Is x too powerful?

[Apophis]

I'm seeing a lot of threads and comments regarding "xxx" being too powerful in PoE. Let me see if I can get all of these straight.

Attack helos are too powerful.
AA is too powerful.
Artillery is too powerful.

So, when you're at a flag spawning, and you're being pounded by artillery from afar, the attack helo (the one that is too powerful) is ineffective in eliminating the artillery threat? In addition to that, when you're in the overly powerful attack helo, the overly powerful AA can't take it down?

I'm really curious about this. I've played with the AA, and the attack helos in game, and I think they're both done really well. I can't say as they are always applied to the conflict properly, but I don't think they are overpowered in their own right.

If a Jeep drives back and forth over a known spawn point mowing down dismounted infantry, is the jeep too powerful or is it just being used inappropriately? If you spawn over and over at a base that is being shelled by artillery, is the artillery too powerful or are you just silly for continually trying to spawn there?

Don't get me wrong, if the stuff is broken then I'm all for getting it fixed. But if the concept of "xxx" being too powerful is just an excuse for not being able to adapt to the threat and bring in the appropriate assets to take it down, that's something that needs to be corrected through education and training on the player level, not by gimping the game itself. If the issue is one of poor utilization of an asset (using mobile AA on an incline to provide supressive fire on a flag), that also needs to be dealt with through education and training.

Comments?

[DudeWheresMyAK47]

I was frustrated by the continual pounding my tank was taking from the jets and helos, so I teamed up with another engineer who was driving the big mobile AA - we were unbeatable.

Nothing is too powerful, everything is killable - one just has to work out how

[Apophis]

Originally Posted by DudeWheresMyAK47

I was frustrated by the continual pounding my tank was taking from the jets and helos, so I teamed up with another engineer who was driving the big mobile AA - we were unbeatable.

Nothing is too powerful, everything is killable - one just has to work out how

Exactly!

I think there would an exception if all of these tactics were being employed against a numerically inferior team or some other act of poor sportsmanship. But at some point you need to analyze the situation tactically and make a decision as to how you're going to overcome it.

If every time you get in a tank, you're taken out by an attack helo or jet, you need to reconsider getting in a tank. Work on getting your team manning the AA resources and calling in some air power of your own. Make life miserable for those jets and helos and force THEM to choose an alternative method of attack or suppression.

Tactics and strategy get clearer if the players are willing to slow down a little to address an issue. The concept that you need to rush as fast as possible to the objective or are bound to one particular vehicle or approach is a problem with the players and their leadership, not with the in-game assets.

[TG_Bubba]

It's called teamwork. If we work together we can overcome. Well said Apophis.

[Evo<^|SiNz|^>]

Poor sportsmanship aside, I think everything is pretty well balanced in PoE2.

The problem comes in when a team is having a tough time working together to focus the counter-asset against whatever's kicking your butt. Same as in vanilla BF2.

[ABRA]

I would pose this question in response Apo.

Because there are and will always be a constant cycle of devising tactics and reactionary counters, defending against an AA overwatching a spawn is possible, albeit much more difficult to coordinate than the tactic of driving the AA there in the first place.

But that aside, what about the teammate of the AA driver who is looking for aircover elsewhere? What about the SL looking for artillery support while the arty is being used in a similar fashion? These things are too powerful and can counter each other through proactive player education to utilize them. But when other players are poorly utilizing them as you say(poorly but effectively to their own ends), doesn't that inhibit the very player education and growth you say is the key to defeating these new threats.

I think an arty driver in a 0 degree assualt is akin to a CO in a jet or in PoE's case devestating with the arty. The CO has a supporting responsibility to the entire team. He assents to this burden of responsibility by occupying the key asset of the team, especailly in a TG match. Similarly someone who steals a jet to hitch a ride across the map and parachute deploy as infantry is discouraged as a poor use, punishable by admins and against our rules. In a game with devestating air power is it not also the AA's responsibility to provide air cover or if intent on killing freshly spawned and disoriented players, use any of the suitible weapons for that purpose besides the one best suited to air cover. LIkewise with the arty, should he not use the asset like a responsible CO in support of his team around the entire map and not just supporting a single attack. In so doing does he not become the CO in a bomber supporting one attack and not the global battle?

I think player education to use these assets to the team's advantage and not in the jeep-driving-over-spawnpoint sense wasn't enough and rules were made to curb this behavior in vanilla for COs and jet squads. I think the same should apply to these new elements PoE has elevated to similar positions of dominance. The lack of such measures mean when other players seek similar education and training to counter air power through using the AA they are hampered when it is instead being used as in a role an APC's support cannon is designed for. Although I suppose in one case the AA is the APC support cannon for one of these vehicles, but you get my point. There are lesser APCs that can fill this role but not the air cover role while this AA can fill both, yet is relegated to only the one.

[Apophis]

Originally Posted by Evo<^|SiNz|^>

Poor sportsmanship aside, I think everything is pretty well balanced in PoE2.

The problem comes in when a team is having a tough time working together to focus the counter-asset against whatever's kicking your butt. Same as in vanilla BF2.

I would agree, that is a problem. But it's not a problem that should be addressed by removing assets from a game if the problem is purely teamwork/organization based.

In Vanilla BF2 the problem with some air assets is the lack of an appropriate and effective countermeasure. IE: Trying to take down the jets with the emplaced AA missiles.

It seems that PoE has added an appropriate countermeasure to the attack helos and jets: mobile AA cannon.

[BHack]

I couldn't agree more with this post.

I have been vocal (as I'm sure you've read) about attempting to counter a tactic before calling it cheap. I was a little too zealous in some of the other threads though and came off too strong in text.

I guess the over-riding theme is that your frustration level in game is highly dependent on the coordination and ability of your teammates. Noone manning the AA? Your going to get bombed straight to pissed-off-ville. I really think these situations catalyze more 'over-powered' discussions than warranted.

[ABRA]

EDIT: Now obviously they aren't the same situation and you can't have admins out on a sever in a yellow ref jersey with a tape measure making rulings on illegally low trajectories for the arty and AA, but I think this needs to be addressed beyond the fix it tactically answer we all, for the most part, embrace already. If we ruled line of sight arty as opposed to over the horizon arty attacks on spawns in the fashions described as spawnkilling, that would effectively curb it. The AA is tougher but surely a similar simple fix could be found if we decided to.

[Lekdevil.NL]

If you take a look at the PoE forums (or any other BF2 board, for that matter), you'll find one or more "X is too powerful/unbalanced" threads for all possible values of X. The "X vs. Y - Which is better?" threads are especially humorous, and can run on for pages on end. They're also excessively pointless, in my opinion.

I think that questions of game or asset balance can only be answered after conducting extensive game play testing. The PoE test team has been doing that for months, and other game developers I know are doing the same thing.

People who get owned after playing a game for only a week (or even shorter) and then run to the forums to complain that "X is too powerful" should be scorned and ridiculed with extreme prejudice, methinks.

[BHack]

Originally Posted by Lekdevil.NL

If you take a look at the PoE forums (or any other BF2 board, for that matter), you'll find one or more "X is too powerful/unbalanced" threads for all possible values of X. The "X vs. Y - Which is better?" threads are especially humorous, and can run on for pages on end. They're also excessively pointless, in my opinion.

I think that questions of game or asset balance can only be anwered after conducting extensive game play testing. The PoE test team has been doing that for months, and other game developers I know are doing the same thing.

People who get owned after playing a game for only a week (or even shorter) and then run to the forums to complain that "X is too powerful" should be scorned and ridiculed with extreme prejudice, methinks.

Yea, the HIND vs TIGER debate is over 10 pages long now on the PoE forums.

It's rediculous that these people refuse to believe the overrall teams can be balanced even if one has a slightly better/different asset than the other.

Maybe some of these guys should realize that, yes, in an air to air battle the Euro will destroy the Hind on even terms, but thats ok. Ukraine gets a Shilka.

[Apophis]

Originally Posted by ABRA

I would pose this question in response Apo.

Because there are and will always be a constant cycle of devising tactics and reactionary counters, defending against an AA overwatching a spawn is possible, albeit much more difficult to coordinate than the tactic of driving the AA there in the first place.

But that aside, what about the teammate of the AA driver who is looking for aircover elsewhere? What about the SL looking for artillery support while the arty is being used in a similar fashion? These things are too powerful and can counter each other through proactive player education to utilize them. But when other players are poorly utilizing them as you say(poorly but effectively to their own ends), doesn't that inhibit the very player education and growth you say is the key to defeating these new threats.

I think an arty driver in a 0 degree assualt is akin to a CO in a jet or in PoE's case devestating with the arty. The CO has a supporting responsibility to the entire team. He assents to this burden of responsibility by occupying the key asset of the team, especailly in a TG match. Similarly someone who steals a jet to hitch a ride across the map and parachute deploy as infantry is discouraged as a poor use, punishable by admins and against our rules. In a game with devestating air power is it not also the AA's responsibility to provide air cover or if intent on killing freshly spawned and disoriented players, use any of the suitible weapons for that purpose besides the one best suited to air cover. LIkewise with the arty, should he not use the asset like a responsible CO in support of his team around the entire map and not just supporting a single attack. In so doing does he not become the CO in a bomber supporting one attack and not the global battle?

I think player education to use these assets to the team's advantage and not in the jeep-driving-over-spawnpoint sense wasn't enough and rules were made to curb this behavior in vanilla for COs and jet squads. I think the same should apply to these new elements PoE has elevated to similar positions of dominance. The lack of such measures mean when other players seek similar education and training to counter air power through using the AA they are hampered when it is instead being used as in a role an APC's support cannon is designed for. Although I suppose in one case the AA is the APC support cannon for one of these vehicles, but you get my point. There are lesser APCs that can fill this role but not the air cover role while this AA can fill both, yet is relegated to only the one.

Personally, If a player is unwilling to work with their team and use assets in support of the team vs. racking up kills for themselves; I would remove the player. If an unknown player is sitting in the mobile artillery and using it as a 0° assault weapon, and that player is unwilling to relocate to utilize that weapon in a more appropriate manner, that player should find himself staring at the in-game browser looking for a new place to play.

If we could cater more to those individuals that are looking to use these assets to benefit their team, would the gameplay improve? I sure think so! I also think that the resulting environment would be more fitting of the Tactical Gamer name than one where artillery is used as a heavy assault tank.

Now, with all this said. I am *NOT* a rules based person. I seriously dislike long sets of rules with which a server is managed. I prefer philosophy and SOP based management. Where players either understand said philosophy and strive towards playing within the SOPs or they don't. SOPs provide guidelines and direction without the same rigidity as a "rule". Rules are created for players that don't understand the SOPs and TG Primer, more rules are created to fill in the gaps when these same players try finding ways around the first set of rules. Even MORE rules are created when these same players find ways around the first two sets of rules. The cycle is never ending and results in a massive list of rules that end up limiting the manner of engagement and ultimately lead to very linear gameplay.

If you can understand and practice four very simple concepts, you're good to go in 95% of the games TG hosts.

1) Respect your fellow players.
2) Work as a team, employing real-world (not game based) combat strategy and tactics.
3) Don't manipulate the game engine or take advantage of it in order to win.
4) Play with dignity and show some sportsmanship in a fair-play environment.

Some people have issues with the second concept, but that's more because they're trying to force a reason for it not to apply rather than trying to understand how it DOES apply. If they picked up an old ARMY or USMC field manual and did some reading, they would probably start to understand combat strategy and tactics rather than game-based.

[ABRA]

My poinit while wordily delivered is essentially this:

3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.

The use of AA and arty in this way, while not in and of itself a wholly unrealistic, uncounterable tactic, excludes its use in tactics closer resembling the realism I think/thought we were seeking. While more effective to pointblank a spawn with arty and possibly what it takes to win, is it gameplay in a near simualtion environment?

[Acid]

The PoE2 dev team and the testers have all found a great balance, and X should never be to powerful if you have the teamwork to take it down. Sure, X is powerful if nobody works together to take it down.

[ABRA]

I agree that labrythine rules(re: what was a valid UCB attack in vanilla) were less than optimal. I guess my question is do you consider these tactics to be in accordance with your points 2 and 3. Is this close enough to a real world, no game based tactic to be considered tolerable? Is it far enough from a manipulation of the game mechanics to not be considered unduly exploitative?