Cogburn
08-27-2005, 05:55 AM
SmokeJumper has been kind enough to take some time and answer some questions I had about the PlanetSide engine... Most consisting of "why did you do it like X instead of Y" or "how did you do Z without losing Q".
One of these topics was about the weapon matrix. If you aren't aware of what that is, I'll take a moment to explain it.
The Weapon Matrix is a big chart that has all the weapons down the Y axis (two or more, in fact, for weapons that can use multiple ammo types) and EVERY SINGLE item in the game that can receive damage, from inf suits to MAX suits, from equipment terminals to vanguards. In each cell on the chart where a weapon and a game item meet, there is a value that represents the base damage applied to that item at point blank range (<15m). This means that no two weapons in PlanetSide do exactly the same damage to any given target. This means that the matrix is VERY large as you can imagine.
I was initally of the opinion that the weapons matrix was a crutch used by the developers to save time in balance passes. I was only partially correct. At its core, the Weapon Matrix that gives PlanetSide its rich variety of combat. It is what provides the ONLY TRUE MEASURABLE way to track damage and balance issues without simply guessing.
Today I realized why I made an incorrect assumption about the Weapon Matrix. We all can "feel" when weapons are just not worth using based on the damage they do in their "proper" situation. It's this tactile awareness equal to that of their veteran players that I think the old, and new, development team lacks. For as much as they've played the game, they've never played it like WE do. While aggreious errors were easily tracked and resolved (ie Lasher 2.0), the more subtle imbalances between the weapons tends to slip through the cracks. This, IMHO, is why PlanetSide took 1.8 years to properly balance and why vehicles are still too powerfull, given the exception of proper cover.
I do now believe that we should institute a weapon matrix in our game. We have seen it both done right and done wrong in the same example. I think that we can take what we have learned from SOE and improve upon its implementation.
Commentary is, as always, welcome.
One of these topics was about the weapon matrix. If you aren't aware of what that is, I'll take a moment to explain it.
The Weapon Matrix is a big chart that has all the weapons down the Y axis (two or more, in fact, for weapons that can use multiple ammo types) and EVERY SINGLE item in the game that can receive damage, from inf suits to MAX suits, from equipment terminals to vanguards. In each cell on the chart where a weapon and a game item meet, there is a value that represents the base damage applied to that item at point blank range (<15m). This means that no two weapons in PlanetSide do exactly the same damage to any given target. This means that the matrix is VERY large as you can imagine.
I was initally of the opinion that the weapons matrix was a crutch used by the developers to save time in balance passes. I was only partially correct. At its core, the Weapon Matrix that gives PlanetSide its rich variety of combat. It is what provides the ONLY TRUE MEASURABLE way to track damage and balance issues without simply guessing.
Today I realized why I made an incorrect assumption about the Weapon Matrix. We all can "feel" when weapons are just not worth using based on the damage they do in their "proper" situation. It's this tactile awareness equal to that of their veteran players that I think the old, and new, development team lacks. For as much as they've played the game, they've never played it like WE do. While aggreious errors were easily tracked and resolved (ie Lasher 2.0), the more subtle imbalances between the weapons tends to slip through the cracks. This, IMHO, is why PlanetSide took 1.8 years to properly balance and why vehicles are still too powerfull, given the exception of proper cover.
I do now believe that we should institute a weapon matrix in our game. We have seen it both done right and done wrong in the same example. I think that we can take what we have learned from SOE and improve upon its implementation.
Commentary is, as always, welcome.