Affirmation: Keep Scissors Sharp

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

I disagree completely. I prefer a game where skill counts, not what unit you just happen to run into. Some units should have an advantage over others, but no unit should simply beat another by default.

This is simply wrong. Though, it's understandable because people seem to think "requiring skill" is synonymous with "works the way I want it to". (Similar to the words "tactical" or "defensible" on this board).

Are you going to claim a game like Stratego requires no skill because of rock-paper-scissors elements? Or card games like Poker or Euchre or ******? Or Risk because you have die rolls?

Being at the right place at the right time with the right equipment is a skill you develop.
The ability to minimize luck as a determinant for success is, perhaps, the most common gaming skill there is.

EDIT: ****** is censored?
is *****? What the shit? S-pee-ades: A shovel and a card game...and apparently more offensive than most profanity on this board? I had to urban dictionary that? Post-civil war derogatory term for a black person. I guess the implication of the term is readily apparent. The more you know.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by maradine

You've clearly never played someone who's good at it, then. Unless you don't consider fast-reading and psychology "skills", in which case I don't have anything worthwhile to say to you - enjoy your world.

More to the point - no one said anything about "winning automatically". A good squaddie can get the drop on a MAX, or witheven a group of MAXes. A good Lightning jockey and take an MBT one-on-one, sometimes even head-on. Statistically, however, that shouldn't happen.

If Rock Paper Scissors is so deep and interesting, why don't you play Rock Paper Scissors instead of trying to turn Planetside 2 into Rock Paper Scissors?

Infantry vs. Max or Lightning vs. MBT are also really terrible examples for what you're trying to say, because they aren't part of an intransitive relationship at all. The Lightning is simply a different style of tank than the MBT, they are different despite being able to fight each other on terms that allow both parties a victory. Of course in the world you enjoy so much that just means they are homogenized like milk.


Also, people who point out that intransivity can be part of a game of skill can give themselves a big pat on the back for recognizing the obvious. However, they should delve a little deeper and recognize that while playing Stratego may be fun, playing one of the towers wouldn't be.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

If Rock Paper Scissors is so deep and interesting, why don't you play Rock Paper Scissors instead of trying to turn Planetside 2 into Rock Paper Scissors?

Infantry vs. Max or Lightning vs. MBT are also really terrible examples for what you're trying to say, because they aren't part of an intransitive relationship at all. The Lightning is simply a different style of tank than the MBT, they are different despite being able to fight each other on terms that allow both parties a victory. Of course in the world you enjoy so much that just means they are homogenized like milk.

Planetside 2 is a game based off the rock, paper, scissors balancing. Why are you attempting to turn plantside 2 into something else? Do you even know what you are arguing about or know anything of the history of the game?

[maradine]

Sigh.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

If Rock Paper Scissors is so deep and interesting, why don't you play Rock Paper Scissors instead of trying to turn Planetside 2 into Rock Paper Scissors?

False dichotomy. I can enjoy both.

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Infantry vs. Max or Lightning vs. MBT are also really terrible examples for what you're trying to say, because they aren't part of an intransitive relationship at all. The Lightning is simply a different style of tank than the MBT, they are different despite being able to fight each other on terms that allow both parties a victory. Of course in the world you enjoy so much that just means they are homogenized like milk.

Strawman. I did not say they are homogenized. I advocated against additional homogenization. Particularly egregious considering that you even quoted where I said the variance should be statistical, not absolute.

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, but it clearly isn't me.

[MaxDamage]

NC MAXes are a joke, and a bad one.

[ShadetheDruid]

Scissors are underpowered. They won't let me run with them, and that just breaks the game.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

Planetside 2 is a game based off the rock, paper, scissors balancing. Why are you attempting to turn plantside 2 into something else? Do you even know what you are arguing about or know anything of the history of the game?

Please lay out the intransitive relationship between Planetside 2 units. This should be very simple since the entire game is based on it according to you.

Originally Posted by maradine

Strawman.

Woah, someone has a list of fallacies and isn't afraid to spout them off. Let's see.

Originally Posted by maradine

Keep scissors sharp, rocks hard, and paper thin.

Well, let me call False Analogy on that then, since obviously you seem to think that your argument is falsely represented by pointing out that rigid intransivity would not improve the game. It seems to me that you simply are unable to make clear what your position even is.

Originally Posted by maradine

False dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is categorized by presenting an argument as though two opposing positions are the only positions that exist. I don't see how I did that anywhere



I'd like to know what point you are trying to make exactly. Should the game stay as it is? Should it be changed? Give a definition of "homogenization", since obviously we can't seem to agree on what you mean by it. You can't say Strawman if your argument has to interpreted in the first place because you fail to give definitions and make yourself clear.

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Please lay out the intransitive relationship between Planetside 2 units. This should be very simple since the entire game is based on it according to you.

Umm let's see.. take a MBT for example. If you have a AP turret you are designed to take out vehicles and weak against air.

If you are a MBT with HE turret you are designed to take out infantry, weak against other vehicles and air.

If you are a lightning with skyguard you are strongest against air, weak to gound vehicles and infantry.

If you are a lightning with AP turret you are strongest against vehicles, weak to air and due to lower splash damage weaker to infantry.

List goes on and on... loadouts are supposed to be designed to attack certain targets. There isn't 1 load out that will handle all situations.

Factions are supposed to have uniqueness that isn't necessarily fair in certain situations.

NC - more raw power, higher armor, slower fire rate and lower accuracy, moderate clip size

TR - fastest fire rate, biggest ammo clip, lower damage, moderate accuracy

VS - Best accuracy, moderate damage, low clip size, lighter armor

Nothing about that is clear cut balanced. Factions are supposed to be stronger in certain areas. Certian situations make faction vehicles superior to others.

The weapons aren't supposed to be the same. There is luck on a personal level in hoping that you have the right gear to handle the situation if you are going into unknown territory, but if not then you have to adapt to the situation and use the right gear.. Which is skill... it's tactics.

On a larger scale its supposed to be more about countering a particular platoon or enemy faction with the right combination of units.

It's not about going toe to toe with people and having the same chance to inflict the same damage. It's not exactly about skill on a personal level being the only determining factor of the outcome.

Anyway, you're clearly trolling so.. that's the last response you get.

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by maradine

Keep scissors sharp, rocks hard, and paper thin.

Your balance is off, your scissors and rocks are too strong.

[Rothnang]

Dragonskin:

Intransitivity specifically refers to a relationship in which A relates to B in a way in which B relates to C in which C relates to A. The most commonly known intransitive relationship is rock paper scissors. There can be more items in an intransitive relationship, but it requires a minimum of 3.


AP/HE/HEAT is not an intransitive relationship, it's just a selection of weapons with different attributes. The weapons don't relate to each other, they relate to their target therefore they aren't part of intransitivity.

Even if you take a larger view of the situation and say AP Tank > Armor, HE Tank > Infantry then you still don't get an intransitive relationship, because HEAT tanks are ok against both, and there is no third target that you can effectively attack with a tank. Even if there was, in order for it to be an intransitive relationship HE would not just have to be good against infantry, it would also have to not be good against armor.

There are a million problems with equating Planetside 2s balancing to Rock Paper Scissors, because intransivity is rarely ever a property that Planetside 2 displays. There are some units that are good against others, but it's never a circle of counters where A beats B and B beats C and C beats A.

Some people try to argue that the extreme dominance of mass AA is justified by intransitivity, but even there the argument just really falls apart because it isn't a simple question of AA beats Air, Air beats Ground, Ground beats AA. Ground also beats Ground, and Air beats Air, only AA doesn't beat AA, but AA beats Air twice as hard to make up for that, and if you want to attack AA with Ground you must always fight the enemy Ground at the same time.


The reality is, Rock Paper Scissors, intransitivity, is not something that happens a lot in Planetside 2. I get why people would say "MAX beating Infantry is like rock beating scissors" but that's where the analogy ends, because there is no unit that gets easily beaten by Infantry, that destroys MAXes with no problem.



In game design intransitivity is used to balance out an uneven number of actors if you don't have the time or the desire to create an asymmetrical balance. For example, the races in Starcraft could be balanced by simply saying Terran beats Zerg, Zerg beats Protoss, Protoss beats Terran. But instead they have Asymmetrical balance, where they are different, but no faction is dominant over the other by design. Intransitivity is used heavily to balance the various units that the races use in a fight however. Asymmetrical balance is also what Planetside 2 uses for the most part to make sense of its various factions and units.

Do you understand why I object to the notion that this game needs to be more "rock paper scissors" and less "milk" - it's neither.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

For example, the races in Starcraft could be balanced by simply saying Terran beats Zerg, Zerg beats Protoss, Protoss beats Terran. But instead they have Asymmetrical balance, where they are different, but no faction is dominant over the other by design. Intransitivity is used heavily to balance the various units that the races use in a fight however.

That's precisely what I'm asking for. I don't want VS > TR > NC > VS. I want three factions that are roughly balanced on the sum of their substantial differences - with, as you say, intransitive relationships between unit classifications. I'm not applying the RPS mindset across factions at the macro level.

We've already argued over AA>Air>Armor, and I don't know how much value there is in doing it again, but that's exactly something I'm advocating.

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Your balance is off, your scissors and rocks are too strong.

Fine - Rock, Graphene, Scissors.

[Baneblade]

Adapt and Overcome. Live it, breathe it, or die.

[Rothnang]

If you want intransitivity to be the basis of unit balance you need to write out how that would even work, because I honestly see no way for that to be a reality in Planetside 2 at this point.



I mean let's see, we have:

Infiltrator
Light Assault
Medic
Engineer
Heavy Assault

MAX

Flash
Sunderer
Lightning
MBT

ESF
Liberator
Galaxy

Anti infantry Phalanx
Anti air Phalanx
Anti armor Phalanx


So, in order to create intransitivity we'd have to categorize them into an uneven number of different units.

Armor, Air, Infantry is a possibility, but that doesn't work as the basis for an intransitive relationship without completely rebuilding the game.

On top of that not all units are always available, there are fights like Biolabs that exclude armor and air from even entering, so you'd have to create an intransitive relationship just for infantry to even get started. I guess that could work, it's 5 units, so you could say

Infiltrator beats Heavy Assault and Engineer
Light Assault beats Engineer and Medic
Heavy Assault beats Medic and Infiltrator
Engineer beats Light Assault and Infiltrator
Medic beats Heavy Assault and Light Assault

But would that make the game any better?

Alternatively we could create an intransitive relationship by messing with the weapon and shield types in the game. Like, let's say you can have Armor piercing, Hollowpoint and Incendiary rounds, and you can have Hard shields, Reactive Shields or Elemental Shields which all are more resistant to one bullet type, and less to one other. That would create intransitivity for infantry fights, but it would be pretty hard to see who is using what, and you certainly wouldn't have a lot of time to think about it, so it doesn't present much of a strategic element.



I just don't see it happening to be honest. This game has so many units, so many weapons, so many customization options, I really don't see how it would ever be possible to create a situation out of it where pulling one thing always leaves you open to being countered by another.

Also some units get to change their role much more rapidly than others. If you're infantry and you die you can rock entirely different gear after 10 seconds, if you committed to a vehicle you can't just get something else or play infantry for a while without losing those resources, so that doesn't help the idea of unit to unit counters.


The most damning factor in all of it as far as I'm concerned though: This isn't like StarCraft. You don't have a unit limit and a limited income. There is a chance that your army has too much or too little of something, but for the most part it's always going to be a mix. The only situation currently in the game where you can hard counter a type of unit by pulling another is Air vs. AA, and that's easily the worst balanced relationship in the game right now. The supposed counter to AA doesn't exist, because in order to attack the enemy AA units without having to fight all their ground units as well you'd have to be... some kind of... aircraft.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by maradine

Homogenization is for milk. Keep scissors sharp, rocks hard, and paper thin.

Brofist.jpg

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Armor, Air, Infantry is a possibility, but that doesn't work as the basis for an intransitive relationship without completely rebuilding the game.

I think that's true if their combat efficiency against each other is the only factor in how you define the comparator function. However, as you say, there are other factors in a unit's favor, such as flexibility, resource usage, and spawn speed.

A somewhat more complex relationship might look like:

Air > Armor > Infantry > Static Emplacements (including capture) > Air

This isn't far from the current truth.

I happily acknowledge it will be difficult, or even impossible, to bucket everything in this way. I don't feel that perfection is the only successful output state. Instead, I think it should be a overarching goal.