because a few certs are must haves and clearly superior to other things in the most common situations. Infantry can easily fit all those important tools in their loadout and fill a variety of roles. Outdoors, reavers and tanks, backed up by AA, are the workhorses, and theres not a whole lot of reason to pick anything else, because those perform multiple roles admirably, without compromise.

I don't see a need for my character to be different than your character, because I'll play different, and if the classes and vehicles are properly balanced, there will be a good representation of everything on the field, because everything is useful. Just like the 9 classes of TF2 are commonly used, but seldom by any one person. If you want to be a special snowflake then practice hard and get good at what you love doing.



Its largely pointless though. Higdog said, not sure where the quote is, that you can spend more than a year speccing out a single class/vehicle. So. Unless you plan to be playing for 20 or 30 years, and they add nothing new in that time, it shouldn't be an issue. And if you do play for that long.. You earned it imo.

[Raymac]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point of view to me. I don't think there is anything in what you just wrote that I would disagree with. I'm sorry for mistaking your kinda long posts for panic instead of just thorough explanations which is what they are. It's our job to provide feedback like you've been doing, and it's the devs' job to digest that feedback and weigh it accordingly. I'm with you in that I hope PS2 turns out to be the amazing game we've been waiting for.

[Malorn]

One thing occurred to me that this entire thing I'm rambling about could boil down to an enhancement of the Implant system.

Instead of 3 slots for activated abilities you could have something like...

3 slots for activated abilities

4 slots for passive combat augments

3 slots passive non-combat augments (quality of life stuff)

It ends up being similar to the WoW Glyph model or an EVE ship. High slots, medium slots, low slots, etc. The cert tree could unlock all the different options but you get to augment your base soldier with a ton of different options.

And since you have to make choices the bonuses are meaningful and don't converge over time.

I suppose that's a simpler way to look at it.

[CutterJohn]

If its just about permanent upgrades that are not tied to any piece of equipment, and are just a few %, then I see no issue leaving them always on. A few percent in an fps only has meaning on paper.

I would not like stronger bonuses that you must pick between, because I don't like character differentiation like that. You should get good at a role because you play it a lot and are good at it, not pick a role to be good at so you can play it.

[Malorn]

I did a quick edit of my previous post while you were posting this (its labeled at the end).

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If its just about permanent upgrades that are not tied to any piece of equipment, and are just a few %, then I see no issue leaving them always on. A few percent in an fps only has meaning on paper.

But then why have them at all? If they're small and insignificant they have no value. And as people train them up they become meaningless as the veterans have the same bonuses.

I would not like stronger bonuses that you must pick between, because I don't like character differentiation like that. You should get good at a role because you play it a lot and are good at it, not pick a role to be good at so you can play it.

I don't disagree with this statement. If the devs are hellbent on having power progression as part of cert training I'd rather see it done this way rather than being flat applied across the board for reasons stated above.

I don't think power progression is necessary. I also dont' think it's bad for the game unless it is applied across-the-board through time-based unlocks, rather than by explicit customization decisions a player makes and has tradeoffs with. That's the context of the thread.

[FriendlyFire]

I would prefer a system that has very little or no convergence. I think PS2 could benefit from a system that promotes "roles" and not "Super Soldiers." Specialized Soldiers or Load outs, similar to what Malorn mentioned above is a good system. LoL uses a system similar to this as well, very high customization and easily switched depending on play style or load out.

[MasterChief096]

Here was my proposed system:

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

What people are not understanding is that you can have just as much specialization if not more specialization by having trade-offs instead of just raw power upgrades (no matter how small they might be).

I'll explain it again for the people who don't want to read all 12 pages of this thread.

If there are trade-offs, you could do things like:

1. Take your Guass Rifle and increase its damage by 20%. You could then decide what stats you want to minus 20% from. This could be -20% from one stat, or allocated amongst the stats you choose. For example you could take 10% from clip size, 10% from RoF. Or you could take 5% from clip size, 7% from RoF, and 8% from CoF. This would make your gun very unique to your character, as the different stat allocations you choose to put into it once you've unlocked the ability to do so would be extremely varied.

2. Same goes with vehicles. I'll use my Reaver example again. Lets say you want a Reaver with a primary purpose of swooping in and firing shit loads of missiles and then getting the hell out as fast as possible. To do this you would need speed, maneuverability, and a shit load of missiles. You could customize your Reaver to lose 25% damage in its rockets and 25% from its armor. You could then take that 50% and spread it out amongst speed, maneuverability, and possibly the amount of afterburner you have. You could increase your rocket-firing speed by 15%, your speed by 15%, your maneuverability by 15%, and the amount of afterburner you have by 5% (or however else you wish to configure it). Once again, your Reaver would be unique to you based on how you allocate your stats. It would be really awesome if there was an appearance change as well, such as your Reaver having smaller missiles and/or less armor.

I'm willing to make a compromise on things like attachments (such as scopes, fixed grenade launchers, flashlights etc). To me, those are like certs. Imagine if you could spend 1-2 cert points in PlanetSide to attach a grenade launcher to your Cycler for instance. Things like grenade launchers, scopes, flashlights, etc are the equivalent to versatility for a veteran, at least to me. So I don't mind if there are zero trade-offs for attaching a different scope/grenade launcher/flashlight to your gun, other than the fact that if you have a flashlight you won't be able to have a grenade launcher.

If you used a trade-off system you could do what one player in this thread mentioned earlier. He said he liked fast, hard hitting machine guns that have a crazy CoF bloom after the first 4-5 shots. Essentially you could add damage and RoF to your Cycler and sacrifice CoF bloom to get it.

IMO this system works better because you can create the weapons/vehicles YOU WANT and the changes are SIGNIFICANT, yet balanced. Instead of a 20% advantage at end-game that is so spread out you hardly notice it, you actually have weapons/vehicles that are vastly different from the weapons/vehicles of others. Your stat changes would actually have a large, noticeable difference on what you are using, but the trade-offs would make it so that its not super OP and can't be beaten.

Oh but a sense of character advancement is not there you say? How about actually gaining BR and unlocking the ability to customize your weapons in such extreme ways as character advancement? I'm sure new players would be like, "damn I wish I could have a super accurate MA rifle because that's my playstyle." With a trade-off system they could have that rifle, it would just wouldn't perform as well in extreme CQC. In an FPS character advancement relies less on the power of your character increasing and more on the options your character has (feel like we're beating a dead horse here), as it was in PlanetSide. Besides, a BR20 is going to have a 20% advantage over a BR1 based solely on the options he has anyways.

I still have yet to see someone argue the point that without power gains there would be zero sense of character advancement... To me that's just plain wrong. When I first started PlanetSide, every BR I felt like I was getting somewhere. I would just ITCH with anticipation when I knew that my next BR was going to give me enough cert points to get something that I had been wanting. Players in PlanetSide 2 would have the same anticipation, without power gains.

But alas, the system Higby described would be 'acceptable', as it doesn't effect the gameplay much, but I would much rather see a system as I have described above because it would:

1) not offer veterans a % power gain other than the 'natural' % power gain from being a higher BR/vet regardless.

2) Allow for customization that actually makes a difference in terms of how your weapon performs and what situations its good for.

3) Keep the anticipation for wanting to advance your character to achieve more customization options