The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
939
   |
Posted - 2013.11.16 10:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Keep in mind that this treatise is primarily my own opinion, and some do agree with said opinion, and some do not.
There is a huge amount of controversy on the topic of Anti-Vehicle Vs. Vehicle, what Anti-Vehicle specialists must give up comparatively to what HAV Drivers (or vehicle drivers in general) give up, and what constitutes a balanced system. Applying a simple Rock, Scissors , Paper mentality to the idea is short sighted, and often leads to a bulge in the meta, that is difficult to counter without severely hampering oneself on all other fronts, or is simple much better than the rest.
So instead of a straight forward Rock beats Scissors analogy, we'll expand on the idea of 'equal weight and equal investment'.
With the upcoming changes in 1.7, vehicles are going to have 'waves of opportunity' wherein they will be able to get in, perform their task for a period of time, but be effectively 'weak' after this period. This period could be only as long as the vehicle's active cool downs, or as long as an entire match if no Anti-Vehicle is brought to bear on the vehicle.
So without further ado, let's strip back the elements of skill, luck, environment, and so forth and get to the core of the balance game. The 'numbers' game. A Game that determines how skill will affect outcomes, but not rely solely on equipment choices.
In order for there to be balance there MUST be equal investment between two parties. This, in DUST 514, is measured in two ways. Skill Points, and ISK. We'll disregard ISK for the immediate purpose of this and state that in this perfect balanced world, a simple equation determines initial balance.
In order to compete on a balanced level of investment, Anti-Vehicle SP should equal Vehicle SP. This is of course the basis for any equivalent SP argument. Anti-vehicle is designed to specifically counter Vehicles, so if Skill Point Investment is equal, then Anti-Vehicle should win against any vehicles of equal SP investment.
- Militia AV = Militia Vehicle Defence
- Standard AV = Standard Vehicle Defence
- Advanced AV = Enhanced Vehicle Defence
- Prototype AV = Complex Vehicle Defence
This basis would grant equality to each. Beyond this, fitting, skill, timing, luck, and environment are variables that are somewhat beyond the control of CCP, and more in control of individual players.
But the Skill Point investment to get a Prototype Anti-Vehicles Weapon (even with the inclusion of Core Skills, and/or Damage Modifiers), does not equal the skills to fit a Complex Vehicle Tank.
In fact it is substantially less. Thus, in order to balance the equation there are 3 options:
Quote:Option One: Increase the SP investment required to comparable amounts. This forces a greater grind for Anti-Vehicle Infantry, and can be disheartening.
Quote:Option Two: Decrease the SP investment that Vehicle Drivers need to reach comparable tank compared to Anti-Vehicle Weaponry. This would mean that fitting a 'prototype tank' would be extremely easy.
Quote:Option Three: Make up equivalent Skill Point investment by requiring multiple people to take on and defeat a vehicle at the 'Height of it's power'.
When it is stated that a vehicle is at the 'height of it's power' it is the power equated by the average fit. In the case of post 1.7 vehicle changes (as proposed), this would be at the height of the vehicles power during it's 'wave of opportunity' while all it's tank modules are active. (Likely 1 Hardener as average, as most will also endeavour to fit something else beyond resistance).
As an 'equivalent' Hard Counter, a single Anti-Vehicle with maxed SP for it's allotted weapon (we'll use Prototype Weapons as the basis) Vs. a similarly invested Complex Moduled Vehicle Defence, should equal the tank at the height of it's power. This will generally result in either the Vehicle attempting to remove the Anti-Vehicle Target before the cool downs are up, or vacating the area to preserve their investment.
This is based on a half SP investment policy.
Two Hard Counter Anti-Vehicle Specialists would overwhelm the Vehicle's defences and cause them to either avoid the area entirely, or be destroyed. (Equal SP investment in a hard counter = Vehicle's Defence SP Investment) Being a Hard counter, means that it becomes a Rock, Scissors, and Paper system, but only at equivalent SP levels.
Where does skill, environment, and timing / luck come into it? Catching a vehicle off guard will have a greater impact. Anti-vehicle that gets the jump on an unsuspecting (or weakened) Vehicle, will be rewarded with the ability to take down a Vehicle easily by comparison. While a team effort would be required to take down a HAV at the height of it's power.
This system of balance rewards players for teamwork, or well planned tactics. And also makes the tactical choice of using Vehicles and Anti-Vehicle Weapons.
Moving it around, with Anti-Infantry Offense, Vs. Anti-Vehicle Defence. Anti-Vehicle Main Weapons have sacrificed 'some' of their gun game in order to gain their ability to take on Vehicles, but their defensive skills are raised to counter Anti-Infantry, so SP investment here should be equivalent as well for this 'soft counter'. This is a soft counter because Anti-Vehicle suits almost always have the ability to fit a secondary weapon to participate in gun game. These sidearms are often equivalent to main weapons in damage, if not in range.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys."
Sun Tzu
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
The Umbra Combine
939
|
Posted - 2013.11.16 10:33:00 -
[2] - Quote
Removing 'player skill' and other variables beyond CCP's control, equivalent SP investment should be seen here too. The SP invested into a 'Frontline Soldier' should be equivalent in the number's game, to the SP invested into the Defensive measure. With weapon and style choice meaning how effective you are is affected Vs. specific kinds of defences. A Scrambler Rifle and Flux grenade fit would, but numbers alone, be much more effective against a shield tanked Infantry than against an armour tanked Infantry.
Here the circle doesn't complete, it does, in fact, repeat on itself as Anti-Infantry Vs. Anti-Infantry. Similarly at the other end it's Vehicle Vs. Vehicle Equivalency. Vehicles will have on and off ability to counter infantry, based on weapon choice. Similarly with their ability to take on another tank. The only non-equivalency that comes from this balance style is Anti-Vehicle Vs. Anti-Vehicle, which then comes down to investment in Anti-Infantry and Defences (equivalency is approximate to Anti-Infantry).
The Public Gaming Arena
This is where this style of balance comes to a strange halt. While organised team play makes this balance system workable, and even minimal coordination makes taking down a vehicle relatively easy (two people with anti-vehicle equipment). The public arena is where people will claim that the level of teamwork to take down a Vehicle under this system in not 'up to the task'.
The public arena is an ever changing monster, with militia and basic level gear people trying to compete with proto geared people. AV levels all mixed up, yet trying to perform the function of a much higher SP invested player.
Basing any balance of the inherent imbalance of public matches makes for half-done, poor choices for balance that bulge the balance out in a direction, that requires CCP to step in and physically nerf said bulge.
While balance at the top level, based on team play, cooperation, will encourage players to adopt this form of play, while simultaneously making the game much more about the 'style' you want to play, the gear you chose, and the skill level you as a player has, over the gear you HAVE to use based on the current meta.
You'll note I did not touch on the ISK investment in this article. ISK as a whole will not be a great variable in a balance game, as corporations, PvE, and other activities will eventually provide even semi-dedicated players with more than enough ISK to supply any need.
Summary
In Conclusion, if you read the entire article, you'll likely understand this statement.
Quote:In order to apply a rock, scissors, paper mentality to a game as deep as this, there needs to be a base equivalency in devoted SP.
A Complex Module HAV Commander, should not be held to mercy by a Standard Forge Gunner while at the height of his power (during his window of active modules) but should be equalled, and forced off by someone of sufficient SP investment. If the SP investment is equal, the HAV commander in this case should be either destroyed, or forced into a position where they cannot contribute by numbers and are forced constantly out of an area (thus in effect, denying the team the benefit of having a powerful asset on the field.)
The system provides equivalency at the height of each power, but with dips and curves that skilled, and/or lucky/well placed players can take advantage of their failings.
TL;DR
Remove player skill, balance the numbers first, then add on variables.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys."
Sun Tzu
|