[T:V] Vehicle Balance fix

True : , vehicle balance is a very subjective term. It's decided by the gameplay around the vehicle, and the pace of the game. It's tempered by the power of the vehicle, the ease of getting in one, its speed in relation to other players, and counters to the vehicle. Obviously in games like UT2k4 it's completely out of balance due to the ease of getting a vehicle, and the inability to stop players from getting one. Not to mention the power of the vehicle in comparison to the counters and overall gameplay flow.


Take a look at a game like T2 in classic though. You have an entirely different situation. The assumption that a second life for the person in the vehicle = imbalance is not true at all. The shrike was brought from god-like status in base and base ++ to complete balance via these few simple changes in classic

A.) Much faster players. (Vastly increases difficulty and decreases effectiveness in going after other players. Still very possible for sure but not to the same dominating degree as base/base++)

B.) Faster missiles : Reduces the mobility of the shrike overall by having a consistant missile threat behind it. As well as having it getting taken down more often in situations where a shrike can't go near top speed.

C.) Improved offense: This relates back to faster players, but its important enough to list as a seperate point. Vehicles in T2 have a static, easily campable and spammable spawn point. When you have very fast offense, its easy to apply pressure to the vehicle pad and base, further reducing the effectiveness of the shrike and vehicles as a whole.

Now True, when you add all of this together, this forced the shrike into two different roles. One being more or less an improved LD type position when you played the shrike on defense. Of the very few people who were decent with a shrike in T2 classic (difficulty issues), it'd be worth swapping out an LD to a shrike for taking out HO and cappers mf. The other role was a shrike being used for quicker transportation in capping, and more notably medium capping.

The notable effectiveness someone really good in a shrike had over a regular LD was paid for by the the difficulty in getting one up into the air in a competitive match. Simply because, mid-match you can almost always rely on a remote inventory to suit up and go out, but getting a shrike out with consistant offensive pressure and spam isn't nearly that easy in many cases. This would be the definition of a balanced vehicle by virtue of difficulty to use and difficulty to obtain in comparison to other effecitve positions.

So in the end, you cannot make statements on balance simply by stating random thoughts. Balance is determined by the game and an element within the game in relation to other elements of the game. It's not one factor which determines balance, it's many.
 
Also, good points zp. I agree with your view of the changes on the shrike from base to classic and their effects on bringing the shrike into balance. If every vehicle in T:V can be as well balanced as the shrike in classic, we will have effective and yet not overpowered vehicles. A loss of either one of these features will have a significant negative impact on Vengeance.
 
Last edited:
TreW_SoulJa said:
the attitude a lot of players has is "FINALLY im SAFE! I'm nice and cozy here inside my vehicle, and now i dont have to really be good at this game"
Click to expand...

This is the attitude of t2 classic players that get chained, missled, or blastered out of their vehicle and then choose between ctrl-k or peeling themselves off of someones fender. A vehicle is not a safe place to hide. Or at least, if it was in base t2, it is not so in classic.
 
im worried that TV will have controls similar to UT2k4 for vehicles. UT2k4 vehicles is more shooting friendly than it is about movement.
 
Ben Reed/LoVeR: Both of you said 'the point of vehicles IS to offer an advantage'. The devs already said the point of vehicles is to offer a different means to the same end. Regardless, offering vehicles as an advantage makes the game vehicle-centric, intrinsically.

You guys had some good points but you basically ignored the one about the game being vehicle centric, except LoVeR's point about adding a counter-vehicle weapon.

ZProtoss, you also made good points but ignored the same key point, vehicle centricity.


Here's my rebuttle, i'm just going to stress this one point and do it in the logical form.


(A) Vehicles offer an advantage
(B) A team with vehicles will have an advantage over a team without vehicles
(C) CTF is the primary objective [attack(cap)/defend]
(D) All advantages pertaining to CTF are prerequisite objectives (prevent/defend)
(E) A team will seek to complete it's objectives (prevent/defend).
(F) A team will seek to prevent an enemy from having vehicles and defend their ability to have vehicles.

If A then B
If C then D

B/D/E are true, therefore F.


Let me reverse the logic for you. If a team has been prevented from using said advantages, then that team's chances of losing are vastly increased. Therefore, a team will seek to defend it's advantages as prerequisite objectives for the primary objective. Just like you dont want your base owned because then they'd probably win the map.
 
Last edited:
So... in a given map, if vehicles are an objective then the game is more vehicle centric. In UT2k4 onslaught, if the other team gets good vehicle control, it's very very likely you will lose - it's almost entirely vehicle centric.

If the game requires you to constantly harass and camp the enemy vehicle station and it's an important objective then the game is too vehicle centric. The tradeoff shouldn't be an overpowering vehicle that's hard to get, it should be a useful vehicle that's (subjectively) more fun than not having one. Just like running around sniping all day might be more fun than running around discing people all day, etc.

To address LoVeR's point of 'go ahead and have overpowered vehicles just give us a gun that takes care of them'. The point is that special guns shouldn't be needed. When you're making exceptions for vehicles, the game becomes vehicle centric - a spawn weapon should be capable of handling them and do an OK job, i liked how the disc could knock a shrike off balance.

ZProtoss, on further investigation i found that you do indeed take damage as a driver in your vehicle in UT2k4. I also realize that my % damage may be silly but i was just offering an alternative to the 'snipe the pilot from the cockpit' method. And it's still safe to say, logically, that a guy in a vehicle that can't be harmed as the pilot has an advantage over a guy not in a vehicle, and since that means vehicles are an advantage, then that means shielded vehicles make the game more vehicle centric.

My thoughts may seem random but that's because i try to be concise and stop posting long ass posts. I find that the longer my posts are the less people read them, so i try to get the thoughts out early and the reasoning/logic out later.
 
Last edited:
A vehicle has to provide some kind of advantage, or it has no purpose and will never be used. What was the use of the scout in Tribes? It was fairly fast, and you shot a rocket.. well, that's great.. but who gives a shit? It provided no real advantage, and was not used by the vast majority of the players as a result. That being said, there has to be some kind of disadvantage as well. That is where the difficulty in vehicle balance comes into play. How do you tempt people to use the vehicle, and regularly, but keep it from being overpowering?

This goes back to what Chris has said many times. A tool that is only useful (or intended) to counter a tool is not a good tool. In other words, the rocket pod they are creating.. while it can be effective against vehicles, they want it to be a useful tool in other aspects of the game. I would expect the same approach to vehicles. It has to be useful. It's use implies some kind of advantage. That being said, if it's use is only meant to counter another vehicle, it's a poor vehicle, and a poor tool.
 
True, Vehicles always being very useful doesen't make the game vehicle centric. In T2 classic, having a good shrike is very helpful (worth using it you have one), however it's only a small part of the entire puzzle and the game doesen't revolve around it. It's an advantage when one is up, but the balance tempers it so that the balance does not revolve around *it*.

A balance revolving around vehicles (hence vehicle centric), would be where the vehicles control the pace of the gameplay and where you cannot win without vehicles. This is vehicle centric. Vehicle centric is not having advantages available within vehicles as a whole. Not unless the advantages are so great they outweigh everything non vehicle.

To phrase it in some other terms true, You have 3 armors in Tribes, Light, Medium and heavy. Mediums are good at offense in many situations, and can be very good at defense. They are an asset that can fill certain roles better than a light or a heavy could. (Some roles lights and heavies fill better). Is the game medium centric? No. Would proper use of mediums in some maps give a team an advantage? Yes. Are mediums needed to win? No. The advantage only goes so far, and is only a small part of the overall game puzzle.

Vehicles will have, and should have advantages over the regular armors in certain areas. They'll also have their drawbacks in certain areas. There will be some maps where proper vehicle use will give a team an advantage, but overall it'll be a small part of the game when compared to everything else.

To use T2 as an example again..

T2 Classic Shrike when used correctly = Advantage, but not *the* major thing in the game. Is a small aspect to winning like any other individual position. Game does not center around the shrike.

T2 Base shrike when used correctly = Vehicle centric. Game centers completely around this vehicle and what it can do. Team with the shittiest vehicles loses in most cases.

Huge differences.
 
I'll concede this point:

If the disadvantage of hopping out of a vehicle is big enough, then the vehicle can be shielded and the game will be balanced.

What i dislike is people who can chase me all to fuck and once they are FINALLY forced out of a vehicle they can just jump right out firing right at me with no disadvantages. If he hops out and has to pay some sort of ejection pentalty in health, or maybe ejecting makes him very vulnerable, then it would be balanced.


Sojourn: A vehicle actually doesn't have to offer an advantage, it can just be FUN to use. Intrinsically, none of the weapons in tribes offer an advantage; they only offer an advantage "if used properly". Then the advantage is gauged in how easily they are wielded and how easily they are countered. Vehicles however offer the IMMEDIATE advantage of extended life. Doesn't matter if i suck ass, i can run around distracting people and then hop out and i've got full health. And then AFTER you've factored in the immediate health advantage you can gauge it on the 'difficulty of use/counterability' meter.

As for the t1 scout, i can play scout D and garauntee you that 9/10 cappers will not cap without being escorted. i might have to missile him at his flag stand and then die myself with no chance of the return, but HE won't cap. Point there is that the scout offers an advantage, and the only balance is that while i'm in a scout i'm not half as effective at a lot of other things i could be doing - lack of versatility, and the ease with which the vpad is destroyed. In wolfpack in scrims me and surefire and sometimes myst would all get in scouts and no one would cap on us. "airforce" sf called it. On top of that, 2 of us could ram heavies leaving the third on flag duty and immediately render the enemy HO useless. On top of that we could go ram the HOF or harass the LD within a few seconds of our cappers calling for distraction - offense to defense very quickly. (yes i tooted my own horn)

ZProtoss: You can win without gens, and you can win without vehicles. Vehicle centric is a scale. Lets say 10 is completely vehicle centric where you cant win w/o vehicles. I'm just saying that shielded vehicles (without some ejection counterbalance) would increase a game's vehicle centricity. Vehicles "should" only offer an advantage if various situations as much as any other tool. My point is that in ANY situation shielded vehicles offer the IMMEDIATE advantage of extended life.

If you want my opinion on a good vehicle balance, i'd say a vehicles armor should be relative to its maneuverability (just like light-med-heavy), and a pilot should be able to recieve damage. However the cockpit could be more or less shielded by the armor of the vehicle depending on the "proper usage" scale, the "ease of use vs counterability" scale.

read what i wrote to sojourn too it says more in there.
 
TreW_SoulJa[U said:
Sojourn[/U]: A vehicle actually doesn't have to offer an advantage, it can just be FUN to use. Intrinsically, none of the weapons in tribes offer an advantage; they only offer an advantage "if used properly". Then the advantage is gauged in how easily they are wielded and how easily they are countered. Vehicles however offer the IMMEDIATE advantage of extended life. Doesn't matter if i suck ass, i can run around distracting people and then hop out and i've got full health. And then AFTER you've factored in the immediate health advantage you can gauge it on the 'difficulty of use/counterability' meter.

As for the t1 scout, i can play scout D and garauntee you that 9/10 cappers will not cap without being escorted. i might have to missile him at his flag stand and then die myself with no chance of the return, but HE won't cap. Point there is that the scout offers an advantage, and the only balance is that while i'm in a scout i'm not half as effective at a lot of other things i could be doing - lack of versatility, and the ease with which the vpad is destroyed. In wolfpack in scrims me and surefire and sometimes myst would all get in scouts and no one would cap on us. "airforce" sf called it. On top of that, 2 of us could ram heavies leaving the third on flag duty and immediately render the enemy HO useless. On top of that we could go ram the HOF or harass the LD within a few seconds of our cappers calling for distraction - offense to defense very quickly. (yes i tooted my own horn)
Click to expand...

You're pointing out the obvious, and still not making complete sense. You said if a weapon is used properly, it provides an advantage. Well, of course it needs to be used properly. That goes without saying, so I don't know why you said it. That being said, no weapon is supposed to just be fun. It needs to have a purpose, or it's a pretty worthless for multiplayer. A vehicle needs to be more than just fun, because if it is part of the game, it needs to be used. If it's not used, the Dev team wasted their time, and I think they know this. An item is only fun for an extended amount of time if it's useful. That's the bottom line.

I might enjoy playing around with the scout, but in game terms, it is not a very useful part of the game. You use yourself as an example for the scout's effectiveness.. that's a load of crap, no offense. I would laugh at you if you tried to use the scout against a team, like say, IE. Why? Because not only would you fail at defending against Jason, or Jeff, you would be utterly useless for the most part. I can assure you that the offense would be smart enough to destroy you, and in the time it takes you to respawn, the flag would be gone and halfway home. The scout has minimal use in Tribes, and as a result, it's a failed vehicle. To top it off, the vehicle pad is simply too vulnerable. Really, the scout is far more useful as a surprise tactic than it is as a continued asset.

If a vehicle's only advantage is health, it's not all that useful. If I want health, I'll jump in a heavy. A vehicle needs to provide some other benefit.
 
Riavan said:
AI controlled turrets should be able to keep vehicles at bay easily.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, AI controlled turrets that can destroy vehicles that easily, would decimate a light, a medium, and probably a heavy.
 
Why are you breaking down balance in terms of 1v1? You have to break down balance in terms of overall gameplay flow. There's your flaw. So what if a player doesen't take damage in a veh and can hop out? Are you telling me this would be overpowered even if the veh took 10 years to build? Even if the veh served no purpose but extended health? Seriously, you're focusing on such a SMALL incredibily small part of the balance picture here.

Tribes is not 1v1. You don't break down how effective heavies and lights are by throwing them 1v1 in a duel. So what if vehicle A with player A can beat player C in a duel with both firing at each other? Would this matter of vehicle A was worthless at chasing or pursuing people who weren't fighing back? Again, a really minor part of the balance picture.

You have to judge a vehicles balance by its effectiveness. By your standards the T2 shrike would be vastly overpowered in classic, but anyone who plays classic can tell you that isn't even *remotely* true. (It's fast, manueverable, decent shielding, but it's extremely balanced with the rest of the game for the reasons stated earlier).

So anyways, stop trying to break shit down on terms of 1v1. There are way way way more aspects that go into the balance of a vehicle than your annoyance of full health players jumping out of them. Saying that a vehicle is overpowered or that the game becomes vehicle centric just because of that is just silly.


TreW_SoulJa said:
ZProtoss: You can win without gens, and you can win without vehicles. Vehicle centric is a scale. Lets say 10 is completely vehicle centric where you cant win w/o vehicles. I'm just saying that shielded vehicles (without some ejection counterbalance) would increase a game's vehicle centricity. Vehicles "should" only offer an advantage if various situations as much as any other tool. My point is that in ANY situation shielded vehicles offer the IMMEDIATE advantage of extended life.

If you want my opinion on a good vehicle balance, i'd say a vehicles armor should be relative to its maneuverability (just like light-med-heavy), and a pilot should be able to recieve damage. However the cockpit could be more or less shielded by the armor of the vehicle depending on the "proper usage" scale, the "ease of use vs counterability" scale.

read what i wrote to sojourn too it says more in there.
Click to expand...
 
Another thing to add if it wasnt already is that using a vehicle should also be an added skill to learn, as in ut2k4 where you just jump in a manta, or other vehicle, and easily can go killing things without ever using the thing before, they should contain some sort of improvements upon better knowledge of their use
 
Vehicles' in T:V looks like they have little armour or so...

But think of this, what's the main purpose of vehicle? It's to at least protect the pilot inside while giving extra mobility to the pilot, that's what makes vehicles useful.

If your points is true
Why should we bother having armoured vehicles, tanks in wars? We should just have soldiers riding a bike with a tank barrel where drivers can get sniped

Though the TV vehicles doesn't look as if they are well amoured, so don't worry. If the shields are down I think you might be able to damage the pilot/driver. Even if you can't, so what?

If there's no advantage against other players, what's the use of sitting in a vehicle? You want to get to enermy base passing through heavy defense, you have to use vehicles. You don't want nasty snipers snipe you inside vehicle before you could approach them.
 
Back
Top