Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
319
   |
Posted - 2014.01.17 05:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Let me take a crack at the balancing factors. Because it's not just one person to one person.
Sorry in advance for making this so long. I'm not taking the time to make it short.
Listing balancing factors off the top of my head (each a function of several individual statistics):
- targeted killing effectiveness (how efficient you are at killing a single target)
- group killing effectiveness (how efficient you are at killing a group of targets)
- suppression strength (how efficient you are at softening/dispersing targets, lowering their effectiveness)
- defensive strength (how hard it is to kill you--this can be a function of health, speed, suppression, etc.)
- evasive capability (how easily you can avoid fire and/or escape)
- ubiquity (your ability to get to places on the map quickly and efficiently)
- stealth (the ability to avoid conflict, or choose the circumstances of conflict)
- range (the radius of your optimal area of engagement)
- circumstantial effectiveness (strengths particular to your class, such as high ground, narrow corridors, cover, etc.)
So what we're debating is what I've just labeled "targeted killing effectiveness" or "TKE" in consideration of all other balancing factors. The question is, should AV be strong enough to match vehicles 1:1?
Group killing effectiveness is a non-factor for swarms, and requires pretty extreme luck on the part of forge guns. I would call it effectively nil. For tanks, missiles and blasters have some nominal capability to kill groups. Let's call this roughly even.
Suppression strength is effectively nil for swarms, and nominal for forge guns (with its long charge time and difficulty hitting moving targets). Tanks with missiles and blasters have very high suppression strength, arguably the highest in the game.
Defensive strength is low for swarmers. Higher for forgers, although it is mitigated somewhat by movement--I've always had a much easier time not getting shot in a faster suit. Between health, speed, suppression capability, and the ineffectiveness of most weapons, defensive strength of tanks is unparalleled in the game.
Evasive capability is moderately high for swarmers, depending on the suit but there is the ability to duck in and out of cover--however, they are still highly susceptible to infantry. Lowest for forgers, especially while they're charging or holding a charge, particularly with breach--these are always susceptible to infantry. Tanks have moderate evasive capability, in consideration of the distance that often exists between tanks and AV, and also in consideration of its ability to escape combat quickly if necessary; however, they lack the ability to duck in and out of cover easily, so I will rank them moderately low.
Ubiquity is a complicated one to debate. Inherent to the role, forge gunners have very, very low ubiquity, however there is an ability to call in a vehicle. I would argue that the inability to operate the vehicle and forge gun at the same time limits the legitimacy of this argument, but even I can admit it would be a technicality. So we can put both forge gunners and swarmers at moderate. For most maps at present, ubiquity for tanks is very high; this could be reduced with better map design.
Stealth is relatively high for swarmers, depending on the suit and other modules and skills used. Forge guns are hard to hide, and giving chase always requires either the most direct route (which is rarely stealthy) or a vehicle (which is never stealthy). Tanks get a nominal amount of stealth because they don't show up on radar as easily as they should, but let's face it, it's hard to hide a tank.
Range for swarms is moderate for the purposes of this conversation. Forge guns have more range, but come nowhere near rail turrets, so we must also consider them moderate. Because tanks can equip rails quite easily, for the purpose of this conversation we have to give tanks a "very high" for range.
Circumstantial effectiveness isn't really a part of this argument. If the maps were more limiting to vehicles and provided more vantage points for AV to reach from within semi-enclosed areas, one could make a more compelling argument for circumstantial effectiveness. Oh, it might be worth mentioning tanks have some limits to their ability to aim, but that rarely seems to be a factor in practical combat.
Given this list, I see tanks having an overall advantage in most of the other areas of balance. Therefore, if the ratio is one player to one player, I'm going to have to give them lower TKE relative to AV. This would apply only to killing vehicles.
Now for counter-arguments.
AV increases effectiveness overall if there are multiple people in a targeted vehicle, for example, destroying a full dropship. This is circumstantial at best, though, so I would rank it nominal.
AV agility and target size relative to distance is very lopsided toward the dropsuit. However, this only helps to mitigate the weakness of the dropsuit against other infantry in the same situation. Hypothetically, a fight between an AV player versus one tank and one infantry could go any direction with respect to the tank but will almost inevitably result in the death of the AV player. One AV versus one infantry, all things being equal, is weighted toward the infantry. So in consideration of weighting toward AV, we must hold in consideration that the AV is already a smaller, more agile target than the tank.
AV grenades are stupid and irrelevant. Everyone agrees? Good.
My recommendation: AV should be more effective than tanks at destroying vehicles, though not necessarily via raw damage alone. Forge guns should be a little more effective than swarms (though less than I was expecting). Tanks should also be balanced by reducing effectiveness in some of these areas, especially rail turret range and ubiquity across the map.
Thoughts?
The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
|
Goric Rumis
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
384
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 20:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
Skihids wrote:People need to stop focusing on their little niche and think about the game as a whole.
Forget "It's a tank!" or "It's a freaking Javelin!", and think about balance and variety.
CCP is ultimately in charge, but people need to come to some agreement about how much ISK or SP should influence game balance, and do it outside the context of any particular role.
There is a spectrum of opinions, ranging from the hardcore tiericide that ISK and SP should buy only variety and not a single percentage of advantage, to folks who advocate WoW levels of advantage for either. The first is espoused by those who want player skill to be the determining factor in every situation and the latter by folks more comfortable with MMOs than traditional FPS.
If you think ISK should buy a 100-300% advantage, then that holds true for every role, not just the one you happened to choose. So if an expensive tank should be worth three standard infantry AV, then infantry should be able to purchase gun just as expensive such that they would be able to fight 2-3 normal tanks at once.
You choose the level of imbalance people can buy, and then anyone can buy it. It's just like when your mother makes you or your bother cut the cake and allows the other to choose the piece. It leads to a much more balanced division.
Hear, hear. I'm beginning to feel like almost everyone on this forum is here just to shout and not to solve problems, so appeals to reason generally go without any kind of response. Appreciate the thought you've put into this.
This isn't as simple as 100k ISK > 30k ISK, though. Infantry AV could be more expensive than tanks even though a single fit of AV is less expensive than a single fit of a tank as a result of what we will call "mean time in combat" or MTIC. An AV fit's MTIC is lower due to its increased vulnerability, while a tank can frequently run an entire battle or at least be destroyed only a couple of times. Therefore in order to match the cost of AV, a tank's straight ISK cost per fit must be higher than an AV infantry's straight ISK cost per fit.
How much higher? I don't know whether CCP even collects the kind of data you'd need to make a specific determination. You'd have to know the time between drop and destruction for each type of vehicle, and the time between spawn and destruction for each type of infantry weapon, and even then end-of-combat could skew results if it doesn't register as destruction. But I would venture a guess that vehicles should be at least 50% more expensive than the infantry AV counterpart, and possibly as much as 300%, provided all other factors are in balance (see my previous post in this thread). From there, you can calculate your premium.
The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
|