New TotalBiscuit Video on IMPLANTS

[MacTruckuLes]

video posted on TB's twitter

Planetside 2 - Implants - YouTube

[Greeniegriz]

Nice thanks

Cheers.

Sent from Auraxis using Tapatalk HD

[IgloGlass]

It was nice knowing that implants will only last for 24 hours, not too long, not too short. Of course it would also be nice having them on at all times but this makes it easier for new players. Makes everyone more equal.

Planetside 2. Not Pay to Win, not Pay to Play and not Play to Win either :groovy:

[lMABl]

Huh, wasn't expecting this. Nice!

[Solidblock]

Nice one mate

[MacTruckuLes]

alot of these implants remind me of COD and tribes:Acesend perks.

[Broadside]

looks cool, thanks.

[Sifer2]

I actually don't like the 24 hour thing. Especially considering how weak they are. Probably wont bother with them unless there is nothing else to spend Auraxium on. PS1 implants were a lot cooler.

[duomaxwl]

I'd prolly get the faster reload considering I suffer from Reloadititis.

[LZachariah]

Given this demonstration, I'm confident that they will make the implants stronger during beta, or no one will EVER buy them. Level 3 is barely noticeable. It's ok; beta will bring good changes :-)

[Bocheezu]

Are the boosters going to last 24 hours as well? TB didn't mention them in the video. I'm sure the boosters will be cost effective and not overly costly with a wimpy duration, but I hope they're at least monthly. Something like an XP boost would be equivalent to a monthly fee, $15 a month or so.

[maddoggg]

Nice.
I really like the fact the implants give you just slight advantage that doesnt make a dramatic difference in combat.
I only think it would be better if they make it so you can buy implants permanently.
The problem with them lasting for only 24 hours,is that people who would play the game every day for 4+ hours and maybe even get boosters will be able to get them no problem,but people who play occasionaly or play actively for a week and than stop for a week,will strugle with the implants.

Beeing able to buy 1-2 implants should be accessable for anyone.
This way players will be at equal footing since the implants would simply be trade offs compared to each other.

[Canaris]

I'd prolly get the faster reload considering I suffer from Reloadititis.

a full magazine is a happy magazine! :D

[Tuoweit]

I actually don't like the 24 hour thing. Especially considering how weak they are. Probably wont bother with them unless there is nothing else to spend Auraxium on. PS1 implants were a lot cooler.

The vehicle timer ones seemed relatively cheap (25 each, 50 for the combos), while the advanced infantry ones are the expensive ones (200 for the level 3 stuff). If you want to play as a dedicated infantry guy, you aren't going to be spending a lot of your resources on vehicles, so this does give you something to spend them on to improve that particular playstyle. Very nice!

As to being weak, sure they're not Personal Shield or Second Wind, but in a fast-paced shooter that split second faster reload time or weapon swapping can make a difference.

[berzerkerking]

Informative

[LZachariah]

The vehicle timer ones seemed relatively cheap (25 each, 50 for the combos), while the advanced infantry ones are the expensive ones (200 for the level 3 stuff). If you want to play as a dedicated infantry guy, you aren't going to be spending a lot of your resources on vehicles, so this does give you something to spend them on to improve that particular playstyle. Very nice!

As to being weak, sure they're not Personal Shield or Second Wind, but in a fast-paced shooter that split second faster reload time or weapon swapping can make a difference.

Basically, in terms of their weakness, I think in this present FPS environment, we are (and other players will also be) expecting Perks. However, in this game, they're perks you need to buy. Perks generally change the magnitude of the effect by a very noticeable (but not game-breaking) amount. They'll be tweaked in beta, I think, even if the Level 3 needs to be made more expensive, etc.


~Zachariah

[Blackwolf]

With just 3 implant slots I see no reason to not have those implants as permanent. If they made a larger variety and slightly better effects (so that they are actually worth something) then people would be buying implants every time they wanted to swap them.

I guess what I'm suggesting is no implants in your pocket. You go to the terminal and buy (and immediately slot) the implants you want, the ones you had go away and if you want them back you have to buy them back.

Or what about a "daily fee"? They are implants, they shouldn't just burn out like that. I'd rather buy them and pay a daily fee of in-game cash for them then to constantly re-slot them. Again assuming that the things are made more effective.

[LZachariah]

Higby said that Implants were "an important drain on our resource economy," so it seems like the way the game is balanced would make it important that you have to re-purchase them. I'm not particularly aversed to this, but they NEED to be worth it.

~Zachariah

[JesNC]

I like the way they're going with the implants. They seem convenient, but not a neccessity - apart from the specialist ones. We'll see.

I also like that we got a better glimpse of the CoF/recoil system in this video. The pistol in the vid seems to have a sizeable recoil in comparison to the rifle/carbine we were shown.

[thegreekboy]

I really like how these are done. The second I saw "faster reload" I had a sleight of hand flashback, then watched a bit more and wiped the sweat off of my forehead

[Comet]

Do these last 24 hours real time or 24 hours of actual play time?

[Tuoweit]

Basically, in terms of their weakness, I think in this present FPS environment, we are (and other players will also be) expecting Perks. However, in this game, they're perks you need to buy. Perks generally change the magnitude of the effect by a very noticeable (but not game-breaking) amount. They'll be tweaked in beta, I think, even if the Level 3 needs to be made more expensive, etc.


I think by making the implants' impact relatively small, the developers are keeping the playing field at least somewhat level between those with and those without (for whatever reason, be they new players, resources focused elsewhere, or - most especially - part of a faction way down in territory), which encourages playing the game as opposed to grinding the game.

[SixShooter]

Do these last 24 hours real time or 24 hours of actual play time?

That would be m question as well. I would hope that it would be 24 hours of in game time otherwise it's not going to very cost effective for a lot of people.

[MacTruckuLes]

Do these last 24 hours real time or 24 hours of actual play time?

i havent heard it mentioned, but i would hope it was 24 hours real time, but only counts when your in game.

[Timealude]

so far no darklight...thank god

[MacTruckuLes]

i though it was mentioned that Darklight will be returning as an implant?

[Attackmack]

Yukk, i dont like this at all.

I prefer the "old" style where implants gave you an abillity of some sort, not just these typical FPS perks.
And whats the use of having 3 different levels of each perk when their effect is so small anyway?

And i especislly dont like the different vehicle specialist perks letting you aquire certain vehicles both with less cooldown and on ALL bases. Takes away the reason to focus attention on certain bases since they are all equally worthless it seems.

I dont like where this is heading...

[Blackwolf]

I'd still rather see permanent implants. Like I said, charge a daily fee for their use. Make all 3 slots available from BR1, and treat them like sidegrades for soldiers rather then something that's kind of but not really special. Or make them more expensive, provide a wider variety, and only charge for re-slotting implants.

If implants are made viable (and right now the specialists are the only viable things there), then replacing them every 24 hours is going to be a hassle. Personally I'd rather not have to deal with checking to make sure all 3 implants are still functioning.

[Nathaniak]

Maybe have an 'auto-renew' toggle for the implants, so that you don't have to worry about checking that they're still active. If it's 24h real-time though, it would have to only do it when you're online - i.e. if the time runs out when you're online, it automatically buys a new implant. If it runs out when you're offline, it buys a new one only when you next log on.

[MrBloodworth]

Will the 24 hours tick-down when only online? or will it tick down while offline?

[Warruz]

I like how they are minor upgrades.

[Tsunami]

Planetside 2 - Implants - YouTube!

[LZachariah]

Yes, but the Level 1 upgrades should be like that; a "just noticeable difference" (JND). Level 3s should be at the magnitude of a standard FPS perk (easily noticeable).

~Zachariah

[Lord Paladin]

Remember, they don't want the difference in power or effectiveness between a 5 minute player and a 5 year player to be large. They want the difference to be in skill. These are to give you an edge, and to maybe help define your play-style, but not to give you a straight up advantage.

[Warruz]

Yes, but the Level 1 upgrades should be like that; a "just noticeable difference" (JND). Level 3s should be at the magnitude of a standard FPS perk (easily noticeable).

~Zachariah

I disagree otherwise you get into a situation with those who win have an easier time to continue winning.

[LZachariah]

*nod* It's definitely good that we're having a discussion; I don't feel too strongly either way, and I hear your disagreement. For me, the reason that balance isn't threatened by Implants being more powerful is because they cost regular amounts of resources. Those resources could otherwise be used to unlock new weapons or attachments. So if you choose to spend resources on Implants, you're denying yourself something else. Basically, you're offered the choice to focus on tools (ie- unlocks) or abilities (ie- implants), or trying to divide yourself between the two. I think that this could work out just fine. The FPS world is used to perks being a reasonable boost of ability.

~Zachariah

[Firearms]

I thought a top level would give you 20% - So if a reload is noticeable at 20%....

[LZachariah]

That's for unlocks and sidegrades. Higby has said that Implants cost resources BECAUSE they are a straight-up power increase.

[Ruffdog]

This is just the info I wanted. Thanks.
Will be interested in the XP booster implant. With a job, wife and 2 kids I will probably be forking out SC for this.


Also check out that carbine weapon sound :cool:

[Syphus]

Even if we assume there won't be any more implants coming or any changes, it's still rather important to know how fast you get Auraxim.

[Lord Paladin]

*nod* It's definitely good that we're having a discussion; I don't feel too strongly either way, and I hear your disagreement. For me, the reason that balance isn't threatened by Implants being more powerful is because they cost regular amounts of resources. Those resources could otherwise be used to unlock new weapons or attachments. So if you choose to spend resources on Implants, you're denying yourself something else. Basically, you're offered the choice to focus on tools (ie- unlocks) or abilities (ie- implants), or trying to divide yourself between the two. I think that this could work out just fine. The FPS world is used to perks being a reasonable boost of ability.

~Zachariah

Except, as mentioned, this means that the winners get more powerful, and the losers stay disadvantaged.

These should not be seen as a purchasable advantage, that gives an advantage to the side that can afford more.

They should be an edge, which I would define as a play style choice which may or may not come up during the coarse of combat. If it does, then in that situation, you have a better chance at coming out on top, not a guarantee. e.g. someone playing smart could still beat you due to skill.

[LZachariah]

I definitely agree, and if we're conceptualizing them at the same benefit-level as Perks (ie- as in MW), a MW player without Perks (which basically never happens) could definitely beat a player with Perks. It doesn't make a huge difference; it's not as if one player has a primary weapon and the other player only has a sidearm.

[Tuoweit]

*nod* It's definitely good that we're having a discussion; I don't feel too strongly either way, and I hear your disagreement. For me, the reason that balance isn't threatened by Implants being more powerful is because they cost regular amounts of resources. Those resources could otherwise be used to unlock new weapons or attachments.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand this is incorrect.

Resources, which are gained through faction performance (i.e. holding territory) are used to buy vehicles and equipment, which tend to be direct power upgrades. Long-time players can have poor resource income due to poor faction performance.

Unlocks/Certs are via xp, which I gather is gained mostly through individual performance (and presumably also territory captures/defenses, if you are participating), and are permanent (no recurring costs).

[Harasus]

Interesting. It looks fine, and there is no +20% damage boost or some other shit, which is also nice. I can be a bit sceptic, but I see few problems with this right now.

[LZachariah]

I could be wrong, but from what I understand this is incorrect.

Resources, which are gained through faction performance (i.e. holding territory) are used to buy vehicles and equipment, which tend to be direct power upgrades. Long-time players can have poor resource income due to poor faction performance.

Unlocks/Certs are via xp, which I gather is gained mostly through individual performance (and presumably also territory captures/defenses, if you are participating), and are permanent (no recurring costs).

I believe that unlocks and new items are purchased with Auraxium. Exp only progresses you to the next Battle Rank (and gives you Cert Points).

[sameer]

Im not gonna bother if it stays a 24 hour thing. I want permanent.

[LZachariah]

Im not gonna bother if it stays a 24 hour thing. I want permanent.

I think with the present iteration of the Implants, most people will not bother. And therefore, I think it will get reworked. Beta will bring good things :-)

~Zachariah

[Nemises]

looks good...
Depending on how expensive 25 Ax is, this could be good....
if 25 Ax is an easy 15 mins play (for eg), then this is good...it gives the player some Micro to do , and removes Ax from the economy (which is important, else hyper inflation)...

If 25 Ax is expensive then (say, an hour of good play), then I hope the boost is game time not real time

I expect it is option 1 though (cheap / realtime) , which I'm ok with....

Is a bit like Darklight retribution gun rental...cheap, and only slight boost..but enough to customize yourself, and give you a bit of Micro to do between spawns..

two thumbs up

[Tuoweit]

I believe that unlocks and new items are purchased with Auraxium. Exp only progresses you to the next Battle Rank (and gives you Cert Points).

Ah my bad, I thought unlocks and certs were the same thing. In that case, I have absolutely zero information on unlocks :)

[Lord Paladin]

I believe that unlocks and new items are purchased with Auraxium. Exp only progresses you to the next Battle Rank (and gives you Cert Points).

Among other things. Auraxium is only one of the resource types.


Back to our previous points, what would you consider good and bad examples from MW? Cause I have a lot of friends that play it, and the perks are pretty ridiculous.

[Blackwolf]

I just feel that as it stands, the benefit is almost non-existent and the potential for cost is high. Implants (unless you drive a vehicle) are going to be all but worthless. And personally, I'm not fond of cash sinks that are designed to be repetitive.

To be honest, you wouldn't need them if you didn't have Auraxium to begin with. Vehicle resources are just fine, Auraxium kinda feels like a weak add-on that won't go very far.

[Harasus]

Im not gonna bother if it stays a 24 hour thing. I want permanent.

If you want it permanent, prepare for a daily 50/100/200 Ax cost. ;) Hey, that could be an idea. You could ask the game to automatically rebuy implants and shit after they run out.

[Blackwolf]

At this point, why bother merging?

[Harasus]

Surrender your arms immediately and follow these gentlemen in black costumes for interrogation.

Well that merge made no sense..

[Kalledorn]

I take it that implants cannot be stacked? Say like 3 reflex implants at 1 time for 24 hrs?

[Envenom]

I'd prefer something like 72 hours, but then again, until we've all tried it who knows

[SFJake]

Was flabbergasted when he said there was a resource booster.

Really?

Complete P2W there, no? Plus the durations of anything, if real time, can turn out to be quite kick in the nuts for players who don't play enough. You buy them for 30 minutes instead of hours and you end up out of Auraxium because you don't make up for it. While someone who just has more free time in one day doesn't have that problem.

I know we don't have more details but these are my worries as of this video.

EDIT: Furthermore, what is the purpose of that -anyway-? Apparently that same resource is used for unlocks. Really? So I guess I'll have to just keep it for everything else until I have everything in 2-3 years? Are we punishing unlock speed just by having implants?

I mean, tell me i got it wrong. Tell me I'm missing something there.

[Scotsh]

Was flabbergasted when he said there was a resource booster.

Really?

Complete P2W there, no?

No. :doh:

[AshOck]

Bring back surge and audio amp :(

[LastManStanding]

I'm not that into having these implants for just a day. It Reminds me of Blacklight Retribution which has 24hr rentals and it's annoying to have to keep track of it all the time.

I'd rather it was for a week at least than have to keep going back and renting it again every time I play.

[Lord Paladin]

I'm not that into having these implants for just a day. It Reminds me of Blacklight Retribution which has 24hr rentals and it's annoying to have to keep track of it all the time.

I'd rather it was for a week at least than have to keep going back and renting it again every time I play.

If it's in game time. That's a LOT of time.

If it's real time, then you just buy them when you get on the first time the next day.

This is the type of thing that the devs have said they're looking for feedback from the beta testers. I'm sure it'll be streamlined one way or another.

EDIT: in this way, I'd say it's better if it's in game time. Drop it down to 4/8/12 hours of GAME time and you're good to go. 4 hours is a decent sitting for a day, but if you play a lot and it annoys you, you can get the 12 hour and only have to mess with it every couple days.

[Monkey]

They look like floppy disks lol.

[Timealude]

Was flabbergasted when he said there was a resource booster.

Really?

Complete P2W there, no? Plus the durations of anything, if real time, can turn out to be quite kick in the nuts for players who don't play enough. You buy them for 30 minutes instead of hours and you end up out of Auraxium because you don't make up for it. While someone who just has more free time in one day doesn't have that problem.

I know we don't have more details but these are my worries as of this video.

EDIT: Furthermore, what is the purpose of that -anyway-? Apparently that same resource is used for unlocks. Really? So I guess I'll have to just keep it for everything else until I have everything in 2-3 years? Are we punishing unlock speed just by having implants?

I mean, tell me i got it wrong. Tell me I'm missing something there.
i dont see how its p2w where resource gain all depends on if your empire is good or not. that would be a player problem. it also doesnt seem like they will give you an advantage at all since cert are earned through playing and theres no implant to boost that as far as we know. and to your other point, they said they would be rolling out enough content to where its almost impossible to get everything unlocked.

[SixShooter]

I know I'm going to get eaten up for this :cry: but I'm going to say it anyway...

In MW3 there were a few ways that you could (and still can) get double XP. It would last for a set amount of in-game time and you could always see how much time you had left.

This would be preferable to buying something that's going to last 24 hours in real time because you actually get to use it for 24 hours. There are days where I will probably only get to play 2-3 hours at the most and it would suck to only get to use something for 2-3 hours when I spent the resouces for 24 hours of access. To balance it out, either the time frame can be lowered or the cost can be increased.

There are other games that sell you stuff for 24 hours that go the real time route and I just don't like it and don't make those purchases.

Now that I've said it, let the flaming ensue...:p

[Tuoweit]

They look like floppy disks lol.

Just don't ask for technical details on how they're implanted...

[Monkey]

Just don't ask for technical details on how they're implanted...

Does it involve lubrication...

[SFJake]

i dont see how its p2w where resource gain all depends on if your empire is good or not. that would be a player problem. it also doesnt seem like they will give you an advantage at all since cert are earned through playing and theres no implant to boost that as far as we know. and to your other point, they said they would be rolling out enough content to where its almost impossible to get everything unlocked.

2 empire have equal control.

1 has more people buying resource boost.

That empire has more resources.

Unless resources are pointless, thats what we call pay to win. You pay, and you have an advantage. Period.


You missed my 2nd point. Having to sacrifice getting more unlocks just to keep up in power with other players is dumb. I shouldn't have to suddenly play more to unlock something just because I want a fair fight, especially with how much there's already going to be.

[Syphus]

2 empire have equal control.

1 has more people buying resource boost.

That empire has more resources.

Unless resources are pointless, thats what we call pay to win. You pay, and you have an advantage. Period.


You missed my 2nd point. Having to sacrifice getting more unlocks just to keep up in power with other players is dumb. I shouldn't have to suddenly play more to unlock something just because I want a fair fight, especially with how much there's already going to be.

They have more resources in a pool, which does not matter all that much as the limiting factor is people and whatever they can shoot. Nor does it lower timers, so if you ignore the other implants, if someone keeps losing vehicles, they can have all the resources they want, however you still can't make 15 minutes go any faster.

However, in reality, one side will always have more in their resource pool, which makes it highly unlikely the pool will matter that much.

[Lord Paladin]

2 empire have equal control.

1 has more people buying resource boost.

That empire has more resources.

Unless resources are pointless, thats what we call pay to win. You pay, and you have an advantage. Period.


You missed my 2nd point. Having to sacrifice getting more unlocks just to keep up in power with other players is dumb. I shouldn't have to suddenly play more to unlock something just because I want a fair fight, especially with how much there's already going to be.

Higby has already said his definition of buying power means when you're in a fight with another character you have an advantage in killing them because you spent money. Things like XP boosters or resource boosters don't help you kill someone. So to SOE its fair game for purchase.

[Revanmug]

They aren't too noticeable which I like. The fact that it last a certain period of time doesn't bother me too much as I see them as something to use later on. What I mean by that is that at first, you have a very little pool of auraxium and there may be a few thing you want to buy aka weapon, etc. Once you are more confortable and get a bigger pool of ressource, you can start to spend it on non permanent upgrade.

I have no clue how much Auraxium you get normally but I wouldn't be surprise if the implants are a way to spend say ressource rather than have it accumulate constantly. If it happen, auraxium lose all its value making the ressource game inexistent

[Otleaz]

I like how SOE claims veterancy in this field yet keeps making blunders that numerous other F2P games have moved past, including tribes. I hope they fix this over the course of beta...

Higby has already said his definition of buying power means when you're in a fight with another character you have an advantage in killing them because you spent money.


That is exactly why the implants are crossing the line.

I don't play competitive games to win because I had enough in game currency to afford the best gear...
I play them to put myself against other people. Our situational awareness, our tactical proficiency, our ability to react, our ability to aim, our experience and knowledge about the game.

Do you know how much enjoyment I get out of knowing that the guy I just beat had inferior gear? 0. Do you know how much enjoyment I get out of knowing that the guy I just lost to had superior gear? 0.

A full, permanent loadout INCLUDING IMPLANTS should be given to new players either at arrival to the game, or over the course of their first few hours in game, bringing them onto a competitive level.

This isn't some shitty MMO where you are wacking on rabbits so you can eventually beat up pigs, this is a shooter and should be treated as such.

If it happen, auraxium lose all its value making the ressource game inexistent
That is a gimmick they used to hype the game. They already destroyed the "resource game" by introducing a resource booster.

[Flaropri]

Rather disappointed that it looks like resource booster affects all four resources and not just Auraxium. Interesting information though.

As far as implants being 24-hour things... the other alternative is to make them much more expensive. While I would not be opposed to that as an option, this means that a "full set" of implants is within reach of relatively new players... and after all, unless completely shut out of all continents, you're probably going to get more than 20 or even 80 Auraxium a day. But of course value depends on how much you play.

[SFJake]

Higby has already said his definition of buying power means when you're in a fight with another character you have an advantage in killing them because you spent money. Things like XP boosters or resource boosters don't help you kill someone. So to SOE its fair game for purchase.

Are you serious?

So, they blatantly say "its not P2W, but your definition of P2W is probably not the same as ours!"

Genius!

[Lord Paladin]

I like how SOE claims veterancy in this field yet keeps making blunders that numerous other F2P games have moved past, including tribes. I hope they fix this over the course of beta...




That is exactly why the implants are crossing the line.

I don't play competitive games to win because I had enough in game currency to afford the best gear...
I play them to put myself against other people. Our situational awareness, our tactical proficiency, our ability to react, our ability to aim, our experience and knowledge about the game.

Do you know how much enjoyment I get out of knowing that the guy I just beat had inferior gear? 0. Do you know how much enjoyment I get out of knowing that the guy I just lost to had superior gear? 0.

A full, permanent loadout INCLUDING IMPLANTS should be given to new players either at arrival to the game, or over the course of their first few hours in game, bringing them onto a competitive level.

This isn't some shitty MMO where you are wacking on rabbits so you can eventually beat up pigs, this is a shooter and should be treated as such.


That is a gimmick they used to hype the game. They already destroyed the "resource game" by introducing a resource booster.

If you listen to the video, in the very begining he says all implants are bought with in game resources except for the XP booster and resource booster. Which doesn't give anyone better gear or any combat increase. It just means if Joe can only play for an hour a day, he can keep up with Billy who plays 10. You might not be able to get enough resources in an hour to purchase a galaxy or 2. And if you're playing the game a lot, you don't need it.

Also, socketing one of these will mean that you can't use one that affects combat. It's not an instant 500 resources you're getting, it's something that increases the rate that you get them over time.

[Electrofreak]

I wonder if everyone's going to end up using the same implants...

[SFJake]

If you listen to the video, in the very begining he says all implants are bought with in game resources except for the XP booster and resource booster. Which doesn't give anyone better gear or any combat increase. It just means if Joe can only play for an hour a day, he can keep up with Billy who plays 10. You might not be able to get enough resources in an hour to purchase a galaxy or 2. And if you're playing the game a lot, you don't need it.

So waste money or waste your life. Someone playing 30 minutes a day gets thrown off the side if they don't constantly spend money on the game.

Is that the sad F2P model we're adopting? I actually thought for a second this was a different F2P game.

[Otleaz]

If you listen to the video, in the very begining he says all implants are bought with in game resources except for the XP booster and resource booster. Which doesn't give anyone better gear or any combat increase.Who gives a shit whether or not it gives you a combat increase? You are forced to buy it to be competitive.


It just means if Joe can only play for an hour a day, he can keep up with Billy who plays 10. You might not be able to get enough resources in an hour to purchase a galaxy or 2. And if you're playing the game a lot, you don't need it.
You realize you just said pretty much the exact same thing I did, correct? Joe needs to PAY MONEY to be on a competitive level with billy. The only difference is that you wrote it out like it was a privilege to be able to pay money.


Also, socketing one of these will mean that you can't use one that affects combat. It's not an instant 500 resources you're getting, it's something that increases the rate that you get them over time.

There is a slot dedicated to boosters, you aren't sacrificing jack.

[Arcsilver]

2 empire have equal control.

1 has more people buying resource boost.

That empire has more resources.

Unless resources are pointless, thats what we call pay to win. You pay, and you have an advantage. Period.


You missed my 2nd point. Having to sacrifice getting more unlocks just to keep up in power with other players is dumb. I shouldn't have to suddenly play more to unlock something just because I want a fair fight, especially with how much there's already going to be.
Ummm

This may help ya understand better but, you do know that resources aren't shared throughout your empire right? If 1 person buys extra resource implant, that doesn't mean everyone in the entire faction gets more resources. just that 1 player who bought the implant.

[Syphus]

So waste money or waste your life. Someone playing 30 minutes a day gets thrown off the side if they don't constantly spend money on the game.

Is that the sad F2P model we're adopting? I actually thought for a second this was a different F2P game.

No, this is you misunderstanding the benefit of XP. In most cases, XP will give you the opportunity for more certs, so more options. However, you can still only shoot one gun at a time.

[Blackwolf]

Who gives a shit whether or not it gives you a combat increase? You are forced to buy it to be competitive.


You realize you just said pretty much the exact same thing I did, correct? Joe needs to PAY MONEY to be on a competitive level with billy. The only difference is that you wrote it out like it was a privilege to be able to pay money.


Both of these statements are inaccurate. You are not forced to buy an exp or resource boost in order to stay competitive. You don't need resources unless you are heavily geared towards vehicles, at which point that was your choice, not the games. The game didn't force you into being a pilot or vehicle operator, the game just gives you the ability to gear yourself towards it.

And if you only play 1 hour a day, that is your choice. The exp booster simply gives you the ability to, if you choose, maximize that hour spent towards getting exp. Even without it though, Billy isn't going to be far ahead of you in ability but he might out class you in sheer skill just because of the amount of practice he has had compared to you.


There is a slot dedicated to boosters, you aren't sacrificing jack.

This is about the only correct thing you've said. And there is nothing wrong with this situation. If someone is going to pay money for a non-combative boost then why should they sacrifice other aspects of their gear to take advantage of it?

[Zebasiz]

Didn't they say that they were aiming for an approx. 20% difference between someone with many certs and one without? Not even taking into account ones individual skill. I don't think someone who doesn't pay and doesn't play much will be at THAT much of a disadvantage.

[Comet]

You want the game to be around so you and others can enjoy it? Then spend some cash and support the game. Simple.

The stuff you guys are complaining about in the cash shop is so redundant and minor compared to any F2P model out there. Get real and get a clue.

[Syphus]

Didn't they say that they were aiming for an approx. 20% difference between someone with many certs and one without? Not even taking into account ones individual skill. I don't think someone who doesn't pay and doesn't play much will be at THAT much of a disadvantage.

I'm not sure if that was the exact number, but yes it was something small.

I think people don't understand that this doesn't mean that some guy with a pistol and Light Armor is going to be mowing down MAXs and Tanks (and BFRs!) all day.

[Arcsilver]

I agree though that the implants should be permanent (bar the resource one)

[Otleaz]

Both of these statements are inaccurate. You are not forced to buy an exp or resource boost in order to stay competitive. You don't need resources unless you are heavily geared towards vehicles, at which point that was your choice, not the games. The game didn't force you into being a pilot or vehicle operator, the game just gives you the ability to gear yourself towards it.

While vehicles are a separate matter from what I was talking about entirely, I still have issue with them. I do admit I didn't consider it from that perspective though, which is more of a pay to try system. I still hold issue with it due to the side who gets more paying players gets a significant advantage, but I don't care about it as much now. I guess I can thank you for that since I do want this game to be good.



And if you only play 1 hour a day, that is your choice. The exp booster simply gives you the ability to, if you choose, maximize that hour spent towards getting exp. Even without it though, Billy isn't going to be far ahead of you in ability but he might out class you in sheer skill just because of the amount of practice he has had compared to you.

Here is the deal... There is a big enough difference between 25, 100, and 200 resources to warrant different implants for each tier. That is all the evidence I need to know that upkeeping implants will be no easy task.

If someone is unable to upkeep these stat boosts(implants) without a resource booster, he is being forced to buy something in game to stay competitive with everyone else. No matter how you toss it, that is how it is. Saying it is his choice not to pay and be weak because of it is total bullshit. This is a competitive shooter, not an mmo.

[Syphus]

If someone is unable to upkeep these stat boosts(implants) without a resource booster, he is being forced to buy something in game to stay competitive with everyone else. No matter how you toss it, that is how it is. Saying it is his choice not to pay and be weak because of it is total bullshit. This is a competitive shooter, not an mmo.

Well it's a good thing I won't be playing PlanetSide in a vacuum of 1v1s, which is the only place this might matter.

Honestly, your logic makes so little sense I don't even know where to start. If you can't understand it, I guess that sucks for you.

[NePaS]

Does it involve lubrication...

If you mean a big hammer and some nails,then the answer is a resounding YES!!!!!!:groovy:

(Guess why he is moving lol)

[Nihil]

Those are more like Stims than Implants.

[Otleaz]

Well it's a good thing I won't be playing PlanetSide in a vacuum of 1v1s, which is the only place this might matter.

Honestly, your logic makes so little sense I don't even know where to start. If you can't understand it, I guess that sucks for you.

Ignorance is bliss I guess. I suppose I will never see the glory of losing a battle due to not paying money, or barely making it out alive because the sniper shooting at me didn't play enough to buy upgrades for his gun.

Woe is me...

[Salad Snake]

looks good...
Depending on how expensive 25 Ax is, this could be good....
if 25 Ax is an easy 15 mins play (for eg), then this is good...it gives the player some Micro to do , and removes Ax from the economy (which is important, else hyper inflation)...

If 25 Ax is expensive then (say, an hour of good play), then I hope the boost is game time not real time

I expect it is option 1 though (cheap / realtime) , which I'm ok with....

Is a bit like Darklight retribution gun rental...cheap, and only slight boost..but enough to customize yourself, and give you a bit of Micro to do between spawns..

two thumbs up
Exactly. Renting a single gun part for a day is about 1.1 rounds, about 15 minutes of gameplay. If 25 Ax is that easy to procure, it'd justify the seemingly minor effects.


Surrender your arms immediately and follow these gentlemen in black costumes for interrogation.

Well that merge made no sense..

I lol'd.

[Sifer2]

Remember, they don't want the difference in power or effectiveness between a 5 minute player and a 5 year player to be large. They want the difference to be in skill. These are to give you an edge, and to maybe help define your play-style, but not to give you a straight up advantage.


I'm pretty sure when they said that they meant they didn't want you leveling up to give you permanent boosts that give you a huge edge over a newbie. Like BR20 giving you double the health or something.

In the case of Implants though you have a limited number of slots. I feel like they should be powerful so that each person runs with a different set of them that suits their playstyle. Right now they are so weak it just doesn't matter. PS1 had much cooler implants, and they did not break the game. Being able to see a cloaker, or run extra fast. It was like picking perks in COD. Something fun and noticeable. Not this boring reload a millisecond faster crap.

[Salad Snake]

I like how SOE claims veterancy in this field yet keeps making blunders that numerous other F2P games have moved past, including tribes. I hope they fix this over the course of beta...




That is exactly why the implants are crossing the line.

I don't play competitive games to win because I had enough in game currency to afford the best gear...
I play them to put myself against other people. Our situational awareness, our tactical proficiency, our ability to react, our ability to aim, our experience and knowledge about the game.

Do you know how much enjoyment I get out of knowing that the guy I just beat had inferior gear? 0. Do you know how much enjoyment I get out of knowing that the guy I just lost to had superior gear? 0.

A full, permanent loadout INCLUDING IMPLANTS should be given to new players either at arrival to the game, or over the course of their first few hours in game, bringing them onto a competitive level.

This isn't some shitty MMO where you are wacking on rabbits so you can eventually beat up pigs, this is a shooter and should be treated as such.


That is a gimmick they used to hype the game. They already destroyed the "resource game" by introducing a resource booster.
You do realize that in a game like this you'll rarely encounter even fights right? One side will always have the advantage in certs, resources, numbers, terrain, or any number of other variables. That's the nature of large-scale strategy.

[Otleaz]

You do realize that in a game like this you'll rarely encounter even fights right? One side will always have the advantage in certs, resources, numbers, terrain, or any number of other variables. That's the nature of large-scale strategy.
Other than certs(which I mentioned earlier in the thread), those are all player created circumstances. It isn't unfair at all, the ones on the receiving end are just getting out-played.

Unfair is dying because your headshot deviated randomly and the enemy sniper killed you before you could get a second shot off. Unfair is dying because someone crit 3 times in a row. Unfair is someone having even 1% more killing power than you just because they played more or payed money.

EDIT: I unconsciously mistook your "uneven" for "unfair" when writing my post. Regardless, the principle still applies.

[WVoneseven]

Its obvious that these are meant to be the vehicle purchases of the footsoldier. Instead of going to a station to buy a tank you purchase 3 implants to boost your on ground performance.
I can see these being used a lot by well organised outfits with designated positions. The footsoldiers spend their in game on giving themselves just that little bit of superiority when on the ground. While the drivers/gunner etc etc will either not buy any implants and save it in case they need a backup vehicle.

[Scotsh]

Unfair is dying because your headshot deviated randomly and the enemy sniper killed you before you could get a second shot off. Unfair is dying because someone crit 3 times in a row. Unfair is someone having even 1% more killing power than you just because they played more or payed money.


You are even more of a purist than the "omg, PS2 is P2W"-guy in the other thread.
To me, and quite frankly i think this is by far the most common definition, P2W is when there are things in the game which make you superior (i.e. weapons, skills etc.) and are ONLY aquirable with money and not by playing. Sometimes when things would need an absurd amount of playing i would also put that in the P2W category.
PS2 has none of that (at least yet). How this thing with the implants will turn out? We will see, serious balancing hasnt even begun in this matter and there are various varables to consider.

As it stands now, resource- and XP-boosters are Pay2Skip and enable you to have the same stuff like players playing more than you. I for one welcome that, as i plan on investing regularly some money if i like the game and want it to continue. If that brings me a little more up to speed with those kids playing 8h a day and never giving a dime, good.

[Scotsh]

Every 24 hours goto SOE shop to re-up implants? Annoying as fuck.

Well, just from the TB video you can do it in game with like 3 clicks. Way less complicated than looting somebody in PS1 with the inventory system.

[cellinaire]

You are even more of a purist than the "omg, PS2 is P2W"-guy in the other thread.
To me, and quite frankly i think this is by far the most common definition, P2W is when there are things in the game which make you superior (i.e. weapons, skills etc.) and are ONLY aquirable with money and not by playing. Sometimes when things would need an absurd amount of playing i would also put that in the P2W category.
PS2 has none of that (at least yet). How this thing with the implants will turn out? We will see, serious balancing hasnt even begun in this matter and there are various varables to consider.

As it stands now, resource- and XP-boosters are Pay2Skip and enable you to have the same stuff like players playing more than you. I for one welcome that, as i plan on investing regularly some money if i like the game and want it to continue. If that brings me a little more up to speed with those kids playing 8h a day and never giving a dime, good.

This. And I have to wonder why he even pay attention to f2p games with the criterion of him. I mean, "let's discuss" is all fine and dandy, but should these implants on the video give me a disadvantage, then I know I just suck very much at playing FPS games in general.

The only complaint I have now would be the '24 hours' thing. I hope that means, '24 hours of playtime'. If not, well that sucks real bad. :cool:

(and Otleaz, don't get your hopes up if you think SOE will change this game during Beta to reflect your thinking.)

[Klockan]

I think with the present iteration of the Implants, most people will not bother. And therefore, I think it will get reworked. Beta will bring good things :-)

~Zachariah
I checked the resources before and it seems like you will get ~200-300 auraxium per hour so you need to play just ~2-3 hours to max your implants each day. Of course then you can't buy any new gear so this will mostly be done by people who already have gotten everything they want. The point is that they should be a resource sink.

Edit: I think the main reason for this resource though is so that people who can't wait to spend their auraxium will use it all on implants all the time so when they want to buy guns they would have to spend real money. A majority of people are like this, they love spending stuff if they can.

[IAMDANIEL]

In Theroy this seems like a cool idea. The video shows it quite nicely. I could see them makeing changes to it for the better and for the worst, worst being this is there reserve on having to go to "pay to win" if the money they expect to make doesnt happen.

Dont get me wrong i hope it goes great and smooth. i pray this game suceeds. im looking forward to it just as much as the rest of yall.

[Otleaz]

You are even more of a purist than the "omg, PS2 is P2W"-guy in the other thread.
To me, and quite frankly i think this is by far the most common definition, P2W is when there are things in the game which make you superior (i.e. weapons, skills etc.) and are ONLY aquirable with money and not by playing. Sometimes when things would need an absurd amount of playing i would also put that in the P2W category.
PS2 has none of that (at least yet). How this thing with the implants will turn out? We will see, serious balancing hasnt even begun in this matter and there are various varables to consider.

I believe you are getting too caught up in the definition of Pay 2 win and are ignoring what is important here.

Why is it that someone who plays less also has to suffer through being weaker than everybody else unless they pay money? In this situation the things this person want ARE only acquirable with money, due to him not having enough time.


The solution is easier than you may think, though. All they need to do is give you a competitive implant set that is permanent to start with, such as 3 health or shield implants. This would make implants a sidegrade, rather than an upgrade.



(and Otleaz, don't get your hopes up if you think SOE will change this game during Beta to reflect your thinking.)
I'm more interested in the subject rather than the execution. Having people to bounce my ideas off of will help me understand other perspectives and hopefully change my horribly jaded view. You think it is fun not being able to accept the developers decisions? Of course you don't, it sucks.

[Klockan]

I believe you are getting too caught up in the definition of Pay 2 win and are ignoring what is important here.

Why is it that someone who plays less also has to suffer through being weaker than everybody else unless they pay money? In this situation the things this person want ARE only acquirable with money, due to him not having enough time.



The solution is easier than you may think, though. All they need to do is give you a competitive implant set that is permanent to start with, such as 3 health or shield implants. This would make implants a sidegrade, rather than an upgrade.
The best would probably be to give the implants a non combat disadvantage. Such as making their respawn time a bit longer or making the squad spawn cooldown longer. If each implant added 5 seconds to your respawn timer and made you worth 10 points extra when killed I think it would be fair.

In many situations you would then be better off without the implants but people usually prefer power over respawn timers so it will still be something people will want to buy.

[Scotsh]

Why is it that someone who plays less also has to suffer through being weaker than everybody else unless they pay money? In this situation the things this person want ARE only acquirable with money, due to him not having enough time.

Valid point, but (to get caught up in the defintion again) please call it Grind2Win then ;)
Of course this a concession to the F2P model, as boosters are a common and accepted feature of F2P games. We will have to wait to see how much it actually impacts the game, from what i have seen in this video i personally consider implants negible and nice to have, nothing more.

[Nathaniak]

Ignorance is bliss I guess. I suppose I will never see the glory of losing a battle due to not paying money, or barely making it out alive because the sniper shooting at me didn't play enough to buy upgrades for his gun.

Woe is me...

Not. Certs are gained by experience. XP cannot be bougt outright, only indirectly with a booster. Certs have been said to not unlock more powerful weapons, only adjusted weapons with different tradeoffs. The 'most important' certs for you will be unlocked relativly quickly anyway as you choose them first.

Beyond the first few unlocks, certs simply give you more options, not simply more raw power.

[Otleaz]

Not. Certs are gained by experience. XP cannot be bougt outright, only indirectly with a booster. Certs have been said to not unlock more powerful weapons, only adjusted weapons with different tradeoffs. The 'most important' certs for you will be unlocked relativly quickly anyway as you choose them first.

Beyond the first few unlocks, certs simply give you more options, not simply more raw power.

The discussion is about implants, not certs.

Valid point, but (to get caught up in the defintion again) please call it Grind2Win then ;)
Of course this a concession to the F2P model, as boosters are a common and accepted feature of F2P games. We will have to wait to see how much it actually impacts the game, from what i have seen in this video i personally consider implants negible and nice to have, nothing more.

The problem goes a bit deeper than that. The solution isn't to remove boosters. Boosters are fine. The problem wouldn't even be fixed by removing them.

[Firearms]

24hr Auraxian hrs for resources. make them semi/permanent for station cash.
That would sound like a valid model to me :cool:

[Logri]

a full magazine is a happy magazine! :D

We are so on the same page! :D

[SixShooter]

Unfair is someone having even 1% more killing power than you just because they played more or payed money.

So the game that you're looking for would have no leveling and nothing to unlock through game play. You would start at level 1 and then just stay there. Pistols only, just to keep it fair. Might as well throw out resources alltogether. Certs would need to go as well. You would start out with a basic loadout and that would be it for the entire time that you play and everyone would be on a fair playing field. Even better, we could call the game Quake, it has a nice ring to it.

It kind of seems like that game has already been made but hey, what ever floats your boat man. :)

[Otleaz]

So the game that you're looking for would have no leveling and nothing to unlock through game play. You would start at level 1 and then just stay there. Pistols only, just to keep it fair. Might as well throw out resources alltogether. Certs would need to go as well. You would start out with a basic loadout and that would be it for the entire time that you play and everyone would be on a fair playing field. Even better, we could call the game Quake, it has a nice ring to it.

It kind of seems like that game has already been made but hey, what ever floats your boat man. :)

You are kind of getting the idea, but you can work with it to make it funner. There is this cool new thing called "Sidegrades". It is a system that newer competitive games are using to replace upgrades, which only work for single player games.

If you do sidegrades, you can have all the fun of a singleplayer game and all of the fun of a multiplayer game bundled into one!

[Sunrock]

Planetside 2. Not Pay to Win, not Pay to Play and not Play to Win either :groovy:

A game is either pay to win or play to win. A game can't be neither. I think a games should be play to win.

I think the implants shown here is very close to be P2W if you can buy them with SC. Sure it's not allot of difference but as he say it's a small enough difference to be worth using. And that is enough for me to call it P2W. It's defiantly P2W if you're going to compete with the top 1% of the best players on the server.

[Otleaz]

A game is either pay to win or play to win. A game can't be neither. I think a games should be play to win.

I'm going to assume by play to win you mean that you need to invest time to stay competitive, and I am going to have to disagree.

With both Tribes and LoL, they put the player into an introductory matchmaking for an amount of time that is just long enough to completely get one rune page or max out one equipment set.

Disregarding skill, a player will be at a competitive level with people who have played for years as soon as they finish this introductory matchmaking. The only difference is, they will only be competitive if they use the single loadout they maxed out until they unlock more.

[Sunrock]

I'm going to assume by play to win you mean that you need to invest time to stay competitive, and I am going to have to disagree

I meant time + skill. As with every thing in life the more time you spend doing something the better you will be at it. So time + skill = the same thing here.

But yes if you play more you will earn levels faster and other things faster then some one that is not playing the game and that is fair to me. Because we all have 24 hours on the day that we can dispose of as we like. If you have wife and kids that hinder you from being online its not my problem its your problem and I should not have to suffer for that in game.

[Scotsh]

A game is either pay to win or play to win. A game can't be neither. I think a games should be play to win.

Of course it can. You only seem having dificulties to distinguish getting better at the game and earning bonuses.

I think the implants shown here is very close to be P2W if you can buy them with SC. Sure it's not allot of difference but as he say it's a small enough difference to be worth using. And that is enough for me to call it P2W. It's defiantly P2W if you're going to compete with the top 1% of the best players on the server.

1. They are NOT buyable with SC, this is very clearly shown in the video.

2. As we have established you never played PS1. There will never be something like a ranking of who is in the 1% on a server. If such an ranking would be made, i would never reflect 1on1 performance.

You are applying the very limited scope of games like BF or CoD, but is not at all comparable. PS is a different thing.

[Klockan]

You are kind of getting the idea, but you can work with it to make it funner. There is this cool new thing called "Sidegrades". It is a system that newer competitive games are using to replace upgrades, which only work for single player games.

If you do sidegrades, you can have all the fun of a singleplayer game and all of the fun of a multiplayer game bundled into one!
There are no "sidegrades" in any game, either the weapons perform at two entirely different roles and then you need said "sidegrade" to be able to perform in all situations you can encounter which means that the "sidegrades" makes you more powerful. If the weapons perform the same role differently then they wont be balanced, one will be better overall which means that you get more powerful with it.

Customization equals power, both by increasing the good stats while decreasing less good stats and by allowing you to adapt your class to the context at hand.

[Memeotis]

I wonder if they stack.

[Sunrock]

1. They are NOT buyable with SC, this is very clearly shown in the video.

Yes but it's still beta. I believe it when I see the game go live.


2. As we have established you never played PS1. There will never be something like a ranking of who is in the 1% on a server. If such an ranking would be made, i would never reflect 1on1 performance.

You are applying the very limited scope of games like BF or CoD, but is not at all comparable. PS is a different thing.

I'm an old gamer... I have played allot more games then BF and CoD. PS1 is one of the few online games I never played sure. Because at the time PS one came out I was playing SWG. But I have enough experience to know that players will always find a way to rank and measure players against each other even though there are no game mech that does it for them.

But SOE have even talked about an app so you can follow your friends stats progression to see there accuracy, D/K ratio and what not where ever you are on your phone or i-pad. So even if there are no direct ladder ranking in this game you can safely bet that players are going to go and look at those to see who is best at doing things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goNh81Duz90&list=UUeDczpHL6Mm-XrfT0ldALjg&index=6&feature=plcp

at 5:45 you can see what Im talking about. And that site reminds me allot of what you can have in BF3.

[Memeotis]

There are no "sidegrades" in any game, either the weapons perform at two entirely different roles and then you need said "sidegrade" to be able to perform in all situations you can encounter which means that the "sidegrades" makes you more powerful. If the weapons perform the same role differently then they wont be balanced, one will be better overall which means that you get more powerful with it.

Customization equals power, both by increasing the good stats while decreasing less good stats and by allowing you to adapt your class to the context at hand.

No they don't equal power. I like my SMGs, so assume I start use the most standard type of SMG (good all-rounder, but still slightly poor at long range, but slightly better at short range), I then try out the other SMGs and find that I like using the one that is even better up close, but much worse at range.

It is my preferred playstyle, sure, but I'm making myself progressively more situational. I might be more powerful in my preferred 'situation', but I've made myself much weaker in many of the other situations. This means I have now made it more difficult for myself, and I have to work extra hard to get into the types of situations that fit my playstyle.

[Scotsh]

But SOE have even talked about an app so you can follow your friends stats progression to see there accuracy, D/K ratio and what not where ever you are on your phone or i-pad. So even if there are no direct ladder ranking in this game you can safely bet that players are going to go and look at those to see who is best at doing things.

Except that no one knowing the game will give a flying **** about those stats.
People will be renowned for the outfit or squad they serve in or they are leading, for their achievements in the progression of an empire in a persistant (server) world, not some lame K/D-value and what not.

And for those people who do admire those stats or need them to get their tissues wet... i couldnt care less.

[Klockan]

No they don't equal power. I like my SMGs, so assume I start use the most standard type of SMG (good all-rounder, but still slightly poor at long range, but slightly better at short range), I then try out the other SMGs and find that I like using the one that is even better up close, but much worse at range.
You start with one weapon per class, the smg will most likely be a sidegrade on most classes.
It is my preferred playstyle, sure, but I'm making myself progressively more situational. I might be more powerful in my preferred 'situation', but I've made myself much weaker in many of the other situations. This means I have now made it more difficult for myself, and I have to work extra hard to get into the types of situations that fit my playstyle.
Then you chose to be gimp if you use the SMG out in the open, but when indoors you are way stronger than the guy who just uses the starting AR. Any good player will use the AR when he expects to be outdoors and the SMG when he expects to be indoors. Also if you personally likes to go in close quarters and mostly fight at that range it means that you personally get stronger with the "sidegrade" SMG which is better under those circumstances.

[Liwen Diamond]

I would like to know more details about this implant system before saying "Omg it's horrible/useless/awesome/whatever".

First, the 24 hours : Are we saying 24 hours of actual RL time, as in, the timer runs down even when you work, sleep or eat, or play other games, etc etc. Or are we saying 24 hours logged into and playing the game proper. This is the first point I want to bring because it's the difference between me using implants or not even bothering with them ever. I usually don't have multiple hours of play available to me each day. I plan on playing this game mostly in short 1-2 hours sessions about 3-4 times a week.

Someone earlier in the thread mentionned you get grab yourself 200-300 Auraxium an hour. Based on that, if I want the tier 3 implants, one or two play sessions is all I need to buy a full set, but given my playing habits, I'll only benefit from that grind of Auraxium for 1-2 hours if the implant timer is based on real time. If you say the ressource is also used to buy permanent gun sidegrades, vehicules, etc, then it's safe to say I'd rather save up my slowly earned Auraxium on these and never bother with implants for ages. However, if the implants are based on logged-in time, then I can see myself using them all the time. Each 3 out of 24 hours chunks of play time would be invested in these implants, while the 21 remaining would be saved up for everything else.

That was the first and most important aspect of the implant system I wanted to discuss.

Second, the impact of implants. I'm not sure I've seen the same video as the rest of you. For example the reload time. With the best implant I've estimated it was 25-35% faster than without implant. I don't see why everyone insist on saying that's a marginal impact. It may not be as extreme as the CoD perk equivalent, but it's still huge. And that's just one out of three possible implants. Combined, I can easely see these giving me a the edge against an implantless soldiers, turning what would otherwise be close calls or death scenarios into easy wins and close calls respectively.

However, I don't see that being a problem, if, and only if, the implant timer is based on logged-in time and acquiring all 3 implant slots can be done within a relatively short amount of play (like the first 20 hours of play). Because the in game ressources needed to acquire these implants can be farmed within a few short hours, a relatively new player who as unlocked his implants slots will seen this disavantage disappear forever soon in is PS2 career and the 5 year veteran players won't have their unfair edge.

Note that I would still prefer such as early play disavantage never existed to begin with. The idea proposed by Otleaz to have a default implant set that is competitive is good. Something along the line of ''Each implant you put into your skull removes like 5% of your health pool would also be cool'' Make implants true sidegrades instead of straight up upgrades. Or heck, fancy this : ''New player with low battlerank have a slightly larger health pool which disappears after they reached Battle rank X, unlocking a implant slot at the same time.''

At the end of the day, it really comes down to this : Classic MMORPGs always treated new players unfairly in PvP situations because a progression system makes older players anywhere from marginally more to ungodly more powerful than newbies. The so called play to win that applied until newbies had grinded away the leveling process and could finally enter the 'endgame' which was deemed the only interesting part of the game by many, because the leveling part suffered from crap like 'OMG this guy is 40 levels higher than me, Run or Die!'' I don't want this for a MMOFPS such as Planetside 2 because PvP is all there is to the game. I don't have 30 to 200 hours of leveling PvE content or level appropriate PvP Battlegrounds to grind away until I'm able to enter the ''real'' game on an even playing field with everyone esle. And despite all the arguments that can be made such as ''5 years old players are only 20% more powerful than you, you can still contribute to the success of your Empire and have fun.'' it's still going to be unfair until the day I finally catch up, assuming that's even possible.

Another argument can be made that it's not going to be unfair because everyone present here right now is likely to play this game from day one of release after the last Beta wipe, but I give you this counter argument in return : I'm going to play about 10 hours a week. How am I suppose to keep up with those that play 10 hours a day? Also think of the poor folks getting into the game later on! Not just your little person.

TL;DR : Read it you lazy ass.

[Sunrock]

Except that no one knowing the game will give a flying **** about those stats.
People will be renowned for the outfit or squad they serve in or they are leading, for their achievements in the progression of an empire in a persistant (server) world, not some lame K/D-value and what not.

And for those people who do admire those stats or need them to get their tissues wet... i couldnt care less.

Sure you will be known by the outfit or squad you belong to. But how do you think they will recruit players? What will be the qualifications to get into one of the best outfits? My guess is to show you are a good player. And how do you do that? Of course you can't do that by a stat sheet alone. But it does not help to have a bad one.

[Liwen Diamond]

If you have wife and kids that hinder you from being online its not my problem its your problem and I should not have to suffer for that in game.

So your saying in order to remain competitive in a video game I should neglect my family, my work and other RL projects to be 100% dedicated to the game to avoid you 'suffering' from not having your straight up play to win upgrade system instead of a play for variety sidegrade system.

If that's the way SOE is taking their game, I cannot consider it a proper competitive environnement and will therefore not treat it as such. Anyone from any outfit anywhere asking me to 'get serious' is going to be anwsered with a casual laughter as I indulge in activities that will bring me the most instant pleasure instead of even trying to play the game competitively, such as dropping my galaxies into the ocean and randomly dogfighting other aircrafts without consideration for objective base gameplay.

Many other people are going to follow suit with me and PS2 will remain a casual plaything. It will likely still be very successful and profitable, just not the game that many people around these forums are wishing for. And all of that because we could not handle the mind crushing nightmare of not having straight up power increases in the game. Obviously we can't be satisfied with simply playing an awesome fun game for the sake of playing an awesome fun game, we must have levels!

[Salad Snake]

Other than certs(which I mentioned earlier in the thread), those are all player created circumstances. It isn't unfair at all, the ones on the receiving end are just getting out-played.

Unfair is dying because your headshot deviated randomly and the enemy sniper killed you before you could get a second shot off. Unfair is dying because someone crit 3 times in a row. Unfair is someone having even 1% more killing power than you just because they played more or payed money.

EDIT: I unconsciously mistook your "uneven" for "unfair" when writing my post. Regardless, the principle still applies.

Iirc, having more Auraxium is also a player-created condition so your principle is invalid (or rather, just as valid for my argument as yours). Personally, I didn't mind crits in TF2 or random spread in, well, just about any FPS nowadays. To me a game is about an experience and immersion, not just competition, so that competition doesn't have to be perfect, just close. I'm not some sort of e-knight trying to test my edge against another in honorable combat, I'm a guy sitting at my computer trying to enjoy playing a game, and for me playing 100% serious isn't very fun most of the time, feels like work really. I found Sirlin's Playing to Win a bunch of bulls**t.

Honestly, the only "perfectly competitive" game that relies on 0 chance is Quake's instagib mod with railguns. And I found that mode immensely boring and unfun. There's more to game design than simply rewarding skill, and the reward need not always be a perfect 1:1 ratio. These "perks" look so minor that I'm not sure I'd even buy the quick reload even if I have enough. I can handle losing once in a blue moon to so dude because I didn't load out with a chip. A chip, I may add, that probably won't even take that long to afford.

[Sunrock]

So your saying in order to remain competitive in a video game I should neglect my family, my work and other RL projects to be 100% dedicated to the game to avoid you 'suffering' from not having your straight up play to win upgrade system instead of a play for variety sidegrade system.

If that's the way SOE is taking their game, I cannot consider it a proper competitive environnement and will therefore not treat it as such. Anyone from any outfit anywhere asking me to 'get serious' is going to be anwsered with a casual laughter as I indulge in activities that will bring me the most instant pleasure instead of even trying to play the game competitively, such as dropping my galaxies into the ocean and randomly dogfighting other aircrafts without consideration for objective base gameplay.

Many other people are going to follow suit with me and PS2 will remain a casual plaything. It will likely still be very successful and profitable, just not the game that many people around these forums are wishing for. And all of that because we could not handle the mind crushing nightmare of not having straight up power increases in the game. Obviously we can't be satisfied with simply playing an awesome fun game for the sake of playing an awesome fun game, we must have levels!

If you want to play casual and am having fun playing the game casually all the codus to you. But if you do that you should not expect to be able to compete with the most hardcore players. That is all Im saying.

In other words you should never be able to buy things to gain enough of handicap help to compete with the best if you don't but in the same amount of dedication as the best.

I'm not saying that you have to be the best to be able to have fun in a game.

[Scotsh]

Sure you will be known by the outfit or squad you belong to. But how do you think they will recruit players? What will be the qualifications to get into one of the best outfits? My guess is to show you are a good player. And how do you do that? Of course you can't do that by a stat sheet alone. But it does not help to have a bad one.

Please stop telling me how things roll in PS if you have not played it for a minute while i did for a couple of years.

You will be invited to a squad by pure chance if a squad leader needs members, no one (at least not the good ones) will bother checking online stats before they invite you. If you remain in that squad or might get invited in an associated outfit will soley depend on your ability to work in the squad as a team or simple social skills.

[exLupo]

And despite all the arguments that can be made such as ''5 years old players are only 20% more powerful than you, you can still contribute to the success of your Empire and have fun.'' it's still going to be unfair until the day I finally catch up, assuming that's even possible.

Coming from EVE where this is exactly the way things work, I can see what you're saying. Also, having played a game that combines this same type of scaling and large, mixed arms scenarios, I can say that it's not a problem. I fly with pilots every day who aren't maxed out but have skilled up through the fast ranks (3 or 4 of 5 total).

Comparing it to PS2, it's like someone with the cheaper ranks of certs and the lv1 or lv2 implants. Specifically thinking about implants, the price scaling is massive. 25, 50, 200. With the assumed Au gain, there's little reason for every dedicated boot to not have a full kit of lv2 implants on a regular basis. Even vehicle specialists should be able to keep lv1 easily enough. That means the gap isn't 0 implants vs lv3 implants, it's lv2 vs lv3 where the lv3 are prohibitively expensive for all but the poopsockers and boost buyers. Is this play-to-win and pay-to-win? Yes. Is it enough that it matters in the long run? No.

EVE has a similar system to the implants. You can get jury-rig mods for ships that increase a specific attribute (rof, damage, armor, whatever) and they come in Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants. The Tech 1 costs but everyone and their dog has them. Tech 2 are -insanely- expensive and almost no PvP active pilots will touch them as there's better places to spend their credits. Do players who trade in PLEX cards (essentially paying for in game cash via legit means) sometimes pony up for T2 rigs? Sure. Does that make them a skosh more powerful? It does. Is the game unbalanced because of it? Technically, yes. Does it matter in the long run? Not even remotely.

While there is technically going to be a mathematical imbalance between pay/grind players and the rest, it won't be enough that twitch, meta or good hardware won't make the difference. There is no such thing as a purely balanced fight when you factor in biology, education and gear. The reality will be that most players will be at 180% base power versus some at 190% and a rare few at 200%.

It won't be balanced but it won't be a wide enough of a gap to matter.

[Otleaz]

I would like to know more details about this implant system before saying "Omg it's horrible/useless/awesome/whatever".

First, the 24 hours : Are we saying 24 hours of actual RL time, as in, the timer runs down even when you work, sleep or eat, or play other games, etc etc. Or are we saying 24 hours logged into and playing the game proper. This is the first point I want to bring because it's the difference between me using implants or not even bothering with them ever. I usually don't have multiple hours of play available to me each day. I plan on playing this game mostly in short 1-2 hours sessions about 3-4 times a week.

Someone earlier in the thread mentionned you get grab yourself 200-300 Auraxium an hour. Based on that, if I want the tier 3 implants, one or two play sessions is all I need to buy a full set, but given my playing habits, I'll only benefit from that grind of Auraxium for 1-2 hours if the implant timer is based on real time. If you say the ressource is also used to buy permanent gun sidegrades, vehicules, etc, then it's safe to say I'd rather save up my slowly earned Auraxium on these and never bother with implants for ages. However, if the implants are based on logged-in time, then I can see myself using them all the time. Each 3 out of 24 hours chunks of play time would be invested in these implants, while the 21 remaining would be saved up for everything else.

That was the first and most important aspect of the implant system I wanted to discuss.

Second, the impact of implants. I'm not sure I've seen the same video as the rest of you. For example the reload time. With the best implant I've estimated it was 25-35% faster than without implant. I don't see why everyone insist on saying that's a marginal impact. It may not be as extreme as the CoD perk equivalent, but it's still huge. And that's just one out of three possible implants. Combined, I can easely see these giving me a the edge against an implantless soldiers, turning what would otherwise be close calls or death scenarios into easy wins and close calls respectively.

However, I don't see that being a problem, if, and only if, the implant timer is based on logged-in time and acquiring all 3 implant slots can be done within a relatively short amount of play (like the first 20 hours of play). Because the in game ressources needed to acquire these implants can be farmed within a few short hours, a relatively new player who as unlocked his implants slots will seen this disavantage disappear forever soon in is PS2 career and the 5 year veteran players won't have their unfair edge.

Note that I would still prefer such as early play disavantage never existed to begin with. The idea proposed by Otleaz to have a default implant set that is competitive is good. Something along the line of ''Each implant you put into your skull removes like 5% of your health pool would also be cool'' Make implants true sidegrades instead of straight up upgrades. Or heck, fancy this : ''New player with low battlerank have a slightly larger health pool which disappears after they reached Battle rank X, unlocking a implant slot at the same time.''

At the end of the day, it really comes down to this : Classic MMORPGs always treated new players unfairly in PvP situations because a progression system makes older players anywhere from marginally more to ungodly more powerful than newbies. The so called play to win that applied until newbies had grinded away the leveling process and could finally enter the 'endgame' which was deemed the only interesting part of the game by many, because the leveling part suffered from crap like 'OMG this guy is 40 levels higher than me, Run or Die!'' I don't want this for a MMOFPS such as Planetside 2 because PvP is all there is to the game. I don't have 30 to 200 hours of leveling PvE content or level appropriate PvP Battlegrounds to grind away until I'm able to enter the ''real'' game on an even playing field with everyone esle. And despite all the arguments that can be made such as ''5 years old players are only 20% more powerful than you, you can still contribute to the success of your Empire and have fun.'' it's still going to be unfair until the day I finally catch up, assuming that's even possible.

Another argument can be made that it's not going to be unfair because everyone present here right now is likely to play this game from day one of release after the last Beta wipe, but I give you this counter argument in return : I'm going to play about 10 hours a week. How am I suppose to keep up with those that play 10 hours a day? Also think of the poor folks getting into the game later on! Not just your little person.

TL;DR : Read it you lazy ass.


I didn't consider how nicely an in game timer rather than a real time timer would solve the issue. I don't think it is the case however, because if it were that easy the lower tier implants would be pointless.

Also, I will be playing quite a bit, but this issue still affects me. I can't sit comfortably knowing that the people who I am being put up against are weaker than me in game. It completely illegiticizes(I don't care if that isn't a word) any victories I can gain.

[Sunrock]

Please stop telling me how things roll in PS if you have not played it for a minute while i did for a couple of years.

What makes you think that players in PS are so different from other MMOs? Just because its an other game does not mean that the players are different.

[Scotsh]

Having actually played with them

[Sunrock]

Having actually played with them

Oh yes I have never played a game where I have met players that have played PS1. Oh wait I have. So just because you have played with them in PS1 does not mean I dont have played witht them in any other game.

And thinking that players in PS1 is allot different then players in a game X is like saying that people living in New York are allot different then people that are living in Boston for an example.

[Salad Snake]

Honestly, all of this discussion really hinges on just how much 25 Ax really is. I'm hoping it's 15 minutes of play, the price of spawning two vehicles or something for a lvl 1 (which looks like it's nigh-imperceptible since the lvl 3 that Biscuit showed off looked fairly weak itself). It's like challenging a squad with squad perks in BF3 when my squad doesn't have any save for whatever I'm running; yeah I notice it occasionally but it's doesn't feel any tougher to eliminate that squad for me than it would if it was the same squad without the perks. It's still pretty much up to player skill and positioning as to whether they eat bullets or I do.

[Klockan]

So your saying in order to remain competitive in a video game I should neglect my family, my work and other RL projects to be 100% dedicated to the game to avoid you 'suffering' from not having your straight up play to win upgrade system instead of a play for variety sidegrade system.

If that's the way SOE is taking their game, I cannot consider it a proper competitive environnement and will therefore not treat it as such. Anyone from any outfit anywhere asking me to 'get serious' is going to be anwsered with a casual laughter as I indulge in activities that will bring me the most instant pleasure instead of even trying to play the game competitively, such as dropping my galaxies into the ocean and randomly dogfighting other aircrafts without consideration for objective base gameplay.

Many other people are going to follow suit with me and PS2 will remain a casual plaything. It will likely still be very successful and profitable, just not the game that many people around these forums are wishing for. And all of that because we could not handle the mind crushing nightmare of not having straight up power increases in the game. Obviously we can't be satisfied with simply playing an awesome fun game for the sake of playing an awesome fun game, we must have levels!
What are you smoking? Levels do not make a game serious or casual, a game like PS can't be a serious game though since we have nothing to compete about. A few might try to get to the top of the killboards etc, but overall it is a shallow game where you try to kill the evil guys and capture their land. What do you get for capturing lands? Resources so it is easier to kill evildoers. What do you get for killing evildoers? More ways to kill evildoers. There is no competition in there, you never have any deathmatches or so that you want to win, there are no real leaderboards or so. Instead they do what every singleplayer game in history does that is more advanced than tetris, by playing the game you unlock new ways of playing the game and that is all there is to it, except that now you do it with other players. "Staying competitive" is a worthless expression here since there is no "competition" to speak of.

This is how PS1 was made and this is how PS2 will be made.

[Otleaz]

Iirc, having more Auraxium is also a player-created condition so your principle is invalid (or rather, just as valid for my argument as yours). Personally, I didn't mind crits in TF2 or random spread in, well, just about any FPS nowadays. To me a game is about an experience and immersion, not just competition, so that competition doesn't have to be perfect, just close. I'm not some sort of e-knight trying to test my edge against another in honorable combat, I'm a guy sitting at my computer trying to enjoy playing a game, and for me playing 100% serious isn't very fun most of the time, feels like work really. I found Sirlin's Playing to Win a bunch of bulls**t.

Honestly, the only "perfectly competitive" game that relies on 0 chance is Quake's instagib mod with railguns. And I found that mode immensely boring and unfun. There's more to game design than simply rewarding skill, and the reward need not always be a perfect 1:1 ratio. These "perks" look so minor that I'm not sure I'd even buy the quick reload even if I have enough. I can handle losing once in a blue moon to so dude because I didn't load out with a chip. A chip, I may add, that probably won't even take that long to afford.


You are taking things way too black and white. Also, care to explain how auraxium is player driven at all? I have a hunch you meant that they can capture auraxium facilities to increase generation, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[exLupo]

What makes you think that players in PS are so different from other MMOs? Just because its an other game does not mean that the players are different.

The word is "Zergfit". Outfits that would mass invite anyone and keep them unless they were a serious problem. Azure Twilight (http://azuretwilight.org/)is a prime example of a group that invited massive numbers of players, pointed them in a direction and got results.

PS1 had its share of badasses and ops teams but, for as much impact as a good gen hold was, nothing could match the power of the zerg. At the end of the day, PS1 was an Ochlocracy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy) It'll have its share of elite operators, beholden to cert plans, implant reqs and stat minimums but the true power will be in the hands of those who can direct the biggest mass of bodies.

[Otleaz]

What are you smoking? Levels do not make a game serious or casual, a game like PS can't be a serious game though since we have nothing to compete about. A few might try to get to the top of the killboards etc, but overall it is a shallow game where you try to kill the evil guys and capture their land. What do you get for capturing lands? Resources so it is easier to kill evildoers. What do you get for killing evildoers? More ways to kill evildoers. There is no competition in there, you never have any deathmatches or so that you want to win, there are no real leaderboards or so. Instead they do what every singleplayer game in history does that is more advanced than tetris, by playing the game you unlock new ways of playing the game and that is all there is to it, except that now you do it with other players. "Staying competitive" is a worthless expression here since there is no "competition" to speak of.

This is how PS1 was made and this is how PS2 will be made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_%28language_use%29

If you read a bit you would realize that competitive was being used to describe stats. A competitive person in this case would have a loadout completely maxed out. It has nothing to do with them competing with others or participating in a competition.

[Sunrock]

The word is "Zergfit". Outfits that would mass invite anyone and keep them unless they were a serious problem. Azure Twilight (http://azuretwilight.org/)is a prime example of a group that invited massive numbers of players, pointed them in a direction and got results.

PS1 had its share of badasses and ops teams but, for as much impact as a good gen hold was, nothing could match the power of the zerg. At the end of the day, PS1 was an Ochlocracy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy) It'll have its share of elite operators, beholden to cert plans, implant reqs and stat minimums but the true power will be in the hands of those who can direct the biggest mass of bodies.

Will in other PvP MMOs I have played you can usually beat a group that is x2 larger then yours if you play better then them. Is this not true in PS2? If not. What are the game mechs behind PS that does not enable that?

[Scotsh]

Oh yes I have never played a game where I have met players that have played PS1. Oh wait I have. So just because you have played with them in PS1 does not mean I dont have played witht them in any other game.

It is not the people that a radically different it is the nature of the game which makes them behave different.

Being able effectively push your empire forward with a minimal amount of people it the driving incentive here.

Doing that is way more than having a good K/D-ratio. Actually PS did judge players more by social skills than any MMORPG i have ever played (considering progress oriented players and guilds).

And thinking that players in PS1 is allot different then players in a game X is like saying that people living in New York are allot different then people that are living in Boston for an example.

But people living in US redneck-biblebelt towns are very different from New Yorkers.

[GreenBanana]

The implant system SOE came up with is really good in my opinion!
That split of a second faster reload time might save your ass.
The only thing is the fact that is 24 hours.If 24 hours in-game then fine but if IRL then a big no.
It's extremely annoying to buy something like that,play for a couple of hours only to come back the other day seeing that I wasted 200 Auraxioum for a 24 hour thingy while playing only 3-4 hours.

[exLupo]

Will in other PvP MMOs I have played you can usually beat a group that is x2 larger then yours if you play better then them. Is this not true in PS2? If not. What are the game mechs behind PS that does not enable that?

I can't say I've ever seen 2:1 odds reliably beaten on the strength of wildly disproportionate skill levels. Also, "good players" in massive games are something of a rare bird. Until a game is very mature and all of the non-diehards have quit, the bulk of your player base will be just ok. For a 2:1 disadvantage to be regularly overcome, the underdogs will need to be 101% better than the mob. That's just not reality in games, like this, where you don't control the quality of 99% of your army. That's why PS1 had ops teams of those incredible players that would make key plays so the other 99% could take advantage of moments and swarm. However, even without that 1%, the better mob will still win.

The more players you add, the more obvious this becomes. Or, conversely, the less players you have (and, in that, more quality control you have) the more individual skill matters. PS1/2 are in the tons-and-tons-of-bodies schools.

Even in small groups, look at games where you have, sometimes, zero control of the people you play with. I'll use WoW and TF2. I can not -stand- grouping with randoms in WoW. The majority just don't care to put forth the effort to excel so you're constantly dealing with players who don't know their classes much less the finer parts of difficult encounters. TF2 also suffers from this and it's very easy to see. Play on a dedicated community server for a few hours and then switch to the Valve pub servers and watch your KDA skyrocket.

When you have to rely on the masses, skill matters less and less.

[Sunrock]

It is not the people that a radically different it is the nature of the game which makes them behave different.

Being able effectively push your empire forward with a minimal amount of people it the driving incentive here.

Doing that is way more than having a good K/D-ratio. Actually PS did judge players more by social skills than any MMORPG i have ever played (considering progress oriented players and guilds).



But people living in US redneck-biblebelt towns are very different from New Yorkers.

First of all US redneck-biblebelt towns are very different from New Yorkers in cultures yes. But the people living in those places are really not that different. Anyone that have red a book about psychology for a few minutes knows this. There are allot bigger difference between individual people in New York then there are between New Yorkers in general and redneck-biblebelt towns in general. But lets drop that now. It has gone off topic long enough.

I never sad that D/K ratio was the only thing that counts. I sad that D/K ration among other stats will be how players will measure them self against other players. And players will like to see who is best within a Outfit or squad too. Not just cross faction or between outfits.

Also being able to effectively push your empire forward with a minimal amount of people will be reflected in your stat sheet too. If you have an overall accuracy of 45% and a K/D rating of 2.5 you are more likely to pull that off then if you have a accuracy of 8% and a K/D rating of 0.4

So I really don't buy that best outfits that are looking to recruit players will not consider your stat sheet at all.

[exLupo]

So I really don't buy that best outfits that are looking to recruit players will not consider your stat sheet at all.

It depends on what you mean by "best". The best at small strikes? KDA. The best at big objectives? Zerg. The two play styles go hand in hand but are at two opposite ends of the spectrum.

Again, AT, one of the most objective effective VS outfits in PS, was a complete zergfit.

[Liwen Diamond]

What are you smoking? Levels do not make a game serious or casual, a game like PS can't be a serious game though since we have nothing to compete about. A few might try to get to the top of the killboards etc, but overall it is a shallow game where you try to kill the evil guys and capture their land. What do you get for capturing lands? Resources so it is easier to kill evildoers. What do you get for killing evildoers? More ways to kill evildoers. There is no competition in there, you never have any deathmatches or so that you want to win, there are no real leaderboards or so. Instead they do what every singleplayer game in history does that is more advanced than tetris, by playing the game you unlock new ways of playing the game and that is all there is to it, except that now you do it with other players. "Staying competitive" is a worthless expression here since there is no "competition" to speak of.

This is how PS1 was made and this is how PS2 will be made.

You make a fair point. PS2 doesn't look like it's going to be a competitive game. It might have been and I'd like it to be, but I guess a truly competitive persistent environement game will have to wait. Until then I can still play Tribes : Ascend, which doesn't have persistent gameplay, but I find it manages the competitive aspect well enough (not perfect either due to some balancing issues, but still much closer to an even playing field than PS2).

I didn't consider how nicely an in game timer rather than a real time timer would solve the issue. I don't think it is the case however, because if it were that easy the lower tier implants would be pointless.

Then have them be pointless and remove them entirely. This is still beta, changes can be made to make the implant system better.

Also, I will be playing quite a bit, but this issue still affects me. I can't sit comfortably knowing that the people who I am being put up against are weaker than me in game. It completely illegiticizes(I don't care if that isn't a word) any victories I can gain.

Yeah. I'm the sorry dude who's going to be on the receiving end of those illegiticized kills most likely :D

Coming from EVE where this is exactly the way things work, I can see what you're saying. Also, having played a game that combines this same type of scaling and large, mixed arms scenarios, I can say that it's not a problem. I fly with pilots every day who aren't maxed out but have skilled up through the fast ranks (3 or 4 of 5 total).

Comparing it to PS2, it's like someone with the cheaper ranks of certs and the lv1 or lv2 implants. Specifically thinking about implants, the price scaling is massive. 25, 50, 200. With the assumed Au gain, there's little reason for every dedicated boot to not have a full kit of lv2 implants on a regular basis. Even vehicle specialists should be able to keep lv1 easily enough. That means the gap isn't 0 implants vs lv3 implants, it's lv2 vs lv3 where the lv3 are prohibitively expensive for all but the poopsockers and boost buyers. Is this play-to-win and pay-to-win? Yes. Is it enough that it matters in the long run? No.

EVE has a similar system to the implants. You can get jury-rig mods for ships that increase a specific attribute (rof, damage, armor, whatever) and they come in Tech 1 and Tech 2 variants. The Tech 1 costs but everyone and their dog has them. Tech 2 are -insanely- expensive and almost no PvP active pilots will touch them as there's better places to spend their credits. Do players who trade in PLEX cards (essentially paying for in game cash via legit means) sometimes pony up for T2 rigs? Sure. Does that make them a skosh more powerful? It does. Is the game unbalanced because of it? Technically, yes. Does it matter in the long run? Not even remotely.

While there is technically going to be a mathematical imbalance between pay/grind players and the rest, it won't be enough that twitch, meta or good hardware won't make the difference. There is no such thing as a purely balanced fight when you factor in biology, education and gear. The reality will be that most players will be at 180% base power versus some at 190% and a rare few at 200%.

It won't be balanced but it won't be a wide enough of a gap to matter.

I played EVE an entire year and tried a bit of everything there was to do in that game. Was a lot of fun but I never considered it a viable competitive environement. EVE is won by whoever has the most friends in high places. It's a ruthless unfair playing ground where your only hope is to be ruthless and unfair or run like hell. It's the closest game to how RL actually works and how the weak struggle to get a niche little comfy spot and live happy lives and how the ambitious corporations rise to always higher power by abusing the weak. The weirdest thing is, I enjoyed the hell out of it for what it was. I left because after a year gameplay had become too dull for me (you can only enjoy watching your ships execute the attacks itself so much until you fall asleep :P)

EVE was a great game, but it will never be a fair competitive environnement. Neither will PS2 apparently.

If you want to play casual and am having fun playing the game casually all the codus to you. But if you do that you should not expect to be able to compete with the most hardcore players. That is all Im saying.

In other words you should never be able to buy things to gain enough of handicap help to compete with the best if you don't but in the same amount of dedication as the best.

I'm not saying that you have to be the best to be able to have fun in a game.

All I wanted was a game where nothing but my decisions, skills and experiences as a player could factor into the outcome of a fight, and in extension to that, the decisions, skills and experiences of all members of my Empire could factor into the outcome of the war. PS2 will not be that. It might be closer to it than any other game with elements of scale and persistence, but it could be even closer by improving on the current iteration of the implant system, and that's what me and folks like Otleaz would like to see.

[Sunrock]

I can't say I've ever seen 2:1 odds reliably beaten on the strength of wildly disproportionate skill levels.

I have beaten 2:1 odds in SWG, Pirates of the Puring Sea, AoC, Aion and even in SWTOR back when open world PvP still happened on Ilum.

I have even beaten 3:1 odds in Aion. We where attacking a fort in the upper levels of the Rift and we had about 150-170 man on our side and we got reports from there side that they where around 500. But we still manage to conquer there fort.

PS: Well not really 3:1 but more then 2:1 at least

[Klockan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_%28language_use%29

If you want to correct someone then do it correctly instead of just looking up the first link on google for words you don't understand.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/context
"the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood:"

If you read a bit you would realize that competitive was being used to describe stats. A competitive person in this case would have a loadout completely maxed out. It has nothing to do with them competing with others or participating in a competition.
No, when people say that they want to stay "competitive" it means that they want to still be able to compete. "To stay competitive with masters level players in Starcraft 2 most needs to play a few hours per day" is a common way to use the word. It includes everything, including playerskill, stat increases etc. More skill intensive games are way harder to stay competitive at which is why people prefer FPS games, there you can stay competitive with barely any practice at all. Giving some bonuses and others not just means that you need more skill to stay competitive if you don't got bonuses or less if you got them. Unless the bonuses are too strong of course, kinda like how it is in most mmorpgs, there you can't be competitive if you don't got highend gear.

If you want to show off your skill then just don't use these bonuses, not harder than that.


All I wanted was a game where nothing but my decisions, skills and experiences as a player could factor into the outcome of a fight, and in extension to that, the decisions, skills and experiences of all members of my Empire could factor into the outcome of the war. PS2 will not be that. It might be closer to it than any other game with elements of scale and persistence, but it could be even closer by improving on the current iteration of the implant system, and that's what me and folks like Otleaz would like to see.
Factions will not have equal amounts of players, thus your wish will never be fulfilled ever. Things like that only happens if you have matchmakings and you will never have any proper matchmakings on the scale of planetside 2.

[Liwen Diamond]

I have beaten 2:1 odds in SWG, Pirates of the Puring Sea, AoC, Aion and even in SWTOR back when open world PvP still happened on Ilum.

I have even beaten 3:1 odds in Aion. We where attacking a fort in the upper levels of the Rift and we had about 150-170 man on our side and we got reports from there side that they where around 500. But we still manage to conquer there fort.

The key word was reliably. I've won unfair fights plenty of times based on my performance. But assuming I get to face competent opponents who also can pull off 2:1 fights of their own, I don't think I can win a majority of those fights. It's a simple number's game at that point.

[Scotsh]

First of all US redneck-biblebelt towns are very different from New Yorkers in cultures yes. But the people living in those places are really not that different. Anyone that have red a book about psychology for a few minutes knows this. There are allot bigger difference between individual people in New York then there are between New Yorkers in general and redneck-biblebelt towns in general. But lets drop that now. It has gone off topic long enough.

And as you made my point there exactly, there is no reason to continue.



I am tired of this whole discussion anyway. You are judging a game which precessor you never played and watched a few videos of. I am applying my experiences from playing PS1 several years ago, tho a lot of thing are changing in PS2. No one of us will know how this plays out when this game is released.

In this particular discussion so many factors determine which direction this thing will go and none of them are set in stone:
- usable time for an implant (RL time or ingame time, the time frame itself could be altered from 24h to a week or more)
- influx of auraxium per played time
- the influence of a resource booster
- other costs needing auraxium
and probably some others i am not thinking of right now.
Each of this factors can and may have a huge influence on the balance and closed beta is not nearly in full swing.


But the main point and why i am opposing your view is your Grind2Win attitude. You seem to think the more you play the game the more you are entitled to in-game bonuses elevating you above casual players (on which you are looking down). And if there is a mechanism which enables those casual players to compensate thoses bonuses by buying stuff that is the worst thing ever to you.
I am more with Otleaz on this, i dont like Grind2Win. But the developers see it as a necessity for their F2P model to work, because they think without Grind2Win there is no incentive to Pay2Skip and all thats left is to go Pay2Win.

[Sunrock]

But the main point and why i am opposing your view is your Grind2Win attitude. You seem to think the more you play the game the more you are entitled to in-game bonuses elevating you above casual players (on which you are looking down). And if there is a mechanism which enables those casual players to compensate thoses bonuses by buying stuff that is the worst thing ever to you.

I am more with Otleaz on this, i dont like Grind2Win. But the developers see it as a necessity for their F2P model to work, because they think without Grind2Win there is no incentive to Pay2Skip and all thats left is to go Pay2Win.

I don't really have anything against casual players. If they have fun playing the game all the codus to them. But I want to have fun playing the game too. And just because I put in more playing hours then a casual player does not mean I should have less fun. Does it? And the only way for me to have fun too is if the game is what you call grind2win.

Because if the game is pay2skip or pay2win... (same thing different name if you ask me)... I can't have as fun as you if we both spend lets say $25 a month on the game. For me to have as fun as you if you spend $25 means I maybe have to spend $50 a month if I play x2 time then you and I don't see that as fair. If I don't I will find the game more tedious then you.

But in a game where you have a sub fee where every one pay $X a month we all have the same amount of fun for the time we spent playing the game. Sure if I spend 50 hours playing the game one month and you 25 hours I will progress 100% faster then you. But we will have the same amount of fun spent per hour.

PS: 100% faster progression is not really what it would be it could be 70% faster or 110% faster too with those numbers but you get the point I hope.

[Klockan]

Because if the game is pay2skip or pay2win... (same thing different name if you ask me)... I can't have as fun as you if we both spend lets say $25 a month on the game. For me to have as fun as you if you spend $25 means I maybe have to spend $50 a month if I play x2 time then you and I don't see that as fair.
Why would you have to pay more to have fun? Do you have to be stronger than everyone else or what?

[Liwen Diamond]

If you want to correct someone then do it correctly instead of just looking up the first link on google for words you don't understand.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/context


No, when people say that they want to stay "competitive" it means that they want to still be able to compete. "To stay competitive with masters level players in Starcraft 2 most needs to play a few hours per day" is a common way to use the word. It includes everything, including playerskill, stat increases etc. More skill intensive games are way harder to stay competitive at which is why people prefer FPS games, there you can stay competitive with barely any practice at all. Giving some bonuses and others not just means that you need more skill to stay competitive if you don't got bonuses or less if you got them. Unless the bonuses are too strong of course, kinda like how it is in most mmorpgs, there you can't be competitive if you don't got highend gear.

If you want to show off your skill then just don't use these bonuses, not harder than that.


Factions will not have equal amounts of players, thus your wish will never be fulfilled ever. Things like that only happens if you have matchmakings and you will never have any proper matchmakings on the scale of planetside 2.

Starcraft 2 is a good example of a viable competitive environement. A day 1 player as exactly the same tools as the best player in the world (at least in game tools, hardware is another issue which is pointless to cover at the moment). Sure my odds as a casual player to beat the best player in the world are almost null because he is infinetely more skilled and practiced, but the game at least doesn't go out of it's way to provide playtime based advantages. Most MMOs do. PS2 doesn't have to follow suit with Most MMOs.

Empire numbers is also another area of the game which can be improved upon to provide a fairer play experience. For example if I want to be TR, I'd be totally fine with the idea of not being able to log into servers that have a TR overpopulation at the time I attempt to log in. With overpopulation define as having, say 50 or more TR soldiers than the Empire with the second most soldiers, that way it's not too hard to find a server and server population evens out to a point where this balance issue is nearly nullified. As long as I have my personnal stats and soldier progression linked to my account, and not a specific server the way characters are tied to servers in classic MMORPGs, this is totally doable. We have the technology to do this. I'd be frankly quite skeptical if you told me SOE it not going to take measures similar to this to avoid this problem.

[Scotsh]

Why would you have to pay more to have fun? Do you have to be stronger than everyone else or what?

I think that is exactly his point. His "fun" derives from being better because of bonuses he receives for playing the game longer.
Personally i find that sad and if PS2 takes this route, i am out.

Because if the game is pay2skip or pay2win... (same thing different name if you ask me)

Its not.
In Pay2Win you MUST pay to get something you need to be competetive.
In Grind2Win + Pay2Skip you have the CHOICE: play a lot or pay some

See the difference?

For me to have as fun as you if you spend $25 means I maybe have to spend $50 a month if I play x2 time then you and I don't see that as fair. If I don't I will find the game more tedious then you.

But in a game where you have a sub fee where every one pay $X a month we all have the same amount of fun for the time we spent playing the game.

If everybody pays the same amount every month and some players play like 1-2 hours per day while you play 4-5 hours a day, how exactly is that fair?

[Sunrock]

Why would you have to pay more to have fun? Do you have to be stronger than everyone else or what?

You're going to have SC for the resource booster right? Lets say if player A get 100 resources per hour without it and player B 125 with it, it means that after 24h played player A will have 2400 resources to spend on vehicles and grenades and player B that bought a booster got 3000 resources. During a month if both play 50 hours and player A never buys the resource booster and player B always does the difference will be 1250 more resources for player B. For those 1250 player B can have more fun.

[scroogh]

"I never asked for this."

As long as the timer only goes down when you're actually playing I'm fine with only 24 hours.

[Sunrock]

If everybody pays the same amount every month and some players play like 1-2 hours per day while you play 4-5 hours a day, how exactly is that fair?

Every one have 24 hours to dispose of every day. The rest is up to you and me how we like to spend those hours. But not every one earns $X per hour. That is way it's more fair to pay a fixed price on your games.

Also if you play for 5 hours you still only progress as fast as someone that play for 2 hours if you look at hours spent playing the game. You can't say that about games that sell boosters.

[Scotsh]

Every one have 24 hours to dispose of every day. The rest is up to you and me how we like to spend those hours. But not every one earns $X per hour. That is way it's more fair to pay a fixed price on your games.

I just made the point that you favorite payment model is not fairer than what you described in that posting before. It just suits you more, because you seen to plan on playing alot.
Just to play the devils advocate, paying per hour would be even more fair. But for some reason i believe you wouldnt like that very much, would you?

[Sunrock]

I just made the point that you favorite payment model is not fairer than what you described in that posting before. It just suits you more, because you seen to plan on playing alot.
Just to play the devils advocate, paying per hour would be even more fair. But for some reason i believe you wouldnt like that very much, would you?

Yes actually paying a fixed price per hour played is allot more fair then a monthly fee but a monthly fee is more fair then selling boosters on a cash shop. But buying exp and resource boosters is not the same thing is it? Even though in reality it can have the same effect on my wallet it's not really the same thing.

And yes I would rather pay a fixed price per hour played then buying boosters from a cash shop... Allot more in fact. In fact that was how I payed for Aion when I played on a Chinese server before it was released in Europe and USA. And I thought it would be a very nice compliment to having a monthly sub payment plan. As some times you just want to play a few hours a month after a while and then you could pay per hour instead of monthly.

I would not mind having a payment plan like this.

1h = $0.50
1 week = $5
1 month = $15
3 months = $40
6 months = $80

[Klockan]

You're going to have SC for the resource booster right? Lets say if player A get 100 resources per hour without it and player B 125 with it, it means that after 24h played player A will have 2400 resources to spend on vehicles and grenades and player B that bought a booster got 3000 resources. During a month if both play 50 hours and player A never buys the resource booster and player B always does the difference will be 1250 more resources for player B. For those 1250 player B can have more fun.
But you said that you would have to pay more to have the equal fun, that was the strange thing. Look here:

Because if the game is pay2skip or pay2win... (same thing different name if you ask me)... I can't have as fun as you if we both spend lets say $25 a month on the game. For me to have as fun as you if you spend $25 means I maybe have to spend $50 a month if I play x2 time then you and I don't see that as fair. If I don't I will find the game more tedious then you.

Since the boosters lasts 24 hours it you pay the same no matter how much you play, why would you pay more?

Starcraft 2 is a good example of a viable competitive environement. A day 1 player as exactly the same tools as the best player in the world (at least in game tools, hardware is another issue which is pointless to cover at the moment). Sure my odds as a casual player to beat the best player in the world are almost null because he is infinetely more skilled and practiced, but the game at least doesn't go out of it's way to provide playtime based advantages. Most MMOs do. PS2 doesn't have to follow suit with Most MMOs.
If they don't the game would die really quickly. Most likes to have milestones to work for in games. In really competitive games like Starcraft those milestones are ladder ranks, but that doesn't really work for mmo's. You could have only aesthetics as rewards which works for some but others want to work for those tiny specks of power. Humans easily get addicted to constant improvements which is why this gaming model has worked so extremely well.



Empire numbers is also another area of the game which can be improved upon to provide a fairer play experience. For example if I want to be TR, I'd be totally fine with the idea of not being able to log into servers that have a TR overpopulation at the time I attempt to log in. With overpopulation define as having, say 50 or more TR soldiers than the Empire with the second most soldiers, that way it's not too hard to find a server and server population evens out to a point where this balance issue is nearly nullified. As long as I have my personnal stats and soldier progression linked to my account, and not a specific server the way characters are tied to servers in classic MMORPGs, this is totally doable. We have the technology to do this. I'd be frankly quite skeptical if you told me SOE it not going to take measures similar to this to avoid this problem.
You might be totally fine with that but the average gamer wouldn't feel as lenient when they can't access their main character simply because he was on an overpopulated server. This game lives and dies with its players, as a F2P game they really need massive amounts of players and small inconveniences like that can be a disaster way worse most faction imbalances.

[Sunrock]

But you said that you would have to pay more to have the equal fun, that was the strange thing. Look here:

Pay more if I play more to have the the same amount of fun per hour played. Do you understand the difference? If it was a fixed price that you have to pay per hour I could not play at all if I didn't pay. There for I wouldn't have the same amount of fun played per hour as every one else.


Since the boosters lasts 24 hours it you pay the same no matter how much you play, why would you pay more?

I play more then 24 hours per month.... I play between 120 and 150 hours a month in average. More during the first month with a new game though.

If pay more I can perhaps spawn 10 more tanks or air plains to fly and if that is what is fun to me then I will have less fun if I can't spawn as many right?

How was not that clear from what I wrote before?

[BillyBob]

I actually don't like the 24 hour thing. Especially considering how weak they are.

IMO it makes perfect sense that they are a timelimited boost. As for their "weakness", I think the idea is that this would give you just a slight advantage and not break the overall balance. Judging from the side-by-side comparisons in the video, the improvements seem just right to me.

With just 3 implant slots I see no reason to not have those implants as permanent.

I'm guessing that the idea behind this is to have these function as a resource sink in the game. It would not only make players spend resources, but it would also encourage collecting them.

Im not gonna bother if it stays a 24 hour thing. I want permanent.

If they were permanent, eventually everyone would have them all the time and they would be rendered pretty much moot. Having them temporary and depending on resources will not only make them more difficult to obtain but will also add to the importance of having resources and collecting them.

24hr Auraxian hrs for resources. make them semi/permanent for station cash.
That would sound like a valid model to me :cool:

Unless you make them super expensive (in terms of real money), then again everyone will eventually get them which in turn would render them moot. If you do make them super expensive so that not everyone could get them (or would be discouraged from getting them), then you'd basically have made them pay2win. Either scenario is bad IMO.

Personally, I think the way they are described in the video seems perfect.

Judging from the video they are not too poweful to make a huge difference (just enough to give you a slight edge) and they depend on an in-game element such as resources which encourages gameplay in terms of capturing territory to gain them. The fact that they are temporary also adds to the dymamic and forwards motion of the overall game, since you you will always be in need of resources and can never be "done" with buying the implants you want.

All sounds great and very well planned to me.

/BB

[Klockan]

I play more then 24 hours per month.... I play between 120 and 150 hours a month in average. More during the first month with a new game though.

It isn't ingame time, that is for sure. How anyone can believe differently is beyond me. Thus you pay as much as anyone else for the boosts. If you want a weeks worth of boost both have to pay the 24 hour price 7 times.

Edit: To put this into perspective the max level of these implants cost less than two tanks, they are dirt cheap.

[SFJake]

In Pay2Win you MUST pay to get something you need to be competetive.
In Grind2Win + Pay2Skip you have the CHOICE: play a lot or pay some

See the difference?

They're both equally bad.

No, its not too much to ask for games to just BE FAIR for god's sake. Its like the very notion can't be accepted.

Nevermind that so many people in this topic would find it acceptable to pay such a monthly fee as 25$ buck or 0.5$ per hour of booster. Really? For god's sake, what the hell happened to gaming.

I mean god, if these F2P models really want to suck up money for power, can't they just have a "buy the game" fee that gives you eternal booster at 60$ and call it a day at least? Why in all hell is it widely accepted that people should spend 500+$ on a game over X years? (which is the most ridiculous thing you could EVER tell me)

Its such an irony when I WANT to pay for games, but I do NOT want to end up paying hundreds of dollars in a F2P game except thats pretty much what I might have to do because I have a LIFE.

This topic just makes me nauseous.

[Blackwolf]

It isn't ingame time, that is for sure. How anyone can believe differently is beyond me. Thus you pay as much as anyone else for the boosts. If you want a weeks worth of boost both have to pay the 24 hour price 7 times.

Edit: To put this into perspective the max level of these implants cost less than two tanks, they are dirt cheap.

Actually Klockan it's a pretty good chance that it's set for play time rather then a strait 24 hours. Anything else would be robbery and/or encouraging people to play for 24 hours strait just to get their monies worth.

[BlueSkies]

They're both equally bad.

No, its not too much to ask for games to just BE FAIR for god's sake. Its like the very notion can't be accepted.

Nevermind that so many people in this topic would find it acceptable to pay such a monthly fee as 25$ buck or 0.5$ per hour of booster. Really? For god's sake, what the hell happened to gaming.

I mean god, if these F2P models really want to suck up money for power, can't they just have a "buy the game" fee that gives you eternal booster at 60$ and call it a day at least? Why in all hell is it widely accepted that people should spend 500+$ on a game over X years? (which is the most ridiculous thing you could EVER tell me)

Its such an irony when I WANT to pay for games, but I do NOT want to end up paying hundreds of dollars in a F2P game except thats pretty much what I might have to do because I have a LIFE.

This topic just makes me nauseous.

You don't have to give them 500+$ over X years. You don't have to give them a dime. Its the same game either way.

Actually Klockan it's a pretty good chance that it's set for play time rather then a strait 24 hours. Anything else would be robbery and/or encouraging people to play for 24 hours strait just to get their monies worth.

... never played an online game have you?

[Scotsh]

They're both equally bad.

No, its not too much to ask for games to just BE FAIR for god's sake. Its like the very notion can't be accepted.

For me Pay2Win breaks a game, with Grind2Win+Pay2Skip it depends how tedious the grind is. In this particular case, is dont see a problem (tho that might change with beta).

Nevermind that so many people in this topic would find it acceptable to pay such a monthly fee as 25$ buck or 0.5$ per hour of booster. Really? For god's sake, what the hell happened to gaming.

That strikes me as you are opposing paying anything for playing PS2. But you are aware that the development is a multimillion investment and that development wont stop after release. There must also a fairly big server infrastructure maintained.

I mean god, if these F2P models really want to suck up money for power, can't they just have a "buy the game" fee that gives you eternal booster at 60$ and call it a day at least? Why in all hell is it widely accepted that people should spend 500+$ on a game over X years? (which is the most ridiculous thing you could EVER tell me)

This is NOT a game which gets released and thats it. Development (beyond bugfixing) will continue. There will be a constant cost for the company maintaining this game.

Its such an irony when I WANT to pay for games, but I do NOT want to end up paying hundreds of dollars in a F2P game except thats pretty much what I might have to do because I have a LIFE.

For PS2 you never have to pay a dime if you want and still will be able to enjoy the game. And if you feel the game deserves money, just buy something. You are the boss of how much you want to spend, set yourself a budget.
The point of F2P games is that you dont have to pay huge amounts. They dont calculate that everyone pays 15$ per month like i.e. WoW charges, they benefit from the fact that the playerbase is much bigger and more people pay smaller sums. That way they generate more money overall.

Now for a thought experiment, consider someone willing to invest 100$ per month in the PS2 shop, while somebody else pays 10$ per month. Given explicit examples, based on what is known about PS2, how big would be the advantage?

[Syphus]

The grind is very different in PS2 than in a lot of other games. This would be an issue if you were locked in Light Armor until you got enough XP for Heavy, etc etc. While in this case, on day 1 you can hop in a MAX and mow down people.

[Lord Paladin]

Because the Devs have to make money. And no gaming company would go with Free 2 Play if it didn't make them more money than a subscription game.

Really this just goes back to the days of arcades (which I realize many here have never played in).

We're paying quarters to play our games.

This game has to make money somehow. You only buy an aesthetic upgrade once. Unless someone is going to suggest you buy it every 24 hours.

SoE can make money from boosters because people like me, who have money and very little time to play, are willing to spend it in order to remain competitive with people who aren't willing to spend their money but have plenty of time to earn the same thing without having to spend it.

Also remember that there is another trade-off. I socket one of these boosters, that means I -don't- socket a combat implant.

This notion that you're not having as much fun as I am because you're not paying for boosters and therefore not having as much resources as I have is complete and utter rubbish.

First of all: I could enjoy playing infantry (I do) and never buy a vehicle, and I will have TONS more resources and simply never use them. I'm a very happy person, I'm probably gonna have TONS more fun than you will, and I won't even need to buy resource boosters.

Secondly, this is a terrible argument. You cannot compare two situations and say "this isn't fair to me, because he gets to have more fun." Well then, start having more fun! If you aren't enjoying playing the game, you shouldn't play it. You can't look at someone else and say, "this isn't right, he has more than I have." If you're a better player than someone with a resource boosters, you're gonna have more resources than he will.

I -wish- I could play 150 hours a month. You're gonna get to play the game literally 10 times as much as I am.

The purpose of these is to make SoE money. I'm willing to pay for them (hypothetically) because I have less time to play. If someone who has tons of time to play also picks them them, then yes, they will have more resources than someone who also has tons of time to play, but it will not give them an advantage in combat. It will not mean they are going to be able to kill me and not the other way around.

As to whether or not they're having more fun per hour than you are, that's a problem only you (the player) can control. Kids in 3rd world countries without PCs might be having more fun per hour than you, but you sure as hell can't blame SoE resource boosters on that, can you?

[Sunrock]

The point of F2P games is that you dont have to pay huge amounts. They dont calculate that everyone pays 15$ per month like i.e. WoW charges, they benefit from the fact that the playerbase is much bigger and more people pay smaller sums. That way they generate more money overall.


If that was the case they could just lower the sub fee to $9.99 a month to make more money. Way the cash shop is so successful is because allot of players don't want fair play. They just want to pay to win or pay to skip. Hell if there was a I win button that instant kill anyone within 100 meters radios they would even be happier if they where the only one allowed to have it. Way do you think there are so many players that cheat as soon as they think they wont get caught? For the same reason they just love to pay real money for boosters and what not that will give them an edge in the game. IMO SOE though that if you cant beat them join them, witch is a really bad idea.

PS: If you add up what you pay in F2P games you will find that you pay allot more then $15 a month. So its not because $15 is allot of money.

[BlueSkies]

If that was the case they could just lower the sub fee to $9.99 a month to make more money. Way the cash shop is so successful is because allot of players don't want fair play. They just want to pay to win or pay to skip. Hell if there was a I win button that instant kill anyone within 100 meters radios they would even be happier if they where the only one allowed to have it. Way do you think there are so many players that cheat as soon as they think they wont get caught? For the same reason they just love to pay real money for boosters and what not that will give them an edge in the game. IMO SOE though that if you cant beat them join them, witch is a really bad idea.

PS: If you add up what you pay in F2P games you will find that you pay allot more then $15 a month. So its not because $15 is allot of money.

A) cash shops are so successful because a lot of players either want bling bling for their avatars, or would rather skip the grind. Nothing "not fair" about that.

B) Any game that sold an ability to kill all players within 100 meters, would fail rapidly. The balance of a F2P game is to sell things that paying players want, but won't drive away the free players (note: free players are necessary in a F2P games to make the game feel populated)

C) Nope, don't generally spend more than $15 a month in a F2P game unless I really like the game, and then I am just basically supporting the devs more than anything.

D) If you don't like it, find a different game.

[Syphus]

Also remember that there is another trade-off. I socket one of these boosters, that means I -don't- socket a combat implant.

This isn't true actually. Watch the video, he shows that there is a separate slot for the resource booster.

[Scotsh]

If that was the case they could just lower the sub fee to $9.99 a month to make more money.

No, because F2P gets way more people to try out the game in the first place.

PS: If you add up what you pay in F2P games you will find that you pay allot more then $15 a month. So its not because $15 is allot of money.

No, i dont. I set a budget and never go over it. Period.


Sorry, this is my last posting answering you. You just dont get it, feel entitled to bonuses because you play more and think thats a good thing.
I hope PS2 has as few players of your type as possible. SOE will not see dime from you either i guess.

[Lord Paladin]

No, because F2P gets way more people to try out the game in the first place.



No, i dont. I set a budget and never go over it. Period.


Sorry, this is my last posting answering you. You just dont get it, feel entitled to bonuses because you play more and think thats a good thing.
I hope PS2 has as few players of your type as possible. SOE will not see dime from you either i guess.

That might be what you do, but it's not the vast majority of people do not. In the research i've done with devs talking about their cash shops, the number they bring in is over 15 dollars a month. The trick is "monetizing" a higher % of your player base.

[Sunrock]

No, because F2P gets way more people to try out the game in the first place.

People don't need to try a game first now when you find some any videos on youtube, live streams on twitch and so on. So you can easily see if you would like the game or not without testing the game first.


Sorry, this is my last posting answering you. You just dont get it, feel entitled to bonuses because you play more and think thats a good thing.
I hope PS2 has as few players of your type as possible. SOE will not see dime from you either i guess.

It's not I that don't get it. It's you who don't get it. Your believe that I think I should get a bonus because I play more clearly show that.

No one should get any bonuses at all is what I'm saying. All the money you pay for the game should only be for the right to log in to the game and play it and for new content. The rest is up to you what you do in the game.

And noting of what I written in this post have been directed to you only... What made you think that? Sure I reply on your comments but it's for every one to read and comment on. If this was something directed to you personally I would have sent you a PM.

[IgloGlass]

That might be what you do, but it's not the vast majority of people do not. In the research i've done with devs talking about their cash shops, the number they bring in is over 15 dollars a month. The trick is "monetizing" a higher % of your player base.

The thing is that there's no way that can be true. Also, if you've done "research", be prepared to show it, or link your sources otherwise we know that you are lying. Furthermore, alot of people don't spend any money on free to play games, I most certainly don't in most cases, not that I don't have any money to spend, I'm just really conservative with my money.

However, I am prepared to spend money on Planetside 2, not to get a small edge or to pay for advancement, but to support a game that I'll probably love.

But even if I would spend alot of money like this I don't believe that I would spend nearly as much as $15 a month, every month and I know my friends won't do that either.

The reason that free to play games have been so sucessful economically is, as previously stated, because of a larger player-base where not everyone is a paying customer, but only a certain percentage of that player-base is enough because of the sheer amount of players there is.

This is how games like League of Legends are able to profit from releasing content for free. The "vast majority" like you say, frankly don't pay for anything in the game like you say. But once again, however, they might recruit their cousins or whatever and they might be paying customers.

Although this has been really of topic.. On the subject of implants and a 24 hour timer.

I believe for the small change in gameplay and cost that the timer is actually viable. Alot of people hate on it for some reason but it seems to be quite balanced and will probably be more so during beta.

Compared to buying a gun implants actually grant you power that you otherwise wouldn't have for the same resource, however guns grant you permanent versatility and therefore I will not buy alot of implants during my first month or so of playing since I will primarily be stocking up on different guns to use.

Implants being really viable to use every day - instead of let's say every weekend - will in the end boil down to their cost.

Will the extra power granted by implants be balanced with their cost or not?

[Sunrock]

A) cash shops are so successful because a lot of players either want bling bling for their avatars, or would rather skip the grind. Nothing "not fair" about that.

Yes skipping rather then grinding is unfair. And buying bling bling instead of earning the bling bling just makes the bling bling worthless.


B) Any game that sold an ability to kill all players within 100 meters, would fail rapidly. The balance of a F2P game is to sell things that paying players want, but won't drive away the free players (note: free players are necessary in a F2P games to make the game feel populated)

Of course I understand that. I tried to be sarcastic. Sorry for not making that more clear. But I was talking about what some players want and not was what good for the game.


C) Nope, don't generally spend more than $15 a month in a F2P game unless I really like the game, and then I am just basically supporting the devs more than anything.

If I don't really like the game I don't play it at all. And how mush money you feel like you need to spend is based more on how mush you play the game and how the cash shop is designed to "force you" to buy.


D) If you don't like it, find a different game.

Problem is that only MMOs now a days that dones not have a cash shop is some indy MMOs. So I'm forced to go F2P or stop playing MMOs all to gather. And a F2P game mechanics can for sure be really good. But the cash shop takes out most of the fun of it. I just believe that if you have to play the game to get things in it is so mush more rewarding.


This is how games like League of Legends are able to profit from releasing content for free. The "vast majority" like you say, frankly don't pay for anything in the game like you say. But once again, however, they might recruit their cousins or whatever and they might be paying customers.



What do you think the production cost of LoL was? 300 million dollars? No not really. I would be surprised if it was more then 1 million and I would think it was allot less then that.

If you have low production costs you don't need that mush money to make a profit in the first place.

I saw on gamebraker.tv they reported from some news article that on average players spend $50 on F2P games for the duration of the time they play the game. That of course means that allot of players don't spend a dime and some spend hundreds of dollars.

But if you can make players to sub to a game for 3 months you make more money (3x15=60).

But the media have had such an obsession on how many subscribers a game have from month to month that it relay hurts the PR of the game if players gets bored of the game and quit after 3 month.

With F2P games no one cares how mush money they make or how many that played that game as long as the server you play on have a healthy population and the game is fun.

I can see that is a major reasons way so many games goes F2P just to avoid all the bad PR you get from all the idiots that only care if a game have more subscribers then WoW or not.

[BlueSkies]

Yes skipping rather then grinding is unfair. And buying bling bling instead of earning the bling bling just makes the bling bling worthless.

if you say so...

If I don't really like the game I don't play it at all. And how mush money you feel like you need to spend is based more on how mush you play the game and how the cash shop is designed to "force you" to buy.

No one is going to force you to buy zebra camo or XP boosters...

I saw on gamebraker.tv they reported from some news article that on average players spend $50 on F2P games for the duration of the time they play the game. That of course means that allot of players don't spend a dime and some spend hundreds of dollars.

But if you can make players to sub to a game for 3 months you make more money (3x15=60).

Planetside 1 demonstrated nicely that FPS players, unlike RPG players, are not into monthly subscriptions just to play the game (and actually even the RPG players aren't fans anymore).

Oh... and 3x15=45 , not 60

[Lord Paladin]

The thing is that there's no way that can be true. Also, if you've done "research", be prepared to show it, or link your sources otherwise we know that you are lying. Furthermore, alot of people don't spend any money on free to play games, I most certainly don't in most cases, not that I don't have any money to spend, I'm just really conservative with my money.

However, I am prepared to spend money on Planetside 2, not to get a small edge or to pay for advancement, but to support a game that I'll probably love.

But even if I would spend alot of money like this I don't believe that I would spend nearly as much as $15 a month, every month and I know my friends won't do that either.

The reason that free to play games have been so sucessful economically is, as previously stated, because of a larger player-base where not everyone is a paying customer, but only a certain percentage of that player-base is enough because of the sheer amount of players there is.

This is how games like League of Legends are able to profit from releasing content for free. The "vast majority" like you say, frankly don't pay for anything in the game like you say. But once again, however, they might recruit their cousins or whatever and they might be paying customers.

Although this has been really of topic.. On the subject of implants and a 24 hour timer.

I believe for the small change in gameplay and cost that the timer is actually viable. Alot of people hate on it for some reason but it seems to be quite balanced and will probably be more so during beta.

Compared to buying a gun implants actually grant you power that you otherwise wouldn't have for the same resource, however guns grant you permanent versatility and therefore I will not buy alot of implants during my first month or so of playing since I will primarily be stocking up on different guns to use.

Implants being really viable to use every day - instead of let's say every weekend - will in the end boil down to their cost.

Will the extra power granted by implants be balanced with their cost or not?

As soon as I posted that, I tried looking for sources. Unfortunately this proprietary data that you won't find in an interview. However, I've been fortunate enough to go to trade shows and received special access due to media standing.

I do believe there are some videos online from a conference held in Texas this last year, but it's gonna take me a while when I'm not at work to find the right one.

I know my credibility online doesn't exist, however the issues you're listing is only part of the equation.

As an anecdotal example, for a while I was playing Lords of Ultima. It's free to play, pay to win.

For about 3 months, I didn't give them a dollar, but I continued along, content and plugging away at my growing empire with a small group of friends. At some point, however, I became a nice juicy target.

All the sudden some larger, more established player started sieging my cities, and my defenses were rapidly crumbling. Well, I didn't want this to happen, so I spent a few bucks for instant resources, and a few bucks more for a power that cuts down the training time for troops. Not a whole lot, but it "burst my cherry" for spending real dollars. After that, when I had some free time, but nothing to do, I dropped a couple dollars to grease the wheels. My growth in the game expanded rapidly (far beyond the scope of what planetside is doing. We're talking taking something from days (plural) to hours). Then that jerk who tried to kick my ass came back. This time he brought friends. Things were going worse than the first time time. All in all, I probably blew about 50 dollars (just doing 5-7 dollar transactions) in a week to a week and a half.

I had put all that time, energy, and effort (as well as some money now) into my empire. I was going to be damned if someone was going to ruin all of that.

In the end, I was able to hold him an his buddies off (through pay to win, as well as some diplomacy on my part). And in the end, EA got more money out of me than if I had paid 15 dollars a month.

Now I completely agree with you about spending money. I have no idea spending money to support a free game that I love. I think that's a good thing. I chastise my friends if they pirate a good game, because we need to support good ones with our money so they will make more (and to reward devs for doing a good job). However, we are not the majority.

I just noticed the other day that Zynga's "Sims" ripoff has 46 million people activate it on their facebook page. Zynga is notorious for having terrible monitization of its sub base (meaning maybe only 5% (i don't remember the exact percent) of those people actually give them money). For them, this still means more people than planetside 2 will ever see play it. Which means that that 5% of people needs to spend enough money to make the game fiscally sound for Zynga to continue. (This is what you and many others are talking about). Now 4% of that 5% are probably people that drop a couple bucks here and there, and the remaining people are the growing 1% which have been conditioned that this is okay, and continue to spend a couple bucks a week PLUS purchasing whatever new stuff Zynga comes out with.

The trick here is that it seems once people "spend money" once, they're more likely to spend it again. Once they have their information in the system for the first time, the mental barrier to hitting that "purchase" button becomes easier and easier.

Here's another anecdotal example.

Take your average person's accounting. For the vast majority of the unwashed masses (those who the government's own accounting is large than 50% in large credit card debt) the spending which gets the most out of control is the day-to-day small transactions (I'm guilty of this myself). The "buying lunch every day for 5 dollars" or the "getting coffee every day on the way to work" plus the "pack of gum from the gas station" type expenses. This has become a larger issue due to the rise in check-card/credit-card usage. People "lose track" of all of these small transactions they're making, and which often times add up to hundreds of dollars a month.

It's not a very different phenomena with free-to-play games. In league of legends, you play with the free stuff. Then you buy your first 1 or 2 characters. Then you buy 3 or 4 the next time. Then you buy this that or the other thing. And next thing you know, every time they release new content, you're buying something from it.

It's a gradual slide, but in the end, the successful companies are able to monetize more than 15 dollars a month out of players. The more players they have, the monetized players they have. So it's a little of column A and a little of column B. They don't monetize everyone, but the ones that they do tend to spend more.

I hope this wall of text made sense to anyone who actually read it.

tl;dr @ IgloGlass - I concede a few points to you, but submit that the situation is more complex than you're making it out to be.



Yes skipping rather then grinding is unfair. And buying bling bling instead of earning the bling bling just makes the bling bling worthless.


No, it's not. Time is money. You either pay with time, or you pay with money. Some people can't pay with time. You're investing in the game either way. I just measure my opportunity cost.

[Otleaz]

No, it's not. Time is money. You either pay with time, or you pay with money. Some people can't pay with time. You're investing in the game either way. I just measure my opportunity cost.

That is fair enough, but why make it so people are at a disadvantage because of it? Most other popular PvP F2P games avoid systems where people who play more are more powerful. They focus on letting players unlock more options, rather than power increases.

[Lord Paladin]

That is fair enough, but why make it so people are at a disadvantage because of it? Most other popular PvP F2P games avoid systems where people who play more are more powerful. They focus on letting players unlock more options, rather than power increases.

But these implants -aren't- making you more powerful. That's why so many people are saying they're fine as is. a .25 second increase to your reload is an edge, not an advantage.

[Salad Snake]

You are taking things way too black and white. Also, care to explain how auraxium is player driven at all? I have a hunch you meant that they can capture auraxium facilities to increase generation, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I was under that impression, yes. If that is not the case then I concede you that point. Also, that is a black & white argument, but only in response to your own.

[Otleaz]

But these implants -aren't- making you more powerful. That's why so many people are saying they're fine as is. a .25 second increase to your reload is an edge, not an advantage.

Are you from the twilight zone or something?

I was under that impression, yes. If that is not the case then I concede you that point. Also, that is a black & white argument, but only in response to your own.

You are correct, I feel a bit silly for getting hypocritical there. Reading back, my argument was very black and white.

To try and explain better, I would like to lay out that I feel there is a line that should not be crossed. Bullet deviation and crits(while unfair), are something everyone needs to deal with so they make it by the skin of their teeth.

One person being flat out more powerful than another is not only completely unnecessary, it is going way too far.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Maybe have an 'auto-renew' toggle for the implants, so that you don't have to worry about checking that they're still active. If it's 24h real-time though, it would have to only do it when you're online - i.e. if the time runs out when you're online, it automatically buys a new implant. If it runs out when you're offline, it buys a new one only when you next log on.

Oh please devs, make an auto-renew.

Also, I love the idea of them being "in-your pocket" even if they do still count down their timers.

If I'm playing as a HA, I'll want "Implant set 1" and when I'm playing as a medic or engineer, I'll want "implant set 2"

I hope implants are part of the resupply loadout for each class.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Yeah, but that sucks.

If I'm playing medic I'll need fast switching and reload speed more than I would as HA. (100 round mags and I don't have reloaditis). So my HA can get that one where your weapons are used faster after sprinting instead.

At high BR, I'll get all 3. But at low BR, I'd like to change implants based on which class I'm playing and it'd be sweet if it was part of the custom loadout; no different to the scope on my rifle or flash suppressor etc etc.

[Graywolves]

Neat. Interested in seeing what else comes in. I think the vehicle ones will be the most useful.

[exLupo]

The thing is that there's no way that can be true. Also, if you've done "research", be prepared to show it, or link your sources otherwise we know that you are lying.

5 minutes on google and I found an article on Gamasutra discussing Maple Story and quoting pay variances between $0/mo and $25/wk. Also, there's an interesting presentation from EA on the successful monetization of Battlefield Heroes.

So you don't have to waste time looking, here's the links.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132018/understanding_freetoplay_.php?page=3
http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

There's also an older one from Nexon that, iirc, in 2004-2006 was noting specifically that they were pulling in an average of $15/mo on active accounts. The article above lists 70ish million accounts and $16 mil monthly revenue but the accounts number for f2p includes all accounts that have been active at any point so cannot be used for simple math.

This should be enough to get you started. You're free to do your own legwork if you want to learn more. Also, in the future, "You're a liar" is not a legitimate counter argument. Asking someone to show their work is fine but being a jerk about it is not.

[mindmines]

O.o Looking forward to this! I'm definitely stoked!

[CutterJohn]

Always love these threads.

I don't wanna pay! But I don't wanna be disadvantaged in any way either!

:rolleyes:

Nothing but pure entitlement. Throwing the term Pay 2 win around like its a pejorative to justify and excuse being cheap, because who can be bothered to pay for products and services they enjoy in this day and age!

It's like those stupid World of Tanks arguments all over again. OMG gold ammo is pay to win! No. No its not. I bought some, and it improved my K/D ratio by about 5%-10%. Still got my ass handed to me plenty.

Is it ideal? Of course not. But we don't live in fantasy land, this is reality. The game has to be paid for, and cosmetics are not going to do the job(Do not mention TF2. TF2 was already in the black from regular sales before it transitioned to F2P). You can sell convenience, but there is a real fine line between convenience and player power. Are loadout slots power? Not directly, but shaving 10-20s off the respawn times is going to have a long term effect on efficiency, meaning you can buy more. Buying sidegrades and the resource booster means more auraxium for implants and vehicles. Buying the XP booster means you'll have more certs, and no matter how balanced they make it, it will never be perfect, and some certs will be strictly better than others(Oh, and it unlocks booster slots faster).

So. Power is being sold. 100% undeniable. The only question is, how much advantage to sell For my money, I'd prefer they just be straight up and honest. You pay X dollars a month, and get Y power. Exactly like the EQ1/2 F2P models, which have the most fair and honest F2P systems out there. Free players are gimped, but the only thing they can purchase is a simple $15 a month sub. There is no attempts to nickle and dime, no obscuring costs behind weird gold/xp schemes with 5 different currency types where it takes a week to figure out. 1 payment, complete honesty. This is what you pay, this is what you get.

But so long as that sense of entitlement remains, they have to hide p2w behind a dozen lies and scams to obscure the truth, so that people don't notice(Ever wonder why F2P cash systems are so ridiculously complex?:rolleyes:). Or, if they do notice, it can be claimed its not really power, not directly. But thats a lie too.

[exLupo]

It's all about dancing the fine line of how much power disparity your player base can handle. From who gets to the max ranks fast enough to quantifiable differences that free players cannot ever touch, you've gotta know how far you can push before your income starts going in the wrong direction.

Everyone says "If you don't like it, vote with your wallet!" It works both ways.

[Otleaz]

Always love these threads.

I don't wanna pay! But I don't wanna be disadvantaged in any way either!

:rolleyes:

Nothing but pure entitlement. Throwing the term Pay 2 win around like its a pejorative to justify and excuse being cheap, because who can be bothered to pay for products and services they enjoy in this day and age!

It's like those stupid World of Tanks arguments all over again. OMG gold ammo is pay to win! No. No its not. I bought some, and it improved my K/D ratio by about 5%-10%. Still got my ass handed to me plenty.


Pay2win doesn't mean you automatically win if you pay. It means you can get an advantage over people who don't pay. Regardless of whether or not your gold bullets won you the game, they still gave you a clear advantage over those without them.


Is it ideal? Of course not. But we don't live in fantasy land, this is reality. The game has to be paid for, and cosmetics are not going to do the job(Do not mention TF2. TF2 was already in the black from regular sales before it transitioned to F2P).

Alright, what about Tribes and League of Legends? They both offer systems that leave all players on an even level after the introductory phase of the game. They can come in and play as little as one round a week without having to worry about buying something to keep them on par with everyone else. Tribes even uses a system extremely similar to PS2.

Both games are hugely successful and free to play. PVP Games that sell power like APB often end up in the gutter.


So. Power is being sold. 100% undeniable. The only question is, how much advantage to sell For my money, I'd prefer they just be straight up and honest. You pay X dollars a month, and get Y power. Exactly like the EQ1/2 F2P models, which have the most fair and honest F2P systems out there. Free players are gimped, but the only thing they can purchase is a simple $15 a month sub. There is no attempts to nickle and dime, no obscuring costs behind weird gold/xp schemes with 5 different currency types where it takes a week to figure out. 1 payment, complete honesty. This is what you pay, this is what you get.


I'm sure everyone here would much prefer a system like that.

[CutterJohn]

Pay2win doesn't mean you automatically win if you pay. It means you can get an advantage over people who don't pay.

Then use an appropriate term. Pay for slight statistical advantage, for instance. Or just a simple Pay for power.



Alright, what about Tribes and League of Legends? They both offer systems that leave all players on an even level after the introductory phase of the game. They can come in and play as little as one round a week without having to worry about buying something to keep them on par with everyone else. Tribes even uses a system extremely similar to PS2.

Both games are hugely successful and free to play. PVP Games that sell power like APB often end up in the gutter.

Tribes Ascend: Buying sidegrades gives you far faster access, and frees up XP for purchasing improvements.

LoL: It takes a long time to max characters, and its a rather rock paper scissors game. When you pick your heroes, you may not have access to a direct counter to their class, or yours will be weaker.

Yes, you end up in the same place in both. Eventually. It can take months or years, though. And for those months or years, you're disadvantaged to those who pay. However, many people do not play games for months or years. To these people, the fact that they could eventually reach the level of the veterans/payers without paying is irrelevant.



Purposefully stretching out the grind to ridiculous lengths while maintaining power imbalances indeed Pay to win, even if everyone ends up at the same spot. I am not saying this in a negative fashion, just a truthful one. As is clearly evidenced, I don't think paying for power is necessarily bad thing, provided the imbalance isn't taken to egregious levels or ridiculous prices.

[DemonHunter]

Awesome video i love the video.

[Dreamcast]

I don't really like the fact that the Implants have levels without sacrifice.



Remember what was originally promised that anything making u better at one thing will make u worst at another.


So IMO fast reload 3 should make you have less ammo....Fast reload 1 should make u reload slightly faster but you will lose less ammo than fast reload 3.


That's one the examples.


But it seems the implants don't do a huge difference so is ok.

[Otleaz]

Then use an appropriate term. Pay for slight statistical advantage, for instance. Or just a simple Pay for power.


Tribes Ascend: Buying sidegrades gives you far faster access, and frees up XP for purchasing improvements.

LoL: It takes a long time to max characters, and its a rather rock paper scissors game. When you pick your heroes, you may not have access to a direct counter to their class, or yours will be weaker.

Yes, you end up in the same place in both. Eventually. It can take months or years, though. And for those months or years, you're disadvantaged to those who pay. However, many people do not play games for months or years. To these people, the fact that they could eventually reach the level of the veterans/payers without paying is irrelevant.

What I was referring to was the introductory matchmaking both games have.

Tribes puts you into this for the first 8 levels, which is just enough to completely max out one loadout(Primary weapon, secondary weapon, armor, pack, and grenade). Once you have this, you can fill that role just as well as someone with years under their belt, disregarding skill.

League of legends has a hefty elo drop(around -500 elo) until you are level 30. Getting to level 30 will get you just enough to get you a rune page and some of the cheap heroes. While the cheaper heroes usually fit a wide variety of roles, they also let you use 10 free heroes each week which are chosen in a way that guarantees each in game role is available.

You can only use one loadout or runepage at a time. Unlocking more than that gives you versatility, not power. You may not be as useful as someone who has played longer, but you can fit your single role just as well as they can.


Purposefully stretching out the grind to ridiculous lengths while maintaining power imbalances indeed Pay to win, even if everyone ends up at the same spot. I am not saying this in a negative fashion, just a truthful one. As is clearly evidenced, I don't think paying for power is necessarily bad thing, provided the imbalance isn't taken to egregious levels or ridiculous prices.

I feel there is a distinct difference between grinding to gain versatility and grinding to gain power.

I'm going to assume you mean the release of overpowered content to bolster sales. Do you believe people would ignore something like that if they had a choice? There is literally no way to call the developers out on something like that unless you secretly recorded them talking about it.

EDIT: I have a feeling I misread your intentions with that last statement. I'm having difficulty understanding your perspective so I will apologize in advance.

[lawnmower]

But these implants -aren't- making you more powerful. That's why so many people are saying they're fine as is. a .25 second increase to your reload is an edge, not an advantage.
how is making you better not making you more powerful?
they -are- making you more powerful and giving you an advantage

[Sunrock]

how is making you better not making you more powerful?
they -are- making you more powerful and giving you an advantage

Yes it is. Some just try to spin words here to make it sound better.

Giving you an edge is the same thing as saying making you more powerful.

[Klockan]

Actually Klockan it's a pretty good chance that it's set for play time rather then a strait 24 hours. Anything else would be robbery and/or encouraging people to play for 24 hours strait just to get their monies worth.
How is that any different than paying a monthly fee, or have you played any game where you pay for ingame time? Also having it as ingame hours just doesn't make sense from a business perspective. Logically people that play less hours have more money to spend so for them it can still be worth it to pay for the full 24 hours even if they just use 1-2 of them, while for the guys who don't got a job and can play all day it might seem overpriced even if they can use all of the 24 hours. Thus this pricing scheme makes a rough adaption to the consumers buying power which increases profit. If everyone payed the same per hour either the guys with money to spend would pay way less than they are willing to or none of the poor guys would ever buy anything.

And how would it be robbery? It will probably cost somewhere around 50 cent to a dollar meaning that buying one each day you play wouldn't be that much more expensive (or it could be even cheaper) than a normal sub.

[Sunrock]

And how would it be robbery? It will probably cost somewhere around 50 cent to a dollar meaning that buying one each day you play wouldn't be that much more expensive (or it could be even cheaper) than a normal sub.

Well a normal sub is $15/month so if it cost more then 50 cent then it would be more expensive. But if you are also expected to buy camo too. (If they really have any imact on the game play witch I don't think they will). 50 cent will get you over that $15/month easily.

[Firearms]

Well a normal sub is $15/month so if it cost more then 50 cent then it would be more expensive. But if you are also expected to buy camo too. (If they really have any imact on the game play witch I don't think they will). 50 cent will get you over that $15/month easily.

Surely you wouldn't pay everyday...? If you're willing to buy them, you must have planned to use them...gaining you auraxium to buy more?

[Sunrock]

Surely you wouldn't pay everyday...? If you're willing to buy them, you must have planned to use them...gaining you auraxium to buy more?

What are we talking about? The implants or the camo packs?

If we talking about the implants way would I not buy them every day? And way would not every one play this game every day?

[Firearms]

Sry, I've prolly got it wrong. I was talking about implants. I read it as buying them everyday would become expensive - and answered with you wouldn't buy (pay cash) everyday...you'd use resources...

:oops:

[exLupo]

And why would not every one in my demographic play this game every day?

Fixed that for you.

[Sunrock]

Fixed that for you.

No... Every one have at least 1-2 hour to play this game every day. If you say you don't your lying to your self because you don't want to play.

[Klockan]

No... Every one have at least 1-2 hour to play this game every day. If you say you don't your lying to your self because you don't want to play.
Believe it or not, but PS2 isn't highest on everyones priority list. Things like clubbing, visiting friends, playing other games, work/studying, a romantic evening with their partner etc, can all occasionally take priority over playing PS2.

[exLupo]

Work, school, socializing, carpentry hobby, raging gambling addiction. Everybody's different and not all of us have time to be tied to a computer that much every day.

edit: Not saying I don't have a serious game boner for PS2 but I just have too much other stuff going on. I haven't logged more than an hour of EVE time in the past two months with how crazy things have been. Enough time to switch skills and log out. I haven't even been paying rent to the POS I'm living out of. *nervous*

edit of an edit: I think, really, that I'm the target audience for the resource booster. Two-hour-a-day players should have no problem at all keeping a lv2 kit slotted. So it's for those of us who can't play much -or- for those that can play and really want to rock the lv3 all the time. And then there's the poopsockers...

[Sunrock]

Work, school, socializing, carpentry hobby, raging gambling addiction. Everybody's different and not all of us have time to be tied to a computer that much every day.

edit: Not saying I don't have a serious game boner for PS2 but I just have too much other stuff going on. I haven't logged more than an hour of EVE time in the past two months with how crazy things have been. Enough time to switch skills and log out. I haven't even been paying rent to the POS I'm living out of. *nervous*

Yes you do if you really want to. It's about priorities your time. You are just saying that the game is not that important so I do that when I have nothing else to do.

Question is do you rather go bowling or play the game for an example. Or do you rather go down to the pub then playing the game.

[Syphus]

It's really weird to call a lot of those things "necessities."

But I don't care about any of that, I just care that this $15/month argument ignores the fact that in general people paid money for the product first. So with PS1 it's $50 + $15 / month. And people should get their math correct.

[Liwen Diamond]

I try to take the time to play games everyday, but if I focus on a single game, said game usually gets boring real fast. I usually have a rotation of about 3-4 games I play over the course of any given week.

And then there are those days where you just can't help it. Because RL is throwing a shitstorm of stuff in your general direction :P

[Boone]

Regarding peoples issue with time to play - What if Planetside introduced something ala DUST 514 where you gain (at a much slower rate of course) Cert points or in DUST "skill points" while offline?

With the money issue I don't have a problem throwing some cash at a game that is worth it. I plan on buying probably buying a camo pack for each class (if that's how it works). I'm big into the look of my character though even in an FPS ;\. I'm sure it will look silly anyway with 200 LA all charging in looking the same.

[Otleaz]

Regarding peoples issue with time to play - What if Planetside introduced something ala DUST 514 where you gain (at a much slower rate of course) Cert points or in DUST "skill points" while offline?.

That is already planned I believe. The amount is what is important though. If a person earns enough resources passively to pay for their implants each day, then it wouldn't be an issue.

If that were the case I would move my concerns to the fact that you need to unlock implant slots.

[Boone]

Well a normal sub is $15/month so if it cost more then 50 cent then it would be more expensive. But if you are also expected to buy camo too. (If they really have any imact on the game play witch I don't think they will). 50 cent will get you over that $15/month easily.

I guess I'm confused. In the video he said the only thing (of course outside of camo) that real cash would be used is XP boosters. He said Resources will allow you to buy the implants, which I assume you get from playing/taking shit.

Why is anyone gonna pay money everyday? I must of missed something.

[Flaropri]

Always love these threads.

I don't wanna pay! But I don't wanna be disadvantaged in any way either!

In the sense of XP boosts and such, I tend to agree with you on this. In LoL there were a lot of complaints about the price of new champions becoming 6300 IP standard. I was one of those people complaining, since I wanted to believe that skin bundles would be incentive enough to encourage actual purchases, but regardless I never thought it was unreasonable for them to make the change.

Throwing the term Pay 2 win around like its a pejorative to justify and excuse being cheap, because who can be bothered to pay for products and services they enjoy in this day and age!

This, however, I disagree with. There are legitimate concerns when it comes to "Pay 2 Win." Mostly to do with game balance. It isn't FUN for players to get stomped because of someone else having spent money all else being equal.*

The other concern, aside from direct game balance concerns (but still related to them) is stigma. I, the Devs, and many other players want to have as many players into PS2 as possible. Players are content, or friends, or friends you have yet to met and talk with, and players fund the game. Players make sand-box games like Planetside what they are, and determine how successful a F2P game is.

Even if it's minor, P2W can scare off or discourage players, limiting growth or even causing stagnation.


*(For better or worse, it isn't always easy to see the cause of a defeat, whether it is skill, choices, or P2W in some games.)

Is it ideal? Of course not. But we don't live in fantasy land, this is reality. The game has to be paid for, and cosmetics are not going to do the job(Do not mention TF2. TF2 was already in the black from regular sales before it transitioned to F2P). You can sell convenience, but there is a real fine line between convenience and player power.

"But LoL!"
"LoL sells boosts!"

Just summarizing some later posts.

My personal view: LoL doesn't sell anything (power wise) that people can't get themselves eventually. Boosts can get you Runes/Rune Slots faster, but they don't provide any runes that can only be gained through RP. This is different from Golden Bullets in WoT, as Golden Bullets are not something that can be (AFAIK) mimicked by a Free-Player...

If LoL sold Champion XP boosts or Gold boosts that effected their play capability directly, I'd have a huge problem with it, just as I dislike (and thus do not support) WoT Golden Bullets.

But so long as that sense of entitlement remains, they have to hide p2w behind a dozen lies and scams to obscure the truth, so that people don't notice(Ever wonder why F2P cash systems are so ridiculously complex?:rolleyes:). Or, if they do notice, it can be claimed its not really power, not directly. But thats a lie too.

My concern is with selling something that cannot be mimicked without paying for it (power-wise) XP boosts (and thus Implant slots for example) can be obtained over time, so I don't care if someone gets there faster even if they are "stronger" than me for a period of time. It is worth noting: Implants are supposedly the only things that are direct upgrades, though obviously some side-grades will worth better together than with standard gear.

Along with vehicle utility slots, I'm not too concerned overall if people unlock the full compliment faster than me. Especially given that the Implants (stat, not boost) provide very minor benefits anyway, so having 3 more slight benefits than me for a short period of time means diddly to me.

However, there are still concerns with Boosts. XP boosts are more convenience, the difference between a fresh player and a veteran player with many Certs is small, but is that the same for Resource?


The fact is, there isn't enough public information regarding the Resource System. Initially at least, I figure that Auraxium (primarily used to unlock side-grade weapons as I understand it) boosts are fine. It's a bit more iffy with Implants being Auraxium based and timed, but we need more information.

My biggest concern is with keeping the vehicle/limited-use-item resources non-trivial. Obviously, if the resource system ends up trivial it won't matter if boosts are sold (in fact, people probably wouldn't buy them). However, that just means that they put all the work into that system for nothing, and it limits the usefulness of resources as incentive to form a Meta-game.

If resources matter, and boosts are significant, than you run into the problem of having something that can't be mimicked by Free-Players. On the other hand, if resources matter, and boosts are insignificant, it might be okay. A bit iffy, but not something that necessarily breaks the system. Granted, it might not sell well, but whatever.

My overriding worry is that the resource system become trivialized, whether through boosts or poor balancing... There are many reasons for this, and it isn't just a dislike of "P2W."

In any event; there just isn't enough information, and even if there was information, a large part of the Beta is to help determine what sort of resource income/expenditure is ideal so it would all be subject to potentially radical change anyway.


Personally I'd rather just not see Resource Boosts (except Auraxium) in the store, and avoid that headache. Sell weapons, xp boosts, cosmetics, faction/server transfers and call it a day.

[CutterJohn]

This, however, I disagree with. There are legitimate concerns when it comes to "Pay 2 Win." Mostly to do with game balance. It isn't FUN for players to get stomped because of someone else having spent money all else being equal.*

If imbalance were actually a concern, then power imbalance from grinding out levels or gear would come under the same scrutiny, yet most F2P games maintain grind to win facets.

They've tossed out the 20% difference between newb and vet power levels. Nobody seems to mind. A few voices of dissent, but it is mostly ignored. Yes, you can eventually overcome that disparity, but that helps then, not now. Right now you just know that that guy beat you because of insurmountable gameplay elements that you have no method of overcoming.

I maintain that the outrage is purely because people don't want to have to pay money. They want 100% of the fun for free. They don't actually care about the imbalance.

You're correct that people have a negative opinion of the model, but that negative opinion, in my opinion, derives from this self interest, not real objections or worries over the model, since its provable that a great many people have zero issue with imbalanced PVP. EVE is doing wonderfully, as is WoW pvp. WoT is still quite popular, etc.

It may be bad for a competitive game, but then PS was never a competitive game, was it?

[Otleaz]

If imbalance were actually a concern, then power imbalance from grinding out levels or gear would come under the same scrutiny, yet most F2P games maintain grind to win facets.


No, the gun you are handed at the start of the game will be just as strong as the gun you are using 3 years later. Just like in other popular F2P games. You grind for versatility, not power. As for certs, I'm giving SOE the benefit of the doubt on how they will handle them for fresh players,.


They've tossed out the 20% difference between newb and vet power levels. Nobody seems to mind. A few voices of dissent, but it is mostly ignored. Yes, you can eventually overcome that disparity, but that helps then, not now. Right now you just know that that guy beat you because of insurmountable gameplay elements that you have no method of overcoming.

Not the difference between a new player and a vet, the difference between a maxed out loadout and a loadout with no certs. If SOE follow suit with other F2P games, they will either be giving you a single weapon at the start with all of its certs, or give you accelerated cert points so you can max out one loadout within a couple hours. You may not be able to do all of the jobs, but you can do your job just as good as anyone else.



I maintain that the outrage is purely because people don't want to have to pay money. They want 100% of the fun for free. They don't actually care about the imbalance.


No, this issue is about my opponents and my friends.

My opponents will be weaker than me, invalidating any actions I make to secure victory. This will leave me feeling hollow. I play games to have fun, hollow victories are not fun.

My friends, who are already not too interested, will be much less interested in playing if they can't play enough to keep their characters on par with everyone else. This leaves me feeling lonely. I play games to have fun, a lonely experience is not fun.


You're correct that people have a negative opinion of the model, but that negative opinion, in my opinion, derives from this self interest, not real objections or worries over the model,
My negative opinion derives from experience. I have seen and experienced many F2P games, and I have seen and experienced systems that not only make a profit, but don't bother me in the slightest.

When I see a company use these systems that work extremely well, and then try and slap on MORE, that doesn't sit well with me. When those extra things they slap on don't even work, that sits even less well with me.


since its provable that a great many people have zero issue with imbalanced PVP. EVE is doing wonderfully, as is WoW pvp. WoT is still quite popular, etc.

EVE has a system similar to what has been described here. Every ship has a place in a battle, even the lowest tiers. Once you max out a tier, you are just as strong in that tier as someone who has played for years.

WoW is a PvE mmo before it is a PvP mmo. The playerbase is completely under a trance by the time they reach level 60. Not only that, but the combat is so simplistic that if there wasn't a difference in power there would be draws every time.

WoT manages a population thanks to the large amount of WW2 fans around the world.


It may be bad for a competitive game, but then PS was never a competitive game, was it?
Yes, it was. You are playing against other people. Competition is a mentality, not a thing that only occurs if it is declared.

This mentality is natural when your opponents are human.

[scroogh]

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

[Otleaz]

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

If someone cannot play enough to upkeep these upgrades, they are forced to either buy a booster or be flatout weaker than everyone else.

This would just be speculation, but I feel that there is evidence enough once you consider that if it was easy enough to upkeep these implants(using just the passive resource gains for example), there would be 0 reason to have lower tiered and cheaper versions of each implant.

[scroogh]

If someone cannot play enough to upkeep these upgrades, they are forced to either buy a booster or be flatout weaker than everyone else.

This would just be speculation, but I feel that there is evidence enough once you consider that if it was easy enough to upkeep these implants(using just the passive resource gains for example), there would be 0 reason to have lower tiered and cheaper versions of each implant.

If this game were a strict 6vs6 or 12v12 the power of one player would actually mean something, but the numbers are increased exponentially so one player having an advantage over another isn't that big of a deal because there's atleast dozens of players at both of those 2 players back and the boost will more than likely not be "felt" by anyone but the person that is using it. Which is the important part.

Now if you had an entire outfit of guys that all had implants vs another outfit that didn't it would become noticeable. but things rarely workout that way.

I'm sure everything will FEEL fine for everyone after they get major balance issues tweaked. Which is really all that matters. I know there are all the hard core guys that will disagree. but this game is being designed to attract everyone, including hard core players. So I don't care.

[exLupo]

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

If someone cannot play enough to upkeep these upgrades, they are forced to either buy a booster or be flatout weaker than everyone else.

As far as I know "pay 2 win" is used only when grinding is not an option. I can't recall a time when that designation has been used except when players are forced to pay or be weaker. If grinding is an option, paying is not required so you can still "win" without paying.

How well the cash vs grind is balanced is up to dev but just because someone "cannot play enough" that doesn't mean the game locks non-paying players out of the best gear, skills or content.

[Otleaz]

As far as I know "pay 2 win" is used only when grinding is not an option. I can't recall a time when that designation has been used except when players are forced to pay or be weaker. If grinding is an option, paying is not required so you can still "win" without paying.

How well the cash vs grind is balanced is up to dev but just because someone "cannot play enough" that doesn't mean the game locks non-paying players out of the best gear, skills or content.

So, if it was so expensive that it is impossible to upkeep without either getting boosters or playing 15-16 hours a day, it still wouldn't be pay2win? This is the exact same scenario, only it affects many more people. Is it alright if it is only the minority getting screwed?

Don't get so caught up on definitions. Regardless of what pay2win is, with a rental system like this you will have people who have to choose between being weaker or paying money.

If this game were a strict 6vs6 or 12v12 the power of one player would actually mean something, but the numbers are increased exponentially so one player having an advantage over another isn't that big of a deal because there's atleast dozens of players at both of those 2 players back and the boost will more than likely not be "felt" by anyone but the person that is using it. Which is the important part.

Now if you had an entire outfit of guys that all had implants vs another outfit that didn't it would become noticeable. but things rarely workout that way.

I'm sure everything will FEEL fine for everyone after they get major balance issues tweaked. Which is really all that matters. I know there are all the hard core guys that will disagree. but this game is being designed to attract everyone, including hard core players. So I don't care.

This isn't a RTS. The vast majority of the gameplay we have seen consists of one person shooting another person. Even if is a group of 3 shooting at another group of 3, in the end those groups are all made up of individuals, and they should be treated as such.

[Flaropri]

If imbalance were actually a concern, then power imbalance from grinding out levels or gear would come under the same scrutiny, yet most F2P games maintain grind to win facets.

Yes and no. LoL requires you to grind out IP and Levels in order to fully access Summoner Spells and Runes, but it also has a clear cap, and beyond that is side-grades/options. A level 30 Summoner will usually wipe the floor with a level 1 Summoner and not just because of experience with the game, but also because of Spells and Runes. However, LoL also usually avoids putting 1s against 30s, via the hidden ladder system on normal games.

Tribes: Ascend looks similar, though I haven't played it nearly as much, where you can reach the plateau of power with a given class, but you'll need to grind more to have equal power with the other classes. Match-making is less prevalent in this game however, and that does cause problems.

SMNC has a lot of problems with match-making that discourage players, though part of that has to do with lack of players (and thus self-fulfilling), and it also falls into the same category of business style as those above (from what I can tell, have played that less than Tribes).

All three of these games are entirely or nearly entirely PvP based games.

F2P MMORPGs do tend to be grind to win, but they are also primarily PvE, and, well, most MMORPGs are "grind to win" regardless of business model. It's part of how that system works. Planetside also has this, and quite frankly, I don't think it was to its credit given the nature of the game, but the gap between a new player and an old one is still something that can be overcome.

Yes, you can eventually overcome that disparity, but that helps then, not now. Right now you just know that that guy beat you because of insurmountable gameplay elements that you have no method of overcoming.

Uh... I question the use of insurmountable here. I mean, the player has access to the tools necessary to surmount those elements inherently. It also depends on the actual balance, and how much stats play a role vs. skill (or dumb luck).

More importantly, there is a difference between Play 2 Win and Pay 2 Win.

Among other things:

A) Method of payment. Not everyone has access to the ability to pay for SC. This means that those people are UNABLE to access SC only features.

B) One rewards time, effort, and skill within the game itself ( or at least the first two), the other does not.


You're trying to equate a persistent growth system independent of money flow to P2W, and it just doesn't work that way.



I maintain that the outrage is purely because people don't want to have to pay money. They want 100% of the fun for free. They don't actually care about the imbalance.

And I maintain that ascribing motivations to people, even when at least some of them state their reasons, is just being an ass. To say that I and others don't care about imbalance in spite of our own statements and without proof is not just ignoring the argument but needlessly going towards an ad hominem (which doesn't help your own argument).

I mean, I could say "The whole reason you're in favor of it is because you want to just spend money to stomp newbs!" or "You just want to make yourself feel better and that you feel you should be entitled to be stronger than others because you are willing to spend money!"

Neither of those are, as far as I can tell, accurate, nor do they support my own position. It's just stupid.



Here's what I think it comes down to:

You're view, as I understand it based on your posts:
"People should have to pay in order to have as much fun as paying players."

My view:
"People shouldn't have to pay in order for the game to be balanced for them."


I don't think these need to be incompatible.

I want the game to be balanced, and for PayPlayers to have access to more fun things. Fun things, in my view include: time condensing, the ability to ReCert to try out new things easily without having to grind all over again, server transfers to make sure they're with their friends/in the environment they prefer, possibly faction changes for the same reason, and the loads of fun and entertaining cosmetic items on offer.

FreePlayers wouldn't have access to those things. If they want to switch factions they'll have to do it the hard way, and they'll never get the awesome Gundam(-inspired) horns for their MAX or the dashboard Hula Girl for their Sunderer. They won't get Pink Headlights on their Prowler either.


I also think that players = content and content = fun. Even IF the negative view of P2W is only because people don't want to pay, because they are "entitled" or whatever, it still exists. Just because for some people it might be the "wrong" reason doesn't mean it will go away if it is ignored. Nor does it mean that everyone that's against it is doing so purely for that "incorrect" reason.

Personally, I'd rather have more players (more content), and spend my money on things that don't distort game-balance and are pure fun for me (and in the case of cosmetics, possibly fun for others as well). I don't think that's unreasonable.



SIDE NOTES (EDIT): Regarding WoW PvP, it's place as an e-sport has much diminished in comparison to others. It's still there, but it's doing well primarily because it's subsidized. Also, as far as competetive play goes, it is even. The top teams will have gotten the gear necessary to compete long ago, and mostly the ungeared teams just look at it as a grind until they have that season's gear and can "really compete." Battlegrounds are doing better, but people don't take them seriously except for Team BGs, which has the same process as Arena... it's a grind till you get the right gear.

I personally do NOT enjoy beating someone because of superior gear. The idea of paying to win doesn't seem like fun to me from either side of the payer or the freer. I know some people enjoy it, or don't mind it, and more power to them I guess, it's just not something that I would find attractive.

[exLupo]

So, if it was so expensive that it is impossible to upkeep without either getting boosters or playing 15-16 hours a day, it still wouldn't be pay2win? This is the exact same scenario, only it affects many more people. Is it alright if it is only the minority getting screwed?

Don't get so caught up on definitions. Regardless of what pay2win is, with a rental system like this you will have people who have to choose between being weaker or paying money.

While your example is hyperbolic, yes, that is still not pay2win. Definitions are extremely important, especially in situations like then when people are using emotionally charged words and present arguments pinned around those words. If we don't agree on what we're talking about, we can't ever get anywhere.

From my understanding, you believe it is poor design for anyone to be able to pay for anything, regardless of whether or not that thing can be obtained by any other means. If that is correct, it's not p2w that you dislike but the entirety of being able to pay for anything at all. One is a subset of the other. This is why definitions are important, so you can make your points clear from the start.

:)

---

There are some games I've played that I don't have to pay for and readily acknowledge that are just as asymmetrical as pure P2W. I had a brief obsession with Thirst of Night, a pretty terrible web based city strategy game. This is a simplification; players could unlock most stuff by spending time in game but there were tech tree upgrade limits that you could unlock by buying a level cap expander -or- by getting one via a once-a-day slot machine that has an exceptionally small chance of dropping the item. The design was clearly in favor of pay players and to play that you have to accept it. Paying players were the target audience and the rest of us were essentially content and context around and with which the real users played.

I don't see PS2 going this way at all. All players will be equally valid, none will have to accept that they're filler. Looking at what's been said, low-to-mid time players should be able to keep lv2 implants slotted. Vacant-to-low time players will have to live with lv1. Add a resource implant and bump up your implant availability by one rank. Lv3 is for pay players and poopsockers. The overall balance, especially when the massive numbers of players are considered, will be stable. A lot of the "unfairness" discussions revolve around 1v1 but if there's anything the PS community love to harp on it's objective based gameplay over duels and kda. It'll all wash out in the end.

[sgtbjack]

Cool video. Not pay to win, sorry to disagree with those trying make that argument. I don't think people should start the game and get all the perks available right at the get go. That would mean there would be absolutely no progression. I'll play an hour or two tops when I can, and I'm sure like most fps games(like call of duty, bf and the like) that the people with all the perks will not be too much of a big deal for me to handle with skill.

I like this setup, it seems pretty damn good.

[Sunrock]

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

Pay2win for me is any item you can buy for real money in the game that gives at least 0.0001% advantage over some one that did not buy that item. This apply to exp boosts as well.

PS: I don't think its p2w if its an item you can buy with a currency you have earned by playing the game.

[Otleaz]

While your example is hyperbolic
I disagree completely. The amount of time used is completely irrelevant in this example. The focus is the ratio between the amount of time you are able to play and the amount of time it takes to rent these upgrades.

The only difference is that is affects more people.

, yes, that is still not pay2win.

Okay, what would you call the current subject then? I would like to remind you that we are talking about it being literally impossible for certain people to be able to afford these direct stat boosts without either paying money, or giving up on their daily responsibilities.


Definitions are extremely important, especially in situations like then when people are using emotionally charged words and present arguments pinned around those words. If we don't agree on what we're talking about, we can't ever get anywhere.


I personally believe that people should rely more on context and not be so literal, but what you are saying is fair enough. I will try and be more descriptive from now on.


From my understanding, you believe it is poor design for anyone to be able to pay for anything, regardless of whether or not that thing can be obtained by any other means. If that is correct, it's not p2w that you dislike but the entirety of being able to pay for anything at all. One is a subset of the other. This is why definitions are important, so you can make your points clear from the start.

No, I feel I have been pretty clear that my main concern is that grinding isn't an option for a lot of people. At least in this situation, where they need to earn back the amount they paid so they can buy it again the next day.


There are some games I've played that I don't have to pay for and readily acknowledge that are just as asymmetrical as pure P2W. I had a brief obsession with Thirst of Night, a pretty terrible web based city strategy game. This is a simplification; players could unlock most stuff by spending time in game but there were tech tree upgrade limits that you could unlock by buying a level cap expander -or- by getting one via a once-a-day slot machine that has an exceptionally small chance of dropping the item. The design was clearly in favor of pay players and to play that you have to accept it. Paying players were the target audience and the rest of us were essentially content and context around and with which the real users played.

I don't see PS2 going this way at all. All players will be equally valid, none will have to accept that they're filler. Looking at what's been said, low-to-mid time players should be able to keep lv2 implants slotted. Vacant-to-low time players will have to live with lv1. Add a resource implant and bump up your implant availability by one rank. Lv3 is for pay players and poopsockers. The overall balance, especially when the massive numbers of players are considered, will be stable. A lot of the "unfairness" discussions revolve around 1v1 but if there's anything the PS community love to harp on it's objective based gameplay over duels and kda. It'll all wash out in the end.

You can't approach this game like a city building sim. There are real living people on the other end of your bullets, expecting to have a fair chance at taking you down. If you try and tell them that they are cattle for the alpha-race paying players, they will leave. Also, I don't know about you, but surviving only because I have better stats, or killing people only because I have better stats leaves me wanting to play a different game.

You also can't approach this game like an RTS. When it is 100vs100, you can't treat them as a single entitity. A group of 100 implies that there are 100 individuals. You can't tell someone that it is okay that he is weak just because there is a guy on the other side who is also weak... Who would accept that?


You know, the thing I am most upset about with this entire ordeal is just how completely unnecessary this rental system really is. We have seen quite plainly that it is possible to be successful without infuriating rental systems with games like Tribes and League of Legends.

While you may feel it is acceptable, you must agree that it is on a different level compared to all of the other things they have talked about, right?

Cool video. Not pay to win, sorry to disagree with those trying make that argument. I don't think people should start the game and get all the perks available right at the get go. That would mean there would be absolutely no progression. I'll play an hour or two tops when I can, and I'm sure like most fps games(like call of duty, bf and the like) that the people with all the perks will not be too much of a big deal for me to handle with skill.

I like this setup, it seems pretty damn good.

Progression doesn't need to be upgrades. Upgrades, for the most part, don't even belong in a PvP game. The majority of the progression in Planetside 2 will be sidegrades. The great thing about side grades is that you can unlock them while using a loadout that is already on par with everyone else.

[exLupo]

No, I feel I have been pretty clear that my main concern is that grinding isn't an option for a lot of people. At least in this situation, where they need to earn back the amount they paid so they can buy it again the next day.

If even one person can grind enough during the day to buy lv3 implants then the game is not pay2win. Now, that doesn't mean it's balanced well and it's really easy to exploit those situations. Devs can say "This isn't pay2win" while laughing as players feel required to spend. However, feeling required and being required are not the same thing.

There are a lot of absolute statements being made like "Person A is 1% better than Person B so, therefore, the game is unbalanced" to justify arguments alongside fuzzier "Person A chose to play more so is 1% better than Person B." ideas.

The situation can be summed up fairly easily with some spitball uglymath.
Resource = Potential Power
Money = 100%
Time = 100%
Time + Money = 100%

It can also be muddled like so.
Money.5 + Time.1 = 60%
Time.5 + Money.1 = 60%
or
Player A has lots of free time and no money. Timex.9 = 90%
Player B has no time and little money. Time.1 + Money.3 = 40%

As the potentials for time rich players and money rich players are the same, you can't buy victory in an absolute sense. And when one player cannot do enough of either, they fall behind. It's up to dev to make sure how far behind they fall isn't enough for them to quit playing.

---

And yea, I do agree that this seems kinda left field. However I think I know why it happened.
It might have gone something... like this.

Dev A: Planetside 1 had implants, lets do that again.
Dev B: Man, we need more money sinks.
Dev C: Can you pass me the vodka?
Dev A+B: Dude, don't drink at work.
Intern 12: Wait... A and B, why don't you guys mix your two ideas?!
Smed: You're hired!
And history was made.

[Otleaz]

I thought we moved past the pay2win definition thing already.

Disregarding that, if a resource sink is the only reason, then we will have nothing to worry about. I'm only going by memory here, but I am pretty sure that each faction has two nearby Auraxium facilities. If owning two Auraxium facilities gives you ~600 Auraxium passively over 24 hours, they will have a proper resource sink in place.

Unfortunately, the presence of weaker but cheaper implants leaves me unconvinced.

[Scotsh]

You know, the thing I am most upset about with this entire ordeal is just how completely unnecessary this rental system really is. We have seen quite plainly that it is possible to be successful without infuriating rental systems with games like Tribes and League of Legends.

I generally agree with most of your postings on that subject, but not this.
While this system has the potential of enabling players with money or a lot of time to get an advantage we simply dont know this yet. It all comes down to how these things are balanced out.

In my opinion this system serves primarily as a mechanic to balance infantry players versus vehicle players.

I will speculate a bit now to make my point clear.
Just imagine for a moment that enough resources to equip 3 infantry boosters can be earned in 1hour of playing. If you manage this nicely you will always have those boosters, but you wont be able to buy a lot of vehicles (and you got the vehicle cooldowns). If you are a player preferring vehicle combat you may want vehicle boosters instead. As these boosters are cheaper and you got no cooldwns you will be able to use way more vehicles than an infantry player, but if you are out of the vehicle he will have an advantage over you.

It really boils down to how big the value of these boosters is (time usable vs. time needed to aquire). This is currently unknown, as it will be balanced heavily in beta.


We should all cool down and wait and see how this system plays out when we all get our hands on the beta and how it develops. Then we can really have a discussion ;)

[Otleaz]

Yeah, I didn't really think that through when I wrote it. Once you put it that way I can definitely see the gameplay value of a rental system like this, moving past even what you said.

Of course, they have to handle it correctly or it is all for naught.

[exLupo]

With the price of the L3 implants, I'm actually wondering if they're intended to -not- be used all the time. Ops night? Feeling outnumbered? L3. Regular play? L1/2.

[Flaropri]

I'm sure it also depends on whether a player is wanting to save up Auraxium to buy a new gun for example (or whatever else it might be used for). It's also possible that they'll have Cert requirements to make use of higher level Implants.

Without knowing typical resource income/expense there's really no way to say if it is problematic or not. Though obviously I quite understand people being concerned that this sort of "rental" system could be made into a "Pay 2 Win" situation... but I don't think anyone can fully claim that is or 100% will be the case with the information that is currently available.