DUST Search - Balance

Luk Manag wrote:

There is a formula where isk+skill buys you a better KDR. If the skill required is low (swarm launcher) and the costs are low (130k for an AV setup), and it's easy to land a triple-kill on an 800k tank, then the balance is a bit off. The guy who was running the expensive tank didn't get as much for his isk+skill investment. The only time his KDR is improved is vs non-AV infantry, or maybe inferior tanks or tankers. If one team lacks AV, then any decent tank is OP (not balanced) vs infantry - see TeamPlayers pub-stomp video. I don't think that's really fun for either side.

I think balance could be improved 3 ways - first, reduce the power of AV (FORGE, SWARM, and AV Nades) and second, reduce tank dps vs infantry by some tweakable value - 50% for a start.

Lastly, increase the effectiveness of standard weapons. Instead of being 99% resisted, experiment with lesser values, like 75%. This would make it possible for a full squad or two to take out a tank with small arms fire and explosive grenades. Sure, the tank will kill lots of infantry, but maybe 100-200 damage here and there from regular grenades, (700 or 800 from AV grenades) would balance things out a bit. A full squad of HMGs should be able to stop a tank - but as it is now, they can barely take out an LAV. This would of course discourage tankers from completely dominating vs infantry.

I think fun could be improved by reducing the costs (tanks+fittings) for tankers by promoting more tank usage, and more tank-on-tank action.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 129	Posted - 2013.10.04 21:39:00 - [1] - Quote I gots me a deep question here, brace yourselves. What is balance? It is something that needs to be defined before you can provide any sort of constructive feedback. So what IS balance, say between AV and Tanks. What does it mean to balance Vehicles and AV? What variables are involved, to determine balance? And what does balance mean to the devs? How do they go about creating balance.
Aaroniero d'Lioncourt The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 162	Posted - 2013.10.04 21:48:00 - [2] - Quote Balance only consists of two words. It is something that is defined before you can provide any sort of constructive feedback. "Pushed back" is the only variable involved.
Hellkeizer The Avutora Complex 137	Posted - 2013.10.04 21:51:00 - [3] - Quote A balance would be when a majority of the players don't complain about it
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 3678	Posted - 2013.10.04 21:59:00 - [4] - Quote I would say that it's a state where everything is satisfying to use and has a clear role, without dominating everything else or being overshadowed in its role.
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 105	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:08:00 - [5] - Quote There is a formula where isk+skill buys you a better KDR. If the skill required is low (swarm launcher) and the costs are low (130k for an AV setup), and it's easy to land a triple-kill on an 800k tank, then the balance is a bit off. The guy who was running the expensive tank didn't get as much for his isk+skill investment. The only time his KDR is improved is vs non-AV infantry, or maybe inferior tanks or tankers. If one team lacks AV, then any decent tank is OP (not balanced) vs infantry - see TeamPlayers pub-stomp video. I don't think that's really fun for either side. I think balance could be improved 3 ways - first, reduce the power of AV (FORGE, SWARM, and AV Nades) and second, reduce tank dps vs infantry by some tweakable value - 50% for a start. Lastly, increase the effectiveness of standard weapons. Instead of being 99% resisted, experiment with lesser values, like 75%. This would make it possible for a full squad or two to take out a tank with small arms fire and explosive grenades. Sure, the tank will kill lots of infantry, but maybe 100-200 damage here and there from regular grenades, (700 or 800 from AV grenades) would balance things out a bit. A full squad of HMGs should be able to stop a tank - but as it is now, they can barely take out an LAV. This would of course discourage tankers from completely dominating vs infantry. I think fun could be improved by reducing the costs (tanks+fittings) for tankers by promoting more tank usage, and more tank-on-tank action.
Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 130	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:09:00 - [6] - Quote Hellkeizer wrote: A balance would be when a majority of the players don't complain about it People will always complain. Sometimes I think a lot of it is in how a person fits and uses his character. I can do rather decent myself in std gear. This does not define balance.
Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 130	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:10:00 - [7] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: I would say that it's a state where everything is satisfying to use and has a clear role, without dominating everything else or being overshadowed in its role. A good definition of balance.
Athena Sentinel Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 112	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:13:00 - [8] - Quote Good point! What is Balance... Does that mean there should be no advantage for any suit combination. Because that is not the idea. Your gimped and its CCP's fault (try a different setup). You can have other problems but Balance? Example: Person runs a lvl 3 basic suit and a Militia Assault Rifle and loads his suit with mods that do not work for his playing style... Then complains that the guy in a proto suit and a +5 Assault Rifle variant with mods that perfectly suit his playing style.... They should be balanced?
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 105	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:17:00 - [9] - Quote Luk Manag wrote: There is a formula where isk+skill buys you a better KDR. If the skill required is low (swarm launcher) and the costs are low (130k for an AV setup), and it's easy to land a triple-kill on an 800k tank, then the balance is a bit off. Basically, I'm saying you should nerf Swarms and buff Plasma Canons - for balance!
Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 130	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:17:00 - [10] - Quote Luk Manag wrote: There is a formula where isk+skill buys you a better KDR. If the skill required is low (swarm launcher) and the costs are low (130k for an AV setup), and it's easy to land a triple-kill on an 800k tank, then the balance is a bit off. The guy who was running the expensive tank didn't get as much for his isk+skill investment. The only time his KDR is improved is vs non-AV infantry, or maybe inferior tanks or tankers. If one team lacks AV, then any decent tank is OP (not balanced) vs infantry - see TeamPlayers pub-stomp video. I don't think that's really fun for either side. I think balance could be improved 3 ways - first, reduce the power of AV (FORGE, SWARM, and AV Nades) and second, reduce tank dps vs infantry by some tweakable value - 50% for a start. Lastly, increase the effectiveness of standard weapons. Instead of being 99% resisted, experiment with lesser values, like 75%. This would make it possible for a full squad or two to take out a tank with small arms fire and explosive grenades. Sure, the tank will kill lots of infantry, but maybe 100-200 damage here and there from regular grenades, (700 or 800 from AV grenades) would balance things out a bit. A full squad of HMGs should be able to stop a tank - but as it is now, they can barely take out an LAV. This would of course discourage tankers from completely dominating vs infantry. I think fun could be improved by reducing the costs (tanks+fittings) for tankers by promoting more tank usage, and more tank-on-tank action. I do not like your last one, but it is a way to address the problem of requiring AV or another tank to be present on the battlefield to create balance. Though tweaking those numbers does see like a good idea, but 75% is far too over the top. Additionally, your idea of lowering tank damage is a perfect idea, while reducing the damage of AV. This to me shifts the balance closer to infantry, giving them a fighting chance when no AV is out. But it gives tanks a fighting chance against AV as well.

Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 130	Posted - 2013.10.04 22:22:00 - [11] - Quote Athena Sentinel wrote: Good point! What is Balance... Does that mean there should be no advantage for any suit combination. Because that is not the idea. Your gimped and its CCP's fault (try a different setup). You can have other problems but Balance? Example: Person runs a lvl 3 basic suit and a Militia Assault Rifle and loads his suit with mods that do not work for his playing style... Then the guy in a proto suit and a +5 Assault Rifle variant with mods that perfectly suit his playing style.... They should be balanced? Balance = Equality Not at all, but proto shouldn't be an I win button. There needs to be a balance between tiers, not too weak but not too strong.
Aqil Aegivan The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 220	Posted - 2013.10.04 23:05:00 - [12] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: What is balance? It is something that needs to be defined before you can provide any sort of constructive feedback. Well people have put in a fair bit of time developing increasingly sophisticated principles in the field of game theory. A worthwhile start in understanding what constitutes good balance in a game focused on specialisation and role selection are the following associated principles: Non-transitive Games. Strategic Dominance. If you're interested in game balance I'd say these topics are definitely worth a read. Obviously Dust514 is more complicated than Rock, Paper, Scissors, but it's a start. On a personal note I think there are three major problems in balancing right now. One is the relative newness of matchmaking, its instability and the overall effect this has on the quality of CCP's data and the player strategies we based on the often questionable matches we see. Secondly, there are some problems balancing around the limited set of gear we have in game. The current AR seems to be filling in for about three different guns that will all arrive eventually. We should be seeing the racial variants sooner rather than later for the assault rifle so it's not a huge problem in this particular instance but the lack of range in heavy suits and racial vehicles is making things tough. It's not like the devs are holding out on us here and I know they have finite time but this is becoming a bigger problem the longer it continues. Finally and mainly, I think that the primary problem with vehicles vs AV is not the lack of a battlefield role for vehicles but rather the lack of distance, so to speak, between using AV well and using AV poorly. I don't have a huge problem with the maximum damage potential available from AV. I do think that potential is too easily reached. This is why LAVs were effectively a joke for so long, because AV built to destroy tanks could as easily apply that damage to smaller vehicles. The answer was not crazy LAV HP buffs, but more dynamic damage application for AV weapons. Of course most of what I think is a good idea here is obsolete in light of upcoming changes but I do think that tankers should get out and let CCP know not just whether you like/dislike the upcoming changes but how you think you would/will play as a tanker when they come into effect, that's the real value of your expertise. Hopefully it should help them get the jump on what strategies they can expect to see and help them nail down the relative strengths and attractiveness of modules in the passive vs active module dynamic they are trying to create.
Paul Prosek Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 0	Posted - 2013.10.04 23:12:00 - [13] - Quote Not to get too new agey, but I think when most people talk about balance they are referring to a feel you get for the game. Games teach us their systems through trial and error. With a good game you slowly learn what is and isn't possible, what does work and what doesn't. The core of a game needs to be logical enough that situations play out as expected, i.e. no killing an undamaged tank with a pistol, but with flexibility to allow for genuinely unexpected and exciting moments. Getting good at a game should be like developing a skill through solving small puzzles. You learn to survive where you were dying before. You learn to kill what before always took you out. You learn what equipment will let you complete the tasks you didn't even know existed. Where before you couldn't figure out how people were getting massive scores and kill numbers, you first learn how it's possible and then do it yourself. This is balance. Imbalance in games is actually the small moments that destroy immersion by breaking the rules the game itself set up. This manifests in situations for which there is no counter. Your skill and knowledge of the game can't overcome the problem at hand. No amount of going back to the drawing board will produce a solution, and worse others start using this exploit to dominate the game in a way that was not intended. It can be map design, or a weapon that is overpowered, or even exploitable gaming code that breaks the physics of the game itself. But when it happens, it's like a strange sound your car makes. You immediately sit up and notice that something is wrong. Even worse it starts happening again and again until you have to pull over and see what's going on. This is imbalance. Now imbalance doesn't necessarily mean a bad game, it's just something that needs to be fixed. You want to have it fixed because you want to get back to the game as it was meant to be. A bad game is just bad, and even if it was perfectly balanced you wouldn't want to play it because it wasn't fun or rewarding. In regards to vehicle vs. AV, what you want is a consensus among players that feels logical. A tank can't be invincible, but it also shouldn't fall at the first volley from a swarm launcher. The balance for this should probably be found less in the numbers than in the tactics and skill of the players. I think most tankers would concede that a concerted effort by one team to make killing him a priority should succeed, i.e. two to six players shift focus to AV. Most infantry would also agree that a tank should be able to cut down infantry caught out in the open, and that regular weapons should have little to no effect. It's generally only when a reasonably buffed tank is cut down by one guy, or a vehicle continues it's path of destruction when everyone is trying to kill it that people feel cheated. For developers, the task is to listen to the people who care enough to tell them what they think, and sort out the responses. These usually fall into two categories. People who think something is hurting the game, and people who think something is hurting their character personally. The first is usually an honest opinion. Not always right, but honest. The second has to be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, no one knows better than a user of X what is right or wrong with X. Using the feedback between these two groups of people to fix problems and than applying this experience to future endeavors is the responsibility of the developers. Our job is to provide well thought out feedback.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 6412	Posted - 2013.10.04 23:13:00 - [14] - Quote Everything excelling at something, everything being weak at something, everything being viable, nothing being overshadowed or made obsolete by another thing, the risk associated with something has to be worth the rewards, the investments you made into something has to pay off. As for vehicles vs AV, personally I believe they should be weak against AV, but not impossible to survive. I also believe AV should be weak against regular infantry. Regular infantry should be weak against vehicles. Basically rock paper scissors. Vehicle prices have to reflect their weakness against AV though, the risk right now isn't worth it IMO.
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 105	Posted - 2013.10.05 01:28:00 - [15] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Everything excelling at something, everything being weak at something, everything being viable, nothing being overshadowed or made obsolete by another thing, the risk associated with something has to be worth the rewards, the investments you made into something has to pay off. As for vehicles vs AV, personally I believe they should be weak against AV, but not impossible to survive. I also believe AV should be weak against regular infantry. Regular infantry should be weak against vehicles. Basically rock paper scissors. Vehicle prices have to reflect their weakness against AV though, the risk right now isn't worth it IMO. I use a Swarm + SMG + triage nanohives for ammo+reps. Overwhelming vs tanks and decent vs infantry. Having custom fits makes Dust unique, but we could discourage fits like mine. It could be a damage mod that occupies the sidearm slot, or a 'power unit' that needs to be deployed before you can use your AV weapons. There might be a special advantage in dedicated AV setups, but omni fits like mine wouldn't be so handily cost effective vs vehicles.
Kigurosaka Laaksonen DUST University Ivy League 23	Posted - 2013.10.05 01:34:00 - [16] - Quote Not going to answer your question, OP, but instead I'll respond to your title. "Balance" Dust 514 can't currently be properly balanced because it is missing a significant chunk of basic content, including basic racial variants of dropsuits and vehicles. You guys might see me around the forums a bit harping on this idea of 'basic content.'
Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 131	Posted - 2013.10.05 01:43:00 - [17] - Quote Kigurosaka Laaksonen wrote: Not going to answer your question, OP, but instead I'll respond to your title. "Balance" Dust 514 can't currently be properly balanced because it is missing a significant chunk of basic content, including basic racial variants of dropsuits and vehicles. You guys might see me around the forums a bit harping on this idea of 'basic content.' Yes, feel you there. But I think if they get a basic system ironed out for balancing, they can add new content that balances out with existing content. It's defining what balance is that puts you one step closer to that goal. And creating a system to follow, so you are not just shooting in the dark so to speak. Gallente are armor, Caldari are shields. Min are hybrids with a focus on speed. Amar are hybrids with a focus on defense. Seems right you would balance your 2 extremes, than focus on your mixed. I like the responses so far, keep them coming!
Tebu Gan CrimeWave Syndicate 131	Posted - 2013.10.05 01:48:00 - [18] - Quote Luk Manag wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Everything excelling at something, everything being weak at something, everything being viable, nothing being overshadowed or made obsolete by another thing, the risk associated with something has to be worth the rewards, the investments you made into something has to pay off. As for vehicles vs AV, personally I believe they should be weak against AV, but not impossible to survive. I also believe AV should be weak against regular infantry. Regular infantry should be weak against vehicles. Basically rock paper scissors. Vehicle prices have to reflect their weakness against AV though, the risk right now isn't worth it IMO. I use a Swarm + SMG + triage nanohives for ammo+reps. Overwhelming vs tanks and decent vs infantry. Having custom fits makes Dust unique, but we could discourage fits like mine. It could be a damage mod that occupies the sidearm slot, or a 'power unit' that needs to be deployed before you can use your AV weapons. There might be a special advantage in dedicated AV setups, but omni fits like mine wouldn't be so handily cost effective vs vehicles. Not well fit vehicles. But as a tank pilot, skilling into logi, a swarm would be awesome for my fit. Most of the time I run with a rep tool anyways. Rarely pull out that Assault rifle of mine. But I'm at a lost when I face a tank in my infantry setup (except to call in my own tank). Swarms would remedy that, plus I could beat on a tank with my tank, and if they get the best of me, jump out and launch some salvos (because I can't stand another tank beating my tank. I drive a gunnlogi btw which are beat hands down by maddies).


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page