Affirmation: Keep Scissors Sharp

[Rothnang]

As far as I'm concerned the biggest hurdle you have to overcome to get a valid intransitive relationship going between things is the fact that one unit can stand in anothers way.

For example, the whole Air vs. Ground vs. AA thing falls apart because AA has no way of being blocked.

If Air wants to attack Ground, enemy Air can block it.
If Ground wants to attack AA, enemy Ground can block it.
If AA wants to attack Air, enemy AA can't do anything about it.

So right there that leaves us with a problem, you can either balance it out by somehow enabling AA units to protect their air unit against AA, or you can balance it out by making air and ground units that can kill enemy units without being subject to getting countered by another unit of the same type.

There is also a lot of units in the game that utterly defy classification, like a Galaxy full of Infantry. Is it an air unit, a ground unit, an infantry unit? Same with a Sunderer. Is it armor? Is it infantry? Is it stationary defense? It's all of those potentially.



Personally I prefer to just stick with asymmetrical balance and not worry about creating a circle of counters for everything. I find a wide variety of soft counters more interesting, because that gives you strategic options, instead of locking you into having to respond with just one thing.

[Rbstr]

Intransitive simply means not transitive.
A>b
b>c
where the relation ">" means
A>c
">" is then transitive
Anything which doesn't fit that mold completely is intransitive.
this:

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.

Is intransitive. It doesn't have to be a loop, it doesn't have to be binary.
"Asymmetric balance" and "soft counters" are the definition of intransitive because those relationships are not transitive.

This is just a bullshit argument from the beginning.
You aren't really saying anything other than "the rock/paper/scissors metaphor isn't completely accurate so my way is right." What-the-fuck-ever, the point of a metaphor isn't to be completely accurate, it wouldn't be a metaphor anymore.

Scatter maxes rape your face at close range. Neato: a multitude of options exist so you don't have to get close and in front of a scattermax. Use problem solving skills to not get your shit pushed in by the max. I don't find it hard. The danger of a scattermax around the corner is an element of fun. Plus the max faces severe disadvantages outside of close range.
That's a form of balance.
Balance that is, even though no one should give a shit, also intransitive. Find a better argument.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Intransitive simply means not transitive.
A>b
b>c
where the relation ">" means
A>c
">" is then transitive
Anything which doesn't fit that mold completely is intransitive.
this:

Is intransitive. It doesn't have to be a loop, it doesn't have to be binary.
"Asymmetric balance" and "soft counters" are the definition of intransitive because those relationships are not transitive.

This is just a bullshit argument from the beginning.
You aren't really saying anything other than "the rock/paper/scissors metaphor isn't completely accurate so my way is right." What-the-fuck-ever, the point of a metaphor isn't to be completely accurate, it wouldn't be a metaphor anymore.

Scatter maxes rape your face at close range. Neato: a multitude of options exist so you don't have to get close and in front of a scattermax. Use problem solving skills to not get your shit pushed in by the max. I don't find it hard. The danger of a scattermax around the corner is an element of fun. Plus the max faces severe disadvantages outside of close range.
That's a form of balance.
Balance that is, even though no one should give a shit, also intransitive. Find a better argument.

I wish I had a gif for applause, but well said sir.

[Mietz]

Sometimes I question why SOE bothers with balance at all.

After all, one can apply their massively enlarged problem solving skills and problem solve everything away that is imbalanced.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Is intransitive. It doesn't have to be a loop, it doesn't have to be binary.
"Asymmetric balance" and "soft counters" are the definition of intransitive because those relationships are not transitive.

You don't need a loop to have an intransitive relationship as per the mathematical definition, that's true. However, I'm talking strictly as for how it applies as a game balance model, and there it does refer to a loop, since it's just not a balance model otherwise.

Transitive is simply chain of binary relationships where you can know the relationship between any two actors by evaluating all the relations between them. Everything else is Intransitive, but if you use the word in that sense it's pretty much meaningless for discussing game balance, since then all it means is "Things don't neatly arrange along a singular spectrum of power".

Intransitive balance, like Rock Paper Scissors refers to a cycle, and Planetside 2 doesn't contain that kind of balance, and isn't able to either at this point because there are just way too many actors that don't let you effectively create one.


As far as me making a Bullshit argument, what's bullshit about saying that someone throwing out there that the game needs to be less "milk" and more "rock paper scissors" isn't making any kind sense? I don't agree with it when taken in the loosest sense of interpretation where all it means is he wants hard counters all over the game, and I don't agree with in the most literal sense of interpretation where it means he wants cyclical relationships between all units.

To me it seems like a bunch of people are just butthurt because I shut down their fart sniffing party by disagreeing with someone. Oh noes, people who have different opinions, we better let them know that we don't like their kind around here!

[Chewy]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

If Air wants to attack Ground, enemy Air can block it.
If Ground wants to attack AA, enemy Ground can block it.
If AA wants to attack Air, enemy AA can't do anything about it.

AA isn't its own beast. AA is either part of the ground forces or part of the air forces. If there's ground AA send in ground forces to counter it, if air AA then ground or air forces can do take it out. Air forces based on fighting ground can itself a counter to ground AA, not the best but very doable.

What you're talking about is pure air v ground. There is no AA, AV, or AI types as they are all in both Air and Ground forces. A full sundy is ground and full gals are air no matter what they have in them. Once a Gal drops its load the troops are still apart of the air forces until they meet up with the ground. Think of a Gal drop as a cluster bomb, it's a one time use weapon that can cover a lot of ground but only lasts a short while. Keep the dropped troops form the ground forces and they will run out of ammo and/or be forced to respawn else where in no time.

PS2 is not a point and click shooter (most call them twitch). You need to be a hell of a lot more than good with a gun to win fights. When Im a dual Mattock MAX (NCs longest ranged MAX weapon without slugs) I may be able to turn all in front of me to goo, but it's at a cost of being newborn baby shit past 15m. If I don't hug an egie, I have no ammo and will die to anyone past those 15m. BR1 or BR100, if ANYONE spots me past 20m I have to run or lose the MAX if Im running an AI loadout.

[Sifer2]

Problem with ScatterMAX is more that it destroys other MAX's no contest in indoor combat IMO. If it was more like PS1 where AV MAX was the real anti-MAX there would be no issue. Seeing as the AI MAX is basically an indoor only class. Anyone that says Dual Mercy MAX is a beast outdoors hasn't used one IMO. You hit maybe 10% of your shots. It's useful more as a bullet sponge distraction if an engineer is behind a rock repairing it. Maybe when they reintroduce Flamethrowers we will see parity for the MAX's indoors where it counts.

That's basically what it comes down to. It's cool to have the factions armed with different weapons so long as those weapons are at the end of the day able to do the same jobs.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Problem with ScatterMAX is more that it destroys other MAX's no contest in indoor combat IMO. If it was more like PS1 where AV MAX was the real anti-MAX there would be no issue. Seeing as the AI MAX is basically an indoor only class. Anyone that says Dual Mercy MAX is a beast outdoors hasn't used one IMO. You hit maybe 10% of your shots. It's useful more as a bullet sponge distraction if an engineer is behind a rock repairing it. Maybe when they reintroduce Flamethrowers we will see parity for the MAX's indoors where it counts.

That's basically what it comes down to. It's cool to have the factions armed with different weapons so long as those weapons are at the end of the day able to do the same jobs.

I hate the limiting effects of being a hacksaw max. Sure pointblank its awesome but I normally go with dual falcons because at least then I have some kind of chance in an encounter at over 10 meters.

[Brusi]

I like to play Starcraft with only Zerglings, because it's the most skillful way to play. No tech-tree upgrades or anything and if my opponent upgrades anything or chooses any of that IMBAOP Protos or Terran shit, like Marines or Zealots... then i call them skill-less and ragequit.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by Chewy

AA isn't its own beast. AA is either part of the ground forces or part of the air forces. If there's ground AA send in ground forces to counter it, if air AA then ground or air forces can do take it out. Air forces based on fighting ground can itself a counter to ground AA, not the best but very doable.

My whole point with that breakdown was why saying that ground counters AA doesn't make much sense, since people keep bringing that up as an excuse for why AA can completely sweep the skies clean.

As far as I'm concerned the best way to balance Air and AA would be if Aircraft had some feature that allowed them to move around without presenting a target to AA or being seen by it. Doesn't even need to be an aircraft ability, could just be clouds or some other "sky terrain". The reason why the relationship between Air and AA is so damn lopsided is simply that if the AA guns are sitting on a tower that overlooks 3 hexes of flat land in every direction there is absolutely nothing you can do to even begin venturing into that airspace and participating in the battle.
Ground units don't suffer that problem, because the fact that you can take cover very easily gives diminishing returns to just pointing more guns at a target. If you have an overwhelming amount of firepower somewhere on the ground your opponent will use other routes to get around it, and use cover to not be exposed to it. If you're in the air though AA can cover every single possible avenue of approach, and you rarely have cover that can meaningfully allow you to get into an advantageous firing position.

[Neutral Calypso]

The way I see it, a balance would be

Air > Ground
(ground-based) AA > Air
non-AA Ground > ground-based AA

Airborne fighters and such can oppose the gunships and strike fighters and such, and be opposed by other fighters or by AA.

[Rothnang]

Originally Posted by Neutral Calypso

The way I see it, a balance would be

Air > Ground
(ground-based) AA > Air
non-AA Ground > ground-based AA

Airborne fighters and such can oppose the gunships and strike fighters and such, and be opposed by other fighters or by AA.

That's exactly what DOESN'T work, because your non-AA ground has no way of getting at the AA without also fighting every other ground unit the enemy has. In order to actually kill AA units from the ground you have to practically win the battle without air in the first place.

You can't do anything to protect your air units from enemy AA, but you can do a lot to protect your AA units from enemy ground attack.