Resource Collection and Self Interest

[Soothsayer]

With the new resource collection mechanics we know that resources harvested go towards the individual, outfit and empire.

I haven't heard about the ability to designate how much of any given resource goes to those three entities.

When I start, I'm going to want to get as much for myself as I can, since it was hinted that certain skills can be advanced through using certain resources. When I'm in an outfit, I want to be able to freely trade my personal resources to outfit mates, and I want that outfit to be able to distribute those resources based on performance/need.

Players and outfits should be able to set percentages, empires should probably always get a minimum amount but reward higher amounts.

Once I've got mine, I'd consider kicking a little more back to the empire... Ammo ain't free!

This loss of personal wealth should be recognized by the empire in the form of some sort of benefit that is internal to the empire.

Designating certain nights of the week (on an outfit basis) as high tax nights, whether the resources go to outfit or empire, would be a cool option. The mission system could be a resource transaction where territory can be capped on behalf of an outfit (of course working on behalf of the empire).

Resource collection pretty much implies economy and I want a robust system where the player determines his or her own contribution weighted by his or her own priorities.

[MrVicchio]

I think it will be automated that you get X amount for you, your outfit and the empire. Otherwise people would just set it to "Max Self/Outfit"

[Tool]

I think an important question is how cost is going to be calculated. Are upgrades/enhancements going to draw from all pools, a few or just one? Things like weapon upgrades, if they're going to be drawn soley from personal resources or multiple?

If all costs draw from all pools or perhaps an empire pool more than others, I feel that would be the better solution to encourage more empire coordination and effort to really push for territory rather than focus solely on kills. The effort for territory control in all aspects will lead to those kills.

As far as collection, I agree with the above post that unless costs are from multiple pools, many players would simply collect for themselves or their outfit.

[Soothsayer]

I think it will be automated that you get X amount for you, your outfit and the empire. Otherwise people would just set it to "Max Self/Outfit"

Is that a bad thing? Why wouldn't I do the thing which stood to benefit me if I didn't believe that spending those resources elsewhere would be of any net benefit?

What I'm saying is that if you made it a choice that had rewards either way, you could decide for yourself how much you were sending to the empire.

If vehicles require resources, I don't want to fund somebody gal bombing vpads for lulz. I'd rather put those resources into my own skill training or my own vehicles.

Additionally, if I am putting a higher percentage of resources into the empire, that should give me some enhancement within the structure of the empire.

[PsychoXR-20]

I really hope that they are not trade-able. Once any type of currency becomes trade-able it will start to attract the "gold" farmers. Now sure, in order to get resources you have to play, but I am willing to have 1000 less players on the battlefield if it means no "gold" spam.

As for how they are distributed, My first impression was that it was automated, and I think that's the way it should be.

[JanitOr KanOs]

I see it kind of working like the Warhammer Online zone flip awards. If you are in the PvP area, defending a keep, you get ticks of renown and XP every few minutes(also a large bonus when you capture said keep.) If you manage to flip the entire zone to your side's control, everyone in the zone, PvP or PvE, gets a large bonus to their XP and renown. The people who were actually in the thick of it fighting got more due to the kills they made as well as the defensive/offensive XP/renown ticks.

In PS2, everyone in the empire might get resource ticks over time, more or less depending on how much territory your empire controls. However, if you were at the actual battle for that base or resource node or what have you, then you and everyone in that battle will get a nice bonus for capturing or defending your objective. Also everyone on the continent might get a nice bonus if your empire takes complete control.

I dunno, that's just how I imagine it going.

[Soothsayer]

Once any type of currency becomes trade-able it will start to attract the "gold" farmers.

Instead we let the gold farmers dictate how games are made?

Hang em out to dry, no sweetheart subscription deals for that place that is synonymous with gold farming. You know the one...

I think that people should get a choice as to how much they want to contribute to their empire. I also think that the reward for contributing lots to your empire should be balanced with the benefits you would receive by using those resources for yourself.

[PsychoXR-20]

Instead we let the gold farmers dictate how games are made?

Hang em out to dry, no sweetheart subscription deals for that place that is synonymous with gold farming. You know the one...


I'd love to see a company with the balls to just come out and say that any ip in the general Asia area will not be able to access their game, but that will never happen.

[Soothsayer]

I was referring to cut rate subscription rates to boost global subscriber numbers.

EVE Online is making headway with ISK sellers, they have a team that does forensic accounting. By attacking both the supply and the demand they make the war on drugs look pathetic.

[Bags]

I was referring to cut rate subscription rates to boost global subscriber numbers.

EVE Online is making headway with ISK sellers, they have a team that does forensic accounting. By attacking both the supply and the demand they make the war on drugs look pathetic.

It's a lot easier to trace virtual black market inside your game... just saiyan.

[Alduron]

Has anyone seen anything saying ammo actually cost resources?

I'd hate to see a campaign canceled because the empire hasn't raised enough resources for bombs or tank shells...:-p

[Soothsayer]

Has anyone seen anything saying ammo actually cost resources?

I'd hate to see a campaign canceled because the empire hasn't raised enough resources for bombs or tank shells...:-p

Nah that was a joke... They have said that certain upgrades will require resources...

Some soldiers in the TR tried to unionize once... didn't work out so well for them...:)

[Rarntogo]

Global Agenda has or had a resource system for obtaining things used in outfit vs outfit battles. What a bunch of crap that was. Ya get recruited into an outfit and later realize that the outfit taxed you a percentage of your resources gained during battle. I saw outfits charging as high as 75%. These same resources are used for individual armor upgrades, accuracy buffs etc.. Not a bad system as far as sharing, trading, buying and selling etc... as a whole but the exploitation was lame to say the least. If you wanted to be in a top outfit you had to basically pay for it. I would hate to see something like that happen in PS.

[Soothsayer]

Excessive taxation can be avoided, you're free to join a different outfit.

The reason top GA agencies would need high taxes is because of the competitive nature of AvA and the occasionally rampant nepotism/favouritism.

Its a social unit which you can decide to stay with or leave.

I think that PS2's resource system will be even more integral to personal advancement and day to day decisions about whether you upgrade that prowler or not...

For that reason, I think its more important to have direct control over where you contribute your resources and the payoff that you get for doing so.

[EDIT: I would hope that SOE will include methods for using resources in such a way that they can potentially benefit all members of an outfit equally through the confirmed game mechanic of outfit specialization... Armour outfits will attract armour players, resources to be spent on improving armour functionality...]

[Sifer2]

This whole topic kind of casts doubt for me about whether its a good idea of have personal resources at all honestly. Seems like its going to be hard to organize your army to work together if the outfits are off chasing the plot of land that is going to give them the materials they are low on an ignoring you.

I hope they think about it carefully. I know they seem to be taking influence from Eve here. But they do very easily run the risk of killing any real sense of faction an working together an instead creating armies of privateers that only work together when they stand to both earn something out of it.

[nathanebht]

Global Agenda has or had a resource system for obtaining things used in outfit vs outfit battles. What a bunch of crap that was. Ya get recruited into an outfit and later realize that the outfit taxed you a percentage of your resources gained during battle. I saw outfits charging as high as 75%. These same resources are used for individual armor upgrades, accuracy buffs etc.. Not a bad system as far as sharing, trading, buying and selling etc... as a whole but the exploitation was lame to say the least. If you wanted to be in a top outfit you had to basically pay for it. I would hate to see something like that happen in PS.

Really hope PS2 is going to be completely different from that part of Global Agenda.

Too many unknowns about territory resources, gonna wait for the reveal.
:p

[Xaine]

As was said above, i'm fairly certain that when you gain 1x unit of whatever - a set amount will go to you, your outfit and your empire.

Anything else would seem abit strange.

The whole new meta-game of resources excites me a lot. Being able to starve X faction of using X tank or weapon but cutting off their resources seems like a much more interesting way to make war, ontop of the territory control. :)

[ShowNoMercy]

back hacking areas with vital resources will be the new gen hold. I'm looking forward to it personally. The economy in PS2 is needed since SOE is trying to make this huge. Having resources to worry about collecting is just another carrot in front you that you will keep grabbing at. People chasing after carrots don't un-sub.

[CutterJohn]

This whole topic kind of casts doubt for me about whether its a good idea of have personal resources at all honestly. Seems like its going to be hard to organize your army to work together if the outfits are off chasing the plot of land that is going to give them the materials they are low on an ignoring you.

Why not stop complaining about them not working with you, and you can go work with them? Or let them play how they want to since they are paying the same $15 as you. Who are you that you must be listened to? I'd ignore you too.

[Sifer2]

Why not stop complaining about them not working with you, and you can go work with them? Or let them play how they want to since they are paying the same $15 as you. Who are you that you must be listened to? I'd ignore you too.


But why would I work with them if I or my outfit needs a different resource right? An sure they can play how they want. Nice to know they will be eating our Empires population cap though an not really helping the push. Unless SOE are miracle workers this time an there are no caps then I really wont care.

[CutterJohn]

But why would I work with them if I or my outfit needs a different resource right?

I suppose your outfit will have to discuss things with their outfit. Maybe plan a bit. Conspire to do harm unto others. That sort of thing.

Nice to know they will be eating our Empires population cap though an not really helping the push.

Not the push. Your push. Big difference. They have their own push, and are complaining about you guys taking up the pop cap going after your idiot choice of targets.

Feeling resentful towards those players when you are completely disregarding their choices is just arrogance.

[LordReaver]

But they do very easily run the risk of killing any real sense of faction an working together an instead creating armies of privateers that only work together when they stand to both earn something out of it.

Well, the NC are a conglomeration of pirates, terrorist, rebels, and whatnot afterall. So that's right up our alley cannon wise. :lol:

[Soothsayer]

They'll be taxed by the empire regardless, so as long as they're capping territory there will be some net gain, plus by capping that land they're denying resources to the enemy.

I think that you've raised a point about personal vs empire use resources here. A common complaint in PS1 was about people not supporting tactically sound objectives. If you feel that the zerg is not working towards the right goal, being able to limit the amount of resources you send their way via the empire resource common pool would be like a vote of confidence for their actions.

If you feel that supporting the empire's resource pool will pay off tactically, then you can send more resources that way, if its just going to be squandered you can keep a bigger cut for yourself/your outfit.

[CutterJohn]

If you feel that the zerg is not working towards the right goal, being able to limit the amount of resources you send their way via the empire resource common pool would be like a vote of confidence for their actions.

Once again, the question becomes who decides who gets to control the restriction, and who the hell are they to have the arrogance to penalize others in a game, and if there is a disagreement, who gets to be the arbitrator?

If people think they should be listened too, they can put up their resources to reward those others for listening too them. Or talk to them and convince them of it.

[Soothsayer]

As far as I'm concerned, the work you've put in to securing resources should entitle to you decide (to an extent) the use of those resources.

I just had an idea which I believe would mitigate the problem of selfishness vs altruism. Say an empire is running short on a certain resource, Thorium for example.

The automatic mission generator puts out a message that says "The Terran Republic needs Thorium, if you accept this mission the next source of Thorium you capture will go directly to the empire pool. Once 1000 units of Thorium have been successfully harvested you will get a 25% bonus to XP for the next two hours while fighting on this continent."

Exact mission parameters are up for debate, but this would address shortages by rewarding people who are pitching in.

[Malorn]

With the new resource collection mechanics we know that resources harvested go towards the individual, outfit and empire.

I haven't heard about the ability to designate how much of any given resource goes to those three entities.

When I start, I'm going to want to get as much for myself as I can, since it was hinted that certain skills can be advanced through using certain resources. When I'm in an outfit, I want to be able to freely trade my personal resources to outfit mates, and I want that outfit to be able to distribute those resources based on performance/need.

Players and outfits should be able to set percentages, empires should probably always get a minimum amount but reward higher amounts.

Once I've got mine, I'd consider kicking a little more back to the empire... Ammo ain't free!

This loss of personal wealth should be recognized by the empire in the form of some sort of benefit that is internal to the empire.

Designating certain nights of the week (on an outfit basis) as high tax nights, whether the resources go to outfit or empire, would be a cool option. The mission system could be a resource transaction where territory can be capped on behalf of an outfit (of course working on behalf of the empire).

Resource collection pretty much implies economy and I want a robust system where the player determines his or her own contribution weighted by his or her own priorities.

Its really hard to say what the numbers are, but we do know they are awarded for holding, capturing, and defending. We know they are awarded over time, and we know that resources are split amongst the empire on the continent. So a low-pop empire gaining the same amount of resources with a high-pop will gain more resources. We know they can be stored-up by the player and spent as currency. They could have other factors like active conflict going on in the continent.

Both accrual and consumption are unknown at this time.

I have my suspicions that resource accural depends on the scale of the conflict (otherwise you could just sit on a continent you own and rake in territory, or fighting on a low-pop continent and ghost-hacking would be highly profitable).

Additionally I think there are 3 separate pools of resources that are generated when you gain resources.
1) Self - split amongst the participants on the continent, we know this much
2) Outfit - probably a proportion of the resources gained by the player..might be a tax-like mechanic that outfits can set.
3) Empire - the empire

It could be one resource amount that is divided. Example, Suppose 1000 resourcs are gained by a capture.

The empire's cut might be 500
The remainder is split among the 20 participants, with the outfit taking a 20% cut.
So result, if I had a 10 man squad among the participants all in the same outfit, then:
- Empire gains 500 resources
- Each player gains 20 resources
- Outfits gain 5 resources * number of players present


I suspect "empire" resources are shared amongst the players on the continent, which means that if I pull a tank it grabs those resources from the empire's pool. If the empire can't afford it I have the option to take it from my personal pool.

I also suspect that certain upgrades must come from the personal pool and not the empire's pool. Like if I pull an upgraded vanguard the resource cost of the vanguard might come from the empire's pool, but the upgrades might come from my pool.

I can see a system like that working out fairly well. If you can dump resources into skill learning that would also be interesting.

[Soothsayer]

It has been said that some kind of resource will go towards skilling up... This is why I want to be able to hold back some of my resources.

I'd like a system where I can assess the benefits of holding back resources vs giving them to the empire and act accordingly.

I want a fair cut to the people doing the work, I want a fair cut for my own advancement.

There's definitely benefit to restricted and public access pools for upgrades to weapons and vehicles vs base model weapons/veh.

If they are making the territory/resource system the main driver of content, there needs to be significant linkage between all the systems they have in place. This will be the core of the meta game.

[Malorn]

Without more details I don't see how we can really sort out whether we think there's an issue here. It could be implemented in many different ways, but I think overall its' got a lot of potential.

Spending resources on certs may not be permanent, but if it is then I see the conflict of interest between spending those resources on upgrades vs spending them on certs. Spending in on certs may also be a temporary thing, it might have a cooldown, or some other mechanic limiting its use. Point being it may not be a resource-dump.

Certs might help you in the long run, but not getting upgrades may impair your ability to conquer a territory which could mean you are at a net loss because you didn't use your best gear.

Lots of ways to look at it but we need more information.

[TRex]

My concern with resources is more to do with the general zerg mentality .

By that I wonder if theres any cap system on factions percentage and resulting balancing? In times past I've seen one side with 40/50% of global population , and if they are controlling the vast majority of the map and therefore resources it perpetuates the game twofold :

The side with lowest resources and population struggles to have enough to maintain its own advancement via certs etc . This results in the second :

Zergites leave the lower populated side and join the side with most resources to be able to advance their character .

This worries me even further since theres talk of maybe a ftp model /cash shop, and having tried a few myself my conclusion is that a zerg we will definately be having . If theres chance of getting extra points towards a pink fluffy bunny suit , they would kill their own granny to aquire it.

[Malorn]

This was brought up and they recognized that as a problem but also listed a few ways it might not be a problem.


Resources are continental-based right now. I gain resources from the continent I am on. If I don't have a foothold on the continent the TR are fighting on as much - maybe the TR and Vanu are really in a stalemate on one continent and my empire doesn't really have a foothold there - I can go to a continent where we do, fight there, gather resources, my team can sort of save our resources and then we can transition to that continent and be ready to really mount an offense over there.

Also the way we distribute resources will solve that problem (referring to small population vs large population). If you have less people there resources are going to be getting distributed in higher percentages to the fewer people that are there. Once we start seeing the real play patterns, the way that the game starts balancing out then we'll be making more decisions about how we keep things balanced.

There is a combination of static & dynamic spawns for resources, so that is a very simple and elegant way to solve that problem (referring to the problem of a low pop getting attacked by a high pop and not having a lot of territory for resources).


The executive producer also mentioned missions will help spread people out. There is a lot of things they can do here.

1) Distributed system means lower pop => each person gets larger portion of resources

2) Static & dynamic resources means if they see an empire is low on pop they could spawn some dynamic resources as a handicap to help compensate.

3) The mission system can help spread out the populations to begin with so it's not all one big zerg blob moving from continent to continent.

4) They could base resource amount on amount of conflict in the area, so that might discourage completely overwhelming the enemy as you won't get much of a fight and as a result, won't get much resources for the capture.


They have a lot of tools, and as T-Ray said in my sig...if it doesn't work they'll fix it. This specific problem is actually the context in which T-Ray said that statement.

[Forsaken One]

I think people are getting ahead of themselves when they talk about useing resource's for stuff like upgrades as if they would need to repay for it everytime they want to pull it.

Then again I highly hope they aren't stupid enough to pull that. I for one like to permanently earn things. If I wanted to pay for gun X everytime I used it I'd go play WoW. (and I don't play crap like WoW)

A small list of bullshit that should not be in the game.
#1. needing to pay to repair anything.
#2. needing to pay for ammo.
#3. upkeep on anything.
#4. needing to pay for a gun, vehicle, or upgrade more then once per-char.

[Malorn]

I think people are getting ahead of themselves when they talk about useing resource's for stuff like upgrades as if they would need to repay for it everytime they want to pull it.


They used denial of resources as an example several times. If you dont' consume resources when you pull vehicles and weapons and such then resource denial doesn't have much use. If you're thinking of the strategic resource concept from Civilization, if they took that route then abundance wouldn't be all that important...as long as you had one of a resource you're good. That doesn't motivate as much to go get more of it.

Also if you accumulate resources over time and you dont spend them on anything then you get resource inflation.

For the resource system to work well they need consumption of resources roughly as fast as they are coming in. If pulling a tank uses oil, for example, you'll want to make sure you have a lot of oil to fuel that war machine. And denying oil to your enemy is a fast way to cripple his tank production on the continent. You might also be able to cripple tank production by restricting access to steel or another base material, though that might be much more abundant.

[Forsaken One]

big post shortened.

There are MANY ways to use denial of resources without useing any of the bullshit from my "list of bullshit"

PS1 has many. base full shielding. door shielding, base turrets, pretty much any module from the caves. level of a base's turret, etc. all this and more can have to do with the "empire's resources" without giving a player the limit of "damn it, I want that and can't use it."

empire's resources should effect the main Empires stuff.

personal resources should be used for leveling up and upgrades that you keep forever once brought.

[Soothsayer]

I really agree with Malorn on this one Forsaken.

While I don't think cost should be restrictive, I didn't even consider one time payment for weapon upgrades... I had been assuming that with skill upgrades, yeah that would be a one time payment per skill level/cert.

But with weapon upgrades/vehicle upgrades I think that we would see far too much accumulation of resources if there were not a continual cost for these things.

Cost should not be too prohibitive, choosing to upgrade your 150mm should not be a decision to agonize over. Consideration should be made, but in the end I think it is better if you decide to upgrade more often than not.

This is at least my opinion if we are working with empire/outfit/personal resource accumulation and spending.

[CutterJohn]

A cost for upgraded items is good. Its something players can actually value, and the fact that losing those upgraded items means they have to spend more money will make people play safer with it.

If they want to just spam/zerg, they can always use the basic items for free.

[Forsaken One]

A cost for upgraded items is good. Its something players can actually value, and the fact that losing those upgraded items means they have to spend more money will make people play safer with it.

If they want to just spam/zerg, they can always use the basic items for free.

they can also just uninstall because they want to play a shooter not a RPG where you're forced to buy ammo.

I know I for one wouldn't even bother buying the game if things I earn I don't keep forever. there IS a reason why CoD, Battlefield, and even Planetside don't pull that shit, no one would want to bother with it.

[Malorn]

Consumable resources also means that you have supply/demand mechanics governing overall strategy and you encourage players to not be wasteful with their vehicles and with their weapons. This is a good mechanic and encourages us to be better players.

And to reiterate something Matt said very clearly in the opening announcement of Planetside 2:
The importance of resources can't be overstated. These resources are going to add so much to the way people play, and the way that your empire, the way that your outfit, and the way that you manage resources is really going to affect your success or failure on the battlefield.

This statement seems clear to me that poor management of resources and extravagant spending will leave you resource-starved while conservation of resources and using the right tools for the job and going after the right targets will mean you be more successful.

I just don't see the system having the impact they describe if they don't have a model requiring you to make careful decisions on how you spend those resources, and which resources you choose to go after.

I'm sure we'll always have some amount of tools to fight with, and as he said, it's continent-based and you can store resources so if you're in a bad situation on a continent it may be time to go to a different one and store up some resources and then come back.


Let me provide you with a Planetside 1 analogy to this mechanic.

In PS1 suppose you only owned a bio lab - no tech, no shields. If you wanted tech vehicles on that continent what would you do? Either capture a facility that gave that benefit, or you would go back to sanc or another continent and pull one there and bring it through.

The way they describe this system facility benefits are being replaced by a much more robust and granular resource system. So if you don't have Resource A, then you can't get a shield upgrade on your tank. If you don't have resource B then you can't pull a tank at all. What are your options? Pretty much the same as PS1 - you either go capture those resources or you go to another continent where you have those resources and get some of them and then come back.

The main difference here is that the resources for a tank isn't to go attack a tech plant - instead it might be some random wilderness territory. Alternately instead of going back to sanc/another continent you might be able to dive into your personal or outfit resources and pull a tank anyway. In that respect your personal resources sort of become like a reserve. If you manage that reserve well you can always get the things you want. If you manage it poorly then your success will suffer - just as Matt described.

This model is extremely flexible, and just becuase some thigns require resources doens't mean all resources do. It also allows them to extend resources into weapons and other equipment, not just a handful of vehicles. Just like Planetside there were vehicles you could always pull regardless of facility benefits, and I'm sure that will be true here (it doesn't make sense otherwise) where there is a core set of vehicles and weapons that do not require resources and will be sufficient to wage war at some level. Upgrades to those core vehicles and weapons require resources. In PS 2, owning and effectively managing resources allows you to be more effective and successful, just like owning more facility benefits in PS1.

The concept already existed, they're just taking it to the next level and making it far more flexible, dynamic, and adding a huge element of player skill both at a tactical level and at a meta-game level.

Being a meta-game fanatic I find this completely brilliant and utterly awesome.

[Forsaken One]

Let me provide you with a Planetside 1 analogy to this mechanic.

In PS1 suppose you only owned a bio lab - no tech, no shields. If you wanted tech vehicles on that continent what would you do? Either capture a facility that gave that benefit, or you would go back to sanc or another continent and pull one there and bring it through.


thats all well and fine. but if the game becomes.
Player A likes to have a reddot instead of iron sight. He has put the time and resource to get the upgrade once, but now the game tell's him to go fuck himself because he doesn't have the retarded rpg money crap to buy it again, even through he already earned the right to.
Rage as a shooter player is what would happen.

[Malorn]

You had the same situation in PS1. I certed vanguard. I can't pull one at the base I'm at because there's no tech.

Same thing.

[Forsaken One]

You had the same situation in PS1. I certed vanguard. I can't pull one at the base I'm at because there's no tech.

Same thing.

no, its not at all. being unable to pull something like a heavy tank or gal unless certain conditions are met is one thing.

when those conditions are met you should be able to spawn your fully upgraded with all bells and whistles van or gal that you already earned the right to use through certs and buying the rights once.

being forced to use a crapy piece of shit gun when you have fully earned the right to a upgraded version because of some money bullshit has NO place in shooters

[Malorn]

How is it different? I'm forced to use a piece of crap Lightning even though I am certed for a Vanguard if there's no tech available.

In PS1 if you wanted certain benefits and access to things you had to strategically secure them. I don't see anything wrong with extending this system to more than just a handful of vehicles.

And its not like you'll be forced to fight in your undies with a suppressor. We're talking the difference between a Gauss Rifle and a Gauss Rifle with a Red Dot Sight or expanded magazine or some such. You can also avoid dying. That would mean you need to re-buy less.

[Forsaken One]

How is it different? I'm forced to use a piece of crap Lightning even though I am certed for a Vanguard if there's no tech available.


Lighnting with all the bells and whistles.*** if you certed it. and as I try to point out. there is a BIG difference. Shooter players do not like dealing with money/etc bullshit. that's why shooter games that do have a "cap" that one can work for. once you hit this cap you can stop worrying about bullshit stuff like grinding. as you have access to everything.

Planetside had it, battlefield has it, CoD has it.

with rebuying bullshit there would be a forever grind, you'd never be able to reach the point where you can fully enjoy the game without really worry about "bullshit"

we are talking a BIG difference between RPG players and shooter players.

Edit: I feel the need to explain this better. MMORPGs are boring as shit. there-for a forever grind is needed to keep the game going and exciting. FPS games are backwards to this. Shooters are exciting to play and as such shooter players want to get the grind out of the way as soon as they can so they never have to deal with the bullshit again, understand?

[Malorn]

Yeah still not seeing what you're concerned about. You seem to just flat out dislike the idea of having limited resources and having to make decisions about what weaponry you use.

Personally the longer this conversation goes on the more I like the idea of denying you the resource that enables the red-dot-sight. Just imagine it - we discover that the VS can't shoot for shit using ironsights, so we go after the glowing red crystals required to upgrade them. Then they all start shooting as terribly as the drugged-up Somalians in Black Hawk Down.

Want 'em back? Fight for the crystals.

Seems quite awesome to me and adds tons of depth to the game.

Seriously though wait and see how it pans out. As T-Ray said, if it frustrates players they'll fix it in beta. No need to get all worked up about it when you're just speculating and assuming the worst. I'm sure your concern is good feedback for them though and they'll consider it and ensure you dont' see the drastic differences that you're fearing.

[Soothsayer]

I'm not trying to be cute or smarmy by saying this, but Counterstrike's system lacks one time purchases instead having resources (cash) which carries over from previous matches.

If there was to be some sort of one time purchase, I would want the cost of that one time upgrade to be staggeringly high, but with the potential for a pay off within something like several months later. That would be assuming that the upgrade is used pretty much every time you spawn with the class/weapon its associated with. That's a big if for me though, I don't know if its something I'd really actually want.

[Forsaken One]

Seems quite awesome to me and adds tons of depth to the game.


seems rage, uninstalls, unsubbing of shooter players to me while a few RPG players will stay for a while. My edit in the last post explains why.

as for getting worked up, I've been around gaming long enough to see MANY games turn into shit. When you've seen as many games as I have being turned into complete and utter shit before a game even leaves beta then you can tell me not to worry.

I now take a proactive approach to try to stop bullshit and stupidity before it can mess stuff up.

[CutterJohn]

Lighnting with all the bells and whistles.*** if you certed it. and as I try to point out. there is a BIG difference. Shooter players do not like dealing with money/etc bullshit. that's why shooter games that do have a "cap" that one can work for. once you hit this cap you can stop worrying about bullshit stuff like grinding. as you have access to everything.

Planetside had it, battlefield has it, CoD has it.

with rebuying bullshit there would be a forever grind, you'd never be able to reach the point where you can fully enjoy the game without really worry about "bullshit"

we are talking a BIG difference between RPG players and shooter players.

Edit: I feel the need to explain this better. MMORPGs are boring as shit. there-for a forever grind is needed to keep the game going and exciting. FPS games are backwards to this. Shooters are exciting to play and as such shooter players want to get the grind out of the way as soon as they can so they never have to deal with the bullshit again, understand?

Thats a mighty big brush you're painting with. I would be ecstatic if tomorrow they announced that battle ranks and cert training times are going away, and I quite like the idea that you'll have to manage your resources, as well as the fact that it gives something to fight over specific areas of land for.

Btw, counterstrike has buying stuff. I've heard thats fairly popular.

[Forsaken One]

Btw, counterstrike has buying stuff. I've heard thats fairly popular.

all you ever do is run around with a Deagle or sniper anyway. you could make everything free and it would still be Deagle or sniper.

People talk about modernizing Planetside. The fact is that crap for Shooters is the past as no one wanted to deal with it in the first place.

take Brink, by Splash Damage. sure they could have done better with the game but they understood. No shooter players want to have to reearn or rebuy shit

These are the people who made Enemy Territory and ET:Quake Wars. They understood people liked XP save Servers purely to end that crap and so built it right into Brink.

[Malorn]

No shooter players want to have to reearn or rebuy shit

While you may have issue there's no need to invoke a silent majority to make your case. As mentioned before counter-strike is an obvious example that counteracts that statement. I also like the concept, and I'm a shooter player.

Even Unreal Tournament had some form of this mechanic with having certain weapons on spawn rates, so not everyoen can run around with a flak cannon, but if you dominated the area where it spawned then yeah you could have a flak cannon. Sometimes you had to make do with less-ideal weapons but that's no bideal.

Its the same sort of thing. Lots of people like and play UT, and Counter-Strike is a revolutionary game that was and still is extremely popular. CS:Source is still in the top 20 sellers on Steam even now.

[Forsaken One]

stuff

So you only talk about the one point that yet still doesn't help your case even through I proved your CS point was pretty much BS?

As I see it, noting 2 REALLY old twitchtard games that have little-nothing to do with teamwork games or any modern game worth a shit I really don't see why you are talking about them.

again. there is a reason Planetside, Battlefield, Cod, Even Brink (noting a modernized game based off the fact the rebuying crap annoyed players in the older versions.) have the "caps" where they will no longer have to deal with it.

the only thing such grinding would bring to the game is assholes getting a hard on from not letting other players play how they want and decent players getting frustrated over not being able to play how and with what they want on a grand scale.


If there was to be some sort of one time purchase, I would want the cost of that one time upgrade to be staggeringly high, but with the potential for a pay off within something like several months later. That would be assuming that the upgrade is used pretty much every time you spawn with the class/weapon its associated with. That's a big if for me though, I don't know if its something I'd really actually want.

I do however support the ability to buy a one spawn "cheap trial" version of a upgrade to test if you'd like it. but it shouldn't be thought of the main way of getting it. maybe just a week/month of play to make it worth getting over just spamming the trial version.

[Malorn]

I can see this isn't going to have any further productivity.

I agree to disagree.

[exLupo]

thats all well and fine. but if the game becomes.
Player A likes to have a reddot instead of iron sight. He has put the time and resource to get the upgrade once, but now the game tell's him to go fuck himself because he doesn't have the retarded rpg money crap to buy it again, even through he already earned the right to.

Smed's said PS2 isn't going to be BF. He loves BF but this isn't that. It's clear that you haven't played EVE and are still attached to the normal, natural, human aversion to loss. Play a game that punishes failure with loss and suddenly your entire perspective on engagements changes.

The biggest downside is that you cut into your mass market appeal but if PS2 lets anyone pull basic weapons essentially for free, then zerglings can run into walls of bullets as long as their little hearts desire.

The upsides are manifold. It provides more sinks for in-game resources which, in turn, makes those resources have tangible value. Also, that same natural fear of loss forces people to be more thoughtful which elevates tactics and engagement control over who can bunnyhop the best. And lastly, it scares the living hell out of screaming children who have yet to learn to handle consequence and, I may be hoping against hope, keep them from subscribing.

It's the EVE pilot in me but I prefer playing games in which intel and planning has real benefits, where economic damage is a potent weapon and that create an atmosphere that keeps the XBOX community far, far away.

[Forsaken One]

Smed's said PS2 isn't going to be BF. He loves BF but this isn't that. It's clear that you haven't played EVE and are still attached to the normal, natural, human aversion to loss. Play a game that punishes failure with loss and suddenly your entire perspective on engagements changes.


Planetside also doesn't have that crap. and no, I hate RPGs even more so mmo ones so why would I ever play EVE?

the only perspective that would change would be. "this is not a real shooter, this is some RPG bullshit just without the tab alting/lock on." there for what would happen is players like me would uninstall, while the 10 year old's who enjoy RPG crap have their mommys sub because their ADD makes them not notice the retarded grind and how stupid it is.

Money does not belong in shooters. I have already made many points as to why.

here is a list of shooters with money.
Tabula Rose
Face of mankind
All points bulletin

all 3 died. 2 were resurrected as F2P. Face of mankind was only resurrected as F2P to stop the private server running the game do to the "owner of the rights" no longer supporting it.

only the kiddies will like money as it will give them E-pen. then the game will die after the kiddies had there fun and leave.


Edit: I feel like I need to remind people that upgrades DO NOT=more power. the dev.s have stated somewhere that upgrades are meant to fit things to players playstyle and as such you TRADE SOMEPOWER for the upgrade. Here is an example. You love driving a Main Battle Tank. but you want one with a flak cannon. Ok then. you can upgrade to trade your top anti infantry gun for a flak cannon. You trade power Vs infantry for power Vs sky.

upgrades are meant to personalize your stuff. NOT make it more powerful.

[Vancha]

So you only talk about the one point that yet still doesn't help your case even through I proved your CS point was pretty much BS?

Your rebuttal didn't change the fact that CS is a good example of a working money system in a shooter (no, people don't only use deagles and snipers). Yes, half the guns were pointless to buy, but there was a definite upgrade sequence as far as USP/Glock > Deagle/Mac10/TMP > MP5/Pump-action > AK/M4/Scout > AWP...and that's not including the decisions to pass up a better gun for armour/grenades.

I don't want to see money in Planetside either, but his point stands. Also, I love the way the person who wants the least amount of RPG elements in Planetside accused you of being unfair to RPGs. That might be a sign of something.

[exLupo]

Well Forsaken, it sounds like PS2 is probably not the game for you. As Smed has gone on record about using resources to purchase add-ons, you're pretty much out of luck. PS1 is still here for your enjoyment as are many, many other fine FPS games that don't have robust and viable economic systems.

Money does not belong in shooters. I have already made many points as to why.

here is a list of shooters with money.
Tabula Rose
Face of mankind
All points bulletin
[/COLOR]

While I can't comment on FoM, I do know about APB's stumble and have intimate knowledge of the death of Tabula Rasa. APB was a jab at a new market and marketing style. Combine that with problems with Realtime Worlds itself and the game was set on a rocky course. APB closed because it's producer closed, not because the producer closed it. It's akin to SWG being shut down because SOE closed its doors instead of how things are happening now, a conscious choice by the producer.

Tabula Rasa, on the other hand, was a catastrophe years in the making. First and foremost, it was designed as a strange music/fantasy hybrid RPG. Eventually, under backer pressure for a more genre-friendly game, it was reforged into a fairly generic sci-fantasy shooter. The problem with this was that they had to recreate every bit of content from scratch. In the months before the game launched, the only content past mid-game was the physical world. Nothing else was finished. Plot, character trees, powers and even weapon types were, at best 50% complete. The game launched without the top third of its levels having any content and at least two classes had no progression past mid levels. The top end literally did not exist. Tabula Rasa died because it was launched in a horribly unfinished manner. And, on top of everything else you say...

"...has put the time and resource to get the upgrade once, but now the game tell's him to go fuck himself because he doesn't have the retarded rpg money crap to buy it again, even through he already earned the right to."

This was something that TR did not require of the player. There was no weapon damage or loss system, just upgrades and varying elemental types. In all honesty, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the system planned for PS2.

I really should ignore your posts but I can't resist this nagging urge to do everything in my power to stop the spread of misinformation be it from lies or, in your case, simple ignorance.

[Forsaken One]

"...has put the time and resource to get the upgrade once, but now the game tell's him to go fuck himself because he doesn't have the retarded rpg money crap to buy it again, even through he already earned the right to."

This was something that TR did not require of the player. There was no weapon damage or loss system, just upgrades and varying elemental types. In all honesty, it bears absolutely no resemblance to the system planned for PS2.


Cost's of ammo.
Cost's of repairs.

to me the fact that you don't remember that voided pretty much everything you said in that post.

Hell I remember when ammo costs were so bullshit it was much more cost effective just to run up to enemy's and bash them with the weapon.While the weapon would go into disrepair faster it saved a lot of money on ammo.

[exLupo]

Cost's of ammo.
Cost's of repairs.

to me the fact that you don't remember that voided pretty much everything you said in that post.

I quoted your complaint about upgrades and having to purchase it again and that's all I was talking about. Please don't troll.

[Forsaken One]

I quoted your complaint about upgrades and having to purchase it again and that's all I was talking about. Please don't troll.

please note that ammo and/or repair costs would still fall under "paying for it more then once and keeping it forever."

I'm not the one trolling.

[Hamma]

Forsaken One,

As soon as you have a valid argument to make please post again, otherwise stop posting. You are simply saying stuff doesn't belong in the game because YOU don't think it does. With no real facts other than "because gamers don't want it" how do you figure? I know I want it.

PlanetSide 2 is working to break the mold of what a traditional FPS and even an MMOFPS is. If you want to compete on the LONG TERM the things they are talking about are pretty much required. A MMO based on basic shooter concepts is not going to work in the long term, look at how often they release new BF games.

And APB failed because it was a horribly mismanaged game with horrible balance.

Also, never say deagle again.. it's Desert Eagle. :lol:

[Tool]

Forsaken One,

As soon as you have a valid argument to make please post again, otherwise stop posting. You are simply saying stuff doesn't belong in the game because YOU don't think it does. With no real facts other than "because gamers don't want it" how do you figure? I know I want it.

PlanetSide 2 is working to break the mold of what a traditional FPS and even an MMOFPS is. If you want to compete on the LONG TERM the things they are talking about are pretty much required. A MMO based on basic shooter concepts is not going to work in the long term, look at how often they release new BF games.

And APB failed because it was a horribly mismanaged game with horrible balance.

Also, never say deagle again.. it's Desert Eagle. :lol:

Hamma-Slammed


A few people here share that same mentality of presenting personal opinion as factual information with obvious bias. Although usually without repeated insults and generalizations.

[Forsaken One]

Forsaken One,

As soon as you have a valid argument to make please post again, otherwise stop posting. You are simply saying stuff doesn't belong in the game because YOU don't think it does. With no real facts other than "because gamers don't want it" how do you figure? I know I want it.


small list of facts.

There are MANY ways to use denial of resources without useing any of the bullshit from my "list of bullshit"

PS1 has many. base full shielding. door shielding, base turrets, pretty much any module from the caves. level of a base's turret, etc. all this and more can have to do with the "empire's resources" without giving a player the limit of "damn it, I want that and can't use it."


fact


we are talking a BIG difference between RPG players and shooter players.

Edit: I feel the need to explain this better. MMORPGs are boring as shit. there-for a forever grind is needed to keep the game going and exciting. FPS games are backwards to this. Shooters are exciting to play and as such shooter players want to get the grind out of the way as soon as they can so they never have to deal with the bullshit again, understand?

pretty much fact to an extent as thats why shooters have all but gotten rid of permagrind. CoD does give people who would enjoy it a choice through, but that choice won't effect others.


People talk about modernizing Planetside. The fact is that crap for Shooters is the past as no one wanted to deal with it in the first place.

take Brink, by Splash Damage. sure they could have done better with the game but they understood. No shooter players want to have to reearn or rebuy shit

These are the people who made Enemy Territory and ET:Quake Wars. They understood people liked XP save Servers purely to end that crap and so built it right into Brink.

Fact. while the term "no one" may have been a little pushing it MANY don't. I'll happyly support a "CoD grind restart" button for those that want it.


again. there is a reason Planetside, Battlefield, Cod, Even Brink (noting a modernized game based off the fact the rebuying crap annoyed players in the older versions.) have the "caps" where they will no longer have to deal with it.

the only thing such grinding would bring to the game is assholes getting a hard on from not letting other players play how they want and decent players getting frustrated over not being able to play how and with what they want on a grand scale.



Fact. through I'm useing the term assholes and "people who enjoy causing grief for others" interchangeably



Money does not belong in shooters. I have already made many points as to why.

here is a list of shooters with money.
Tabula Rose
Face of mankind
All points bulletin

all 3 died. 2 were resurrected as F2P. Face of mankind was only resurrected as F2P to stop the private server running the game do to the "owner of the rights" no longer supporting it.

Edit: I feel like I need to remind people that upgrades DO NOT=more power. the dev.s have stated somewhere that upgrades are meant to fit things to players playstyle and as such you TRADE SOMEPOWER for the upgrade. Here is an example. You love driving a Main Battle Tank. but you want one with a flak cannon. Ok then. you can upgrade to trade your top anti infantry gun for a flak cannon. You trade power Vs infantry for power Vs sky.

upgrades are meant to personalize your stuff. NOT make it more powerful.

Fact.



And APB failed because it was a horribly mismanaged game with horrible balance.


The game wanted CS style balance. That's why the smgs were nerfed hard and the sniper like gun was overpowered. CS style balance talk falls under a different thread so I'll drop that here.

-----------

I'll add one more fact. 3 "mmoshooters" used money. 3 "mmoshooters" died. Yet Planetside which did not use money lived. there is a reason for that.

[Tool]

Wow, you're so far along on crazy train to think starting a sentance with "I feel" could be regarded as fact.

Sharing ideas is one thing but you obviously don't belong on a forum for discussion.

[Vancha]

I'll add one more fact. 3 "mmoshooters" used money. 3 "mmoshooters" died. Yet Planetside which did not use money lived. there is a reason for that.
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

[Hamma]

Always good to argue with the admin. :lol:

This thread has run it's course.