Advanced Units

[Rothnang]

I think it would be great if there was a second tier of units that you can unlock by putting a lot of certs into one of the base units. The reason for this is that right now I just don't feel like anyone in PS2 is really special, even if you have thousands of certs invested in a certain vehicle or infantry class, you never get anything out of them that is really extraordinary. In fact, the diminishing returns for higher end certs mean that you might only be 2-3% better than someone who has half as many certs invested.

The basic idea here is that when you invest enough certs you roll over to a second tier of that unit or vehicle. The second tier unit is stronger than the first tier unit in some regards, but shares all the same equipment, so that all your certs are still worth the while.

Second Tiers could be unlocked by having, let's say, a cumulative 5000 certs spent in one vehicle or infantry branch. The number should be set in such a way that you can only attain it if you start buying up the 1000 point top end upgrades, so you really have to dedicate yourself to that unit and can't just buy the convenient upgrades that have low cost.


Higher Tiers for things like infantry would be commando versions of the class, that move a bit faster, carry more ammo, have a bit more health, and so on. They would basically be an upgrade from the basic version, since Infantry is relatively squishy, and having a slightly stronger base unit doesn't make it horribly overpowered.

Higher tiers for vehicles would basically introduce variants that have some advantages, but still use all the same gear and have the same hitpoints, weapons etc. For example, a second tier MBT could be the 3 man version with a stronger turret but needing an extra driver. A second tier Lightning tank could have the ability to cloak while standing still. A second tier ESF could be what a regular ESF is right now.


The basic idea here is that tier 2 units are a way to really distinguish yourself on the battlefield and show that you're not just a jack of all trades, and that you do more than spend the certs where they give you the most bang for your buck, but that you are willing to really dig deep to perfect a certain unit.

[bpostal]

I'd back this idea up, just because it'd seem that it would lead to what I know we all want in our secret heart of hearts...driver/gunner MBTs.
I can't really justify it though, as it would increase the disparity between new players and older player.
The jack of all trades syndrome is what happens when you discard the previous style of Certification system in favor of the 'everyone gets the ability to do everything right off the bat' system. Everyone is a BR 40 now, more or less.
I like the idea, I really do but it just seems like it would go against the 'no direct upgrades' philosophy that SOE has been trying to maintain, leading to more new player rage (and quits) as they get even more facestomped than before.

[Sturmhardt]

So basically you are saying that you want to be able to really level up and not only have sidegrades. Players with high Battlerank would kill newbies all the time and because you can buy stuff instead of spending Certs and you can have membership and XP boosters at the same time it would also be in favor of the paying customer because he certs up really fast. Skill would not matter much, the XP you farmed during your character's lifetime would determine the victor of a 1on1 more than it does now. People would die because the other guy farmed more XP than themselves, not because the other guy is better.

In short: It would be unfair to new players and money would rule the game. I think I don't really have to point out my opinion on that one.


P.S. I aknowledge the problem that "noone is special in PS2" because everyone can be anything all the time, but this is not the solution to it. A time limit for switching classes could be a solution, but I don't think SOE would go for it because then people would buy less shit for EVERY class and instead focus on one.

[Maidere]

lolno. The last thing this game needs is even heavier vertical progression, it's enough that some of the "sidegrades" are in fact direct unpgrades.

[VaderShake]

I think class spliting higher up in more specific areas might be interesting. For example on branch off for Heavy Assault could could carry more ammo for the Rocket Launchers or C-4 but give up their LMG limiting their effectivness against ground troops and upping their effectivness against armor.Or ditch the rocket launcher to be able to carry more LMG ammo or something, NO Elite Weapons or anything "special" just a cert to become more specialized. Or have it like the weight system in some MMO's.

You could also have certain "gadgets" availible instead. Maybe let the Heavy Assault carry a untilitiy tool that is a mini-radar allowing them to see all armor in a certain radius regardless if is has been called out or not. This of course would take the place of whatever your are carrying in one of your current slots and not be an add on to keep it balanced.



Just some rough ideas.

[Rbstr]

It would have been interesting to have the class/leveling system a bit more involved than it is. As it is, really all certs do is make you more effective at stuff the class can do by default and because the levels don't go particularly deep specialization never really meant much.

It would have been interesting if class choice had really been a thing.

[Palerion]

Yeah, I would like to see something where players actually focus on one class more. See, people take for granted that you can switch classes whenever to do whatever. It would make individual players have a more meaningful role instead of just being another pair of boots on the ground. Someone who is specializing in the engineer should be valuable as that class. Squads should say "hey, we need a good engineer" and have to look for someone who specializes in that. It makes individuals more important.

[Haro]

If I may add on my idea to yours, rather than having upgrades, which we honestly get through certs right now, I'd rather see upgraded specialized classes, like an that couldmengineer could trade turrets and ammo for drones that he can deploy or control, or infiltrators that sacrifice a primary weapon for more powerful invisibility, or becoming a true spotter that can mark specific targets for aircraft or other vehicles. I think part of the reason a lot of people feel that this game is shallower than the original is because of a lack of support roles to flesh out gameplay.

[Ghoest9]

This suggestion would be bad for the long term health of the game.

[Ghost Runner]

The reason for this is that right now I just don't feel like anyone in PS2 is really special, even if you have thousands of certs invested in a certain vehicle or infantry class, you never get anything out of them that is really extraordinary..

It seems the Devs succeeded in their balancing then, in other words working as intended +1 for the Dev team.

Sorry mate but I have to disagree with your Idea here. Old and new player balance is exactly what the devs been going for since Beta so I am glad to see they didn't loose the Idea.

[Chaff]

.
Oh my, God forbid a guy who plays (and pays ?) for two years and achieves some slight edge (numerical) with a couple key weapons, armor, or on ONE vehicle and/or one squishy Class. MOST newbs will get powned regardless.

The rediculously short TTK ensures newbs have a great platform to stand on Day-1.

Also, a long time grinder could get a Super-Vanny of some sort certed-up, but a group of 2 or 3 newbs with decent FPS skills could dispatch his Super-tank, and only take a second-and-a-half longer than a typical Vanny kill. Besides, these poor & unfairly treated newbs would reap larger XP for this particular Kill scenario, so in essence they reap part of the rewards that the long time player earned on his way to Certing into his Super-Tank. It's not really UNFAIR. It's best not to crush the hopes or expectations of newbs, but we don't need to deny loyalty to appease newby cry babies. Some things are best EARNED. It you EARN it, you should get it. Reward systems drive every game.

Most cats who got over BR25 or BR30 in PS1 were Jack-of-All-Trades & hence a 1-man army of sorts - especially in a tower full of a squad of true newbs. It could seem unfair as new player.
1) the guy put in hours to get to where he was.
2) a large percentage of these guys had high skill levels, so to hate on them is simple jealously
3) with time, and good Outfit mates, you learned how to handle them as a group if not 1-on-1

....few things are better in game than to beat these wanna-be (or actual) legendary players. The best are the ones that send rage tells...as IF they're TOO GOOD TO DIE.....PRICELESS.

NOT EVERYHING NEEDS TO BE, OR SHOULD BE, EQUAL. Guys have the right to ACHIEVE things that remotely reflect the Skill and Time required to get them. I'm not into completely pandering to newbs. I'll NEVER be a great player. I doubt I'll get up to average. Regardless, better players (or guys who put in the hours) deserve the right to ACHIEVE things with value somewhat relative to their skill & time invested.....not giant OP differences, but things that do distinguish themselves vs the average equipment readily available.

An interesting counter to this line of thinking is to put a different Dorito on these vehicles or players, so ALL can more readily identify the biggest XP targets. Guys can earn some better shit, but the amount of people looking to shoot at them grows accordingly. THAT is balance. SUper-Tank rolls into an almost empty outpost....perhaps you RUN AWAY, or look to Redeploy...or come back with better loadouts...and hunt his Super-Tank ass down. Players should take PRIDE in killing a numerically superior foe. An opponent may have more people on thier side, but you overrun them any way. Or, they have more armor, but you prevail anyway. Overcoming an enemy strength has and will always be a key element to this game.

.

[Rothnang]

I think people read too much of an advantage into it. I'm all for horizontal progression, but there is no reason why you can't have some peaks and valleys in your horizon that are different from those in someone else's.

No upgraded unit should be definitively more powerful than it's root version to the point of being unbeatable, just an evolution.

[Maidere]

If I may add on my idea to yours, rather than having upgrades, which we honestly get through certs right now, I'd rather see upgraded specialized classes, like an that couldmengineer could trade turrets and ammo for drones that he can deploy or control, or infiltrators that sacrifice a primary weapon for more powerful invisibility, or becoming a true spotter that can mark specific targets for aircraft or other vehicles. I think part of the reason a lot of people feel that this game is shallower than the original is because of a lack of support roles to flesh out gameplay.
This is kinda interesting. New features (like drones) is not the best idea, but imporvement of the keyfeature A via sacrificing the keyfeature B sounds cool (unless it's gamebreaking firepower improvements).

[PredatorFour]

I really like your idea and think it should be implemented into the game. However i don't think soe will. They want everyone to access everything whether your a noob or long time vet, they think everyone should 'kinda' be on a level playing field.

[Figment]

There we go. Didn't butcher the equal grounds thing PS used to have going enough. :rolleyes:



How about.



NO.

Anyone that agrees with the OP, have you ACTUALLY READ WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED?


Cloaking Lightnings? Permanent health advantages? Permanent speed advantages?

FFS!




The reason you're not special, IS BECAUSE EVERYONE CAN DO EVERYTHING! Even if you introduce your stupid multi-tier system, over time YOU STILL WON'T BE SPECIAL, SINCE EVERYONE WILL STILL HAVE EVERY HIGH TIER EQUIPMENT (especially those that farm and killwhore instead of playing the game - way to buff the exploiters) AND ALL YOU WILL DO IS MAKE THE GAME LESS ACCESSIBLE TO NEW PLAYERS. YOU KNOW, THE ONES THAT DON'T LEAVE OUT OF BOREDOM YET.



Fuck sake, think before you make stupid suggestions. And no, "slight power advantages" ADD UP. Especially on top of improved experience and skill!




You want to feel special and unique? Give up 75% of your certpoint maximum and be forced to make NEW characters and level those to get access to the other stuff!

[Neutral Calypso]

NO.


Q F T.

Quoted For Truth.

[Sirisian]

You might be seeing some issues with this as you're proposing direct vertical upgrades over time rather than more choices. Without going into a long speech the idea of deep specialization has been brought up in a balanced way utilizing a resource system. Read this (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/june-resource-revamp.83018/page-2#post-1091705). Essentially it's the implementation for a resource and progression system with the same certification system but with resource costs attached to each certification which allows players to use resources for vertical upgrades and to unlock vertical upgrades for stock classes and vehicles. This forces players to specialize for their role with weapons, attachments, ammo, utilities, suit upgrades, implants, and many more features with the ability to min-max their specialization at the cost of resources.

[Palerion]

If I may add on my idea to yours, rather than having upgrades, which we honestly get through certs right now, I'd rather see upgraded specialized classes, like an that couldmengineer could trade turrets and ammo for drones that he can deploy or control, or infiltrators that sacrifice a primary weapon for more powerful invisibility, or becoming a true spotter that can mark specific targets for aircraft or other vehicles. I think part of the reason a lot of people feel that this game is shallower than the original is because of a lack of support roles to flesh out gameplay.

Actually guys, he has a really good point.

Global Agenda does something like this. It allows players to spec out their class through a skill tree the way they want to play it and has separate equipment for each class depending on their playstyle. Personally I played the robotics class, but there were two different robotics playstyles available: Drone (or, drobo) for those who want to play aggressively, getting in peoples faces and dropping little AI of death in front of them, and turret. Obviously, turret robotics set up "nests" with turrets, healing stations, etc.

So, really, if we would add more equipment to classes in order to support different playstyles, we could allow people to specialize in different areas of each class. This would simply be due to the fact that, from an economic standpoint, having the equipment to support all playstyles available to the class would be difficult, so logically, you would focus on the playstyle that suits you best and continue investing into it.

[Obstruction]

this isn't the place to feel special.

you can get that someplace else. like your birthday party. or call your mom or something. you'll always be her special angel.

[Palerion]

this isn't the place to feel special.

you can get that someplace else. like your birthday party. or call your mom or something. you'll always be her special angel.

Care to make a post in which you don't sound like a 2-year-old making a sorry attempt to offend someone?

[exohkay]

I reckon a certain type of camo or vehicle fins or something may be cool, i.e can only buy them at a certain BR or with a certain amount of Certs to buy or w/e.

If you were serious, i'd rather see a tradeoff - i.e Commandoes get 10% less in a clip but 5% increased ROF for TR, 10% less in a clip but 5% more velocity for VS and 10% less in a clip but 5% more damage for NC or w/e.

Tanks might get 10% less armour but 5% more speed or something.

You want it to be pretty small but have a tradeoff.

[Ghodere]

Could use this to implement PS1's certs; in that, you can have somewhere between 1-3 alterations active, which will make the class/vehicle of your choice more specialized (and, perhaps, more powerful overall), and can swap one out once every few hours/days. These alterations are gained slowly as your battle rank increases, but can also be purchased instantly for cash. You could have a few choices in terms of sidegrade path, with those other than the default, of course, costing 1000/700.

As an example, a dedicated transport galaxy, with 23-47 seats but no weapons, could be the default Galaxy alteration, and a dedicated gunship could be another option, costing 1000 certs/700 SC, and removing the passenger seats and safe ejection system in favor of heavier weapons; could even split this up into an anti-air gunship and anti-ground gunship. Or, for MBTs, a specialized anti-armor loadout, with no options for anti-infantry weapons, and the other way around for an AV loadout.

This might allow people to, indeed, specialize, meaning, give one thing up in favor of another (in terms of both opportunity cost and versatility.)

[Rothnang]

I wouldn't mind if there was an additional specialization system that worked along the lines of a talent tree or perk system that allows you to define the way you play a bit more sharply with mutually exclusive choices. Changing the cert system to be like PS1 at this junction would be kind of bad, especially when you consider that the diminishing returns on high end certs are still in place, so there would be even less of an incentive to actually get those if your overall certs are limited. A system of multiple choices where you can't have everything would be good though, it would have to be some kind of alternate advancement though. I'd like it if there was a perk tree where you can buy little upgrades here or there as you go up in battlerank.

A tiered system is useful because it lets you progress in a direction more meaningfully. Currently everything that's hard to get is on diminishing returns, like 2 more bullets for your tankbuster for 1000 certs. (I'll never understand why it couldn't at least be 3 so you get a nice clean 45 in there instead of 44)

I don't need anything that's insanely powerful, just something that really makes the long haul worth it. The game currently actively discourages you from pursuing top tier perks with diminishing returns. Longer advancement gives the game more long term appeal. Currently the thing is, when you hit around 25% unlocked on any vehicle or infantry class there is just no good reason to keep going. Either you're looking at 1000 cert buys that only give maybe a 1-2% improvement to a single stat, or you're looking at a ton of alternate equipment that you have no use for, because you already have your favorite setup.

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with making it take long to get to the top, and having a reward waiting for you there. New players aren't discouraged by a long road ahead, old players are discouraged by reaching the end too quickly.

[Figment]

The stupidity here is that we already have a tiered system, with direct upgrades: just look at the suits and armour upgrades. And it is worthless to make you feel special. They tried putting this same stuff in a prerequesit way, which made you spend more certs on a weapon for instance as you were forced to first get stuff you wouldn't use.

They dropped that system very fast after implementing it. Main reason being you would be able to play as you wish.

The system described here is suggested out of personal interest to gain direct combat advantages over others. That is a lot worse. The problem with the OP type ideas is that they just want more, instead of specialization. He doesn't want that at all, he just wants more power.

Specialization would mean you would be able to do something others cannot even remotely do, but to do this you would give up something else, otherwise you are just a generalist that is better at a lot of things than others. That people don't realise this is just saddening and shows how little forethought is put into analyses and how shortsighted and egocentric people think.

[Juryrig]

How about a vertical upgrade which, when unlocked, then locks you out of the ability to play any other class?

So if you only ever want to play heavy, you can be a 10% better heavy, but when the situation calls for you to be an infiltrator, or an engie, or a medic....you're screwed.

Fundamentally the problem is that with infinite certs, everyone can eventually unlock everything, which actually makes specialisation impossible.

[Rothnang]

The system described here is suggested out of personal interest to gain direct combat advantages over others. That is a lot worse. The problem with the OP type ideas is that they just want more, instead of specialization. He doesn't want that at all, he just wants more power.

Yes, since only the person that suggests something gets to use it this is all part of my master plan to be stronger than everyone else.

How about a vertical upgrade which, when unlocked, then locks you out of the ability to play any other class?


I don't think that would be a good idea, since you might have certs invested in a lot of different classes already.

However, having to make a choice between multiple options is what really drives specialization. Maybe you could unlock a single advanced unit for every 20 battleranks you have, so a BR 100 character could have 5 different advanced units. There also doesn't have to be just one advanced unit per base unit, there could be a whole range.

Maybe advanced units could also be on the top of a perk tree. Imagine it sort of like Skyrim except instead of skills every unit has a tree. Every battle rank grants a point, which adds a slight improvement along the lines of certs. Then you could still make it a 20 point perk to get an advanced unit of some kind.


Ultimately the game should just offer something for people who really like to play in a certain way over others. It shouldn't simply assume you want to be a jack of all trades, when that's obviously not how everyone plays. It shouldn't punish you harshly for dabbling in everything a bit either though. Versatility needs to have its place just like specialization.

[Elgareth]

The system described here is suggested out of personal interest to gain direct combat advantages over others. That is a lot worse. The problem with the OP type ideas is that they just want more, instead of specialization. He doesn't want that at all, he just wants more power.

Specialization would mean you would be able to do something others cannot even remotely do, but to do this you would give up something else, otherwise you are just a generalist that is better at a lot of things than others. That people don't realise this is just saddening and shows how little forethought is put into analyses and how shortsighted and egocentric people think.

I agree.
Just a more powerful class - no.
Ability to specialize - okay.

For example give HA two Options: Tank Buster or Stormtrooper (just brainstorming).
So you'd have the basic HA, or could go Tank Buster, enabling you to use empire specific launchers for example (or lock-ons, generally different, but not vastly more powerful launchers), but cutting your Primary Weapon down to a Pistol. But you'll have more Launcher Ammo as well, and maybe the option to get some Vehicle Radar OR a better Flak Armor. Maybe even grant them ~20% Resistance against Vehicle Damage or something.
The Stormtrooper on the other hand loses its launcher completely, but gains some additional AI abilities. (Nightmare to Balance even on first sight... BioLabs anyone?)

The Infiltrator can go Sniper or... I dunno, Hacker/Cloaker? One losing bullet-drop, faster sniper rifle reloads but losing the cloak, maybe even ability to hack, the other gains a better cloak, can't equip sniper rifles (or just can't equip bolt-actions), can even hack enemy vehicles... Something along those lines...

The problem I see though is: The current classes can do too much too well ATM, to properly implement such options, you'd need to take some abilities away from the basic jack-of-all-trades classes IMHO, making it a huge overhaul of the system.

How about a vertical upgrade which, when unlocked, then locks you out of the ability to play any other class?

So if you only ever want to play heavy, you can be a 10% better heavy, but when the situation calls for you to be an infiltrator, or an engie, or a medic....you're screwed.

Fundamentally the problem is that with infinite certs, everyone can eventually unlock everything, which actually makes specialisation impossible.

Valid point, as my above example would also have the problem that once everything is certed, you'd go Stormtrooper in Biolabs, and Tank-Buster whenever you face a tank column, effectively granting you an upgrade for each situation.
Maybe (adapting my example), you'd cancel yourself out from one specialization tree once you pick the other one for a day or something. (You can always be basic HA, once you pick Stormtrooper you can't go tankbuster until your last Stormtrooper death was 24h ago)


I don't think that would be a good idea, since you might have certs invested in a lot of different classes already.


Ultimately the game should just offer something for people who really like to play in a certain way over others. It shouldn't simply assume you want to be a jack of all trades, when that's obviously not how everyone plays. It shouldn't punish you harshly for dabbling in everything a bit either though. Versatility needs to have its place just like specialization.

Somehow these two points contradict each other a bit don't they? Do you want to play all classes, or just one? Or do you want to play all classes, but have one better than the one of others? ;-)

As I see it:
Specialization is cool, BUT you can't just straight upgrade any single unit, making it better than the base class in every way. There have to be downsides as well. So that you CAN be better in some special way, but that also means in this round/life/spawn you also have to be worse at something your base class can do.

[Figment]

Yes, since only the person that suggests something gets to use it this is all part of my master plan to be stronger than everyone else.

Making a statement like this means you don't understand at all what you're asking for and what I said about it.


Typical.



1. I said you just want more power. This is true. The question is with respect to who: New players and players who've not unlocked all tiers yet. So yes, you just want more power.

2. Everyone else will eventually be equally strong once more, making your entire plan to make people into specialists fail. If something isn't a long term solution to a problem you've described (no specialists), it's not a solution at all. It's a temporary short term band-aid and the way you've phrased it, it's quite clear it's one that you haven't put any thought into at all.

3. All it does is make this game a time sink, like pretty much every other ridiculously stupidly deliberately unbalanced MMO to cater to weakminded people who just want to feel more powerful instead of actually being more powerful, (ie. rely on tools instead of their skills), instead of creating a fair game where the best player wins, rather than the player with the best tier gear.


Multiplayer games should be fair, or they shouldn't be made in the first place because they're an affront to gaming. Rigging a game in someone's favour because they spent more time or money is simply a policy that's not about proper game design, that's about ripping off people at the expense of others or themselves (the latter is done by exploiting the self-centric nature and ego of people to make them invest more money).



You're just too shortsighted to see it, since you've created this thread out of ego motivations. Not because it's good for the game or other players.

PS: Elgareth gets it a lot better than you Rothnang. And yes, you did contradict yourself: you want specialization, yet at the same time you want people to spend certs on everything. Now what do you want?

[Rothnang]

And he comes out swinging... Everyone who likes MMOs with character advancement is a stupid weak minded person!!! Amazing.


To me it sounds like you just don't want anyone's commitment to a certain role or the game in general to pay off in a way they can actually feel. A slight improvement for someone who's been around for a long time and has really committed to a certain unit doesn't make newer players powerless or irrelevant. We're not talking WoW levels here where someone who's 10 levels above you might as well be invulnerable. We're talking bonuses and capabilities not unlike what certs currently provide, but handed out in such a way that it gives people a reason to stick with a certain unit, and a way to be genuinely exceptional at it.

The problem with relying entirely on the players skill is that the range of skills used to be good at any one thing in the game is usually not radically different from just about every other thing. You'll never be able to get a player into such a shape that he's amazing with one vehicle and terrible at another, even if that player wants to be amazing with one vehicle and doesn't care about the other.

Whether you are a medic or an engineer in Planetside 2 is mechanically only distinguished by what you point your little beamy tool at, not by years of training handling complex medical procedures or maintaining machinery. You don't need a different set of skills to repair different types of units as a player. If someone genuinely wants to be recognized as a cut above other medics it's simply not something you can really do by skill alone. The only way you could ever be better at pointing a healing gun at a corpse than at pointing a healing gun at a tank is if somehow somewhere in the game there was an option to pick which healing gun you want to be the one that you are awesome with and which one you want to be the one that you are average with.

[Figment]

And he comes out swinging... Everyone who likes MMOs with character advancement is a stupid weak minded person!!! Amazing.

I said multiplayers. It's a poor enough solution for PvE design, but for PvP design it's inexcusable. The only reason they use tiered equipment in those games is to provide replayability without actually having to spend money on developing new challenges as their challenges are the same every time. They replaced actual game content and skill by meaningless grind. That you like meaningless grind is up to you, but that's really just for weakminded people who don't have anything better to do and get satisfaction about being placed in a position of power, feeling they earned it by building it up over time (not realising that building it up is inescapable and therefore not an actual feat), instead of building it time and time again and performing the actual feat of using your brain and reflexes to outwit and outperform your opponents.

Yes, I ridicule people that base their winning potential off of tools.

(That kinda includes rocket podders and other low ttk spam weaponry wielders who go after infantry constantly and then think they're skilled players instead of the game winning for them).



Stop letting your ego talk. There's no upgrades to pawns, bishops, rooks, queens or kings in chess. Yet that game has been and will be around a lot longer than MMOs.

Why? Because they don't do the work for you and everyone playing the game has the same vantage point. You work to gain an upperhand, it's not rewarded to you for making an arbitrary amount of arbitrary moves. Plus, at the end of the engagement, the game is reset so you have to start over to get into that position where you can win.

What you want is that people who played chess for 2 years get more chess pieces, better pawns that can strike at further distances or always can take two steps, rooks that can move in more than diagonal ways, queens that can make horse moves, etc. Meanwhile, your opponent's pieces play under more restricted rules.

Chess pieces are like the classes and units available to you. Since you can have everything, you'll get to a situation where you don't just face one stronger chess piece (which is already unfair), but all your chess pieces combined result in a fastly superior starting position.


You don't think lateral enough to see this. Basically, you wouldn't understand good game design if it'd hit you in the face.

To me it sounds like you just don't want anyone's commitment to a certain role or the game in general to pay off in a way they can actually feel.

I feel satisfaction whenever I outperform someone on an equal level through honest hard work. I want commitment to be rewarded by means of being more skilled to use the tools at everyone's disposal within that role (while not everyone has the role in the first place because they picked other roles), not by getting more tools or more powerful crutches which everyone can get in the end, but till they do provides an unfair advantage. Sounds to me you don't understand the first thing about me and you're just throwing a tantrum because I said your idea sucks big time. As in, is really, really lousy.

Maybe you should try that instead of wanting to be the bully in grammar school by being allowed to be more powerful and beat up the lower levels to make you "feel" more powerful WHILE YOU ARE JUST ACTING LIKE A WHINY SPOILED BRAT WHO THINKS HE IS SO COOL.

Just like any other bully.

A slight improvement for someone who's been around for a long time and has really committed to a certain unit doesn't make newer players powerless or irrelevant.

It trivialises their presence and is rigging the game. Even if they can still win, it's an unfair disposition based on an arbitrary time sink.

Since when is lingering around a reason to be rewarded with default advantages?

Where's that entitlement coming from? Why are you a better person, not player, a better person, than some random other player who spent less time on the game?



Drop the Call of Duty line of design argumentation. It sucks and it's unwelcoming to new players, something any MMO needs: fresh blood. Why do you hate new players? Why are they inferior to you? What did they ever do to you?

Nothing right? You don't hate them, right? You just really love yourself. Stop gloating over your ego. Your time in game means nothing if you still can't beat a new player after two years using the same tools as that new player. It just means you suck and you need some other form of progression to compensate for your ineptitude.


Face it. You're too weak and don't make actual progress in skill, so you need crutches to feel you're making progress to compensate.

We're not talking WoW levels here where someone who's 10 levels above you might as well be invulnerable. We're talking bonuses and capabilities not unlike what certs currently provide, but handed out in such a way that it gives people a reason to stick with a certain unit, and a way to be genuinely exceptional at it.

No we're not talking about what you think we are talking about, because what you propose would never result in sticking with a certain unit.

It just means people continue to for example whore ESF rocketpods and upgrade every other class to a higher standard while at it, because they long since fully upgraded the aircraft things they wanted and now put the certs into something else.

They may never have played medic, but they would get a tier 2 medic LONG BEFORE any dedicated medic player would. And then they'd continue and put it into LA, Infil, HA and Engineer too (probably the ones they play more often first). End result? They'd get everything fully maxed out and they still wouldn't dedicate themselves to those units.

You saying we are just shows how little thought you put in your own ideas and a complete and utter lack of understanding how the game is played and where people get the certs they invest in other things and what they actually need.




Come on Rothnang. Put some hours into an idea before you post it and stop designing for yourself. Because all you're doing is posting what YOU want and at most what a small portion of the longer term players MIGHT want, completely disregarding the needs of other groups of players, like the new people and those that don't exploit the most grindable ways of playing. And please, start realising this sort of thing.

[almalino]

I would like to have big ass 20 people crew tank that moves very slow, have regenerating health that is generated by the energy plates attached to it around. Fraction can spawn only 1 tank per continent at a time by one of the platoon leaders. If tank spawn is available platoon leaders apply to spawn one and the one with biggest platoon available wins.

So, first thing enemy must do is to destroy energy plates and only then it could destroy the tank.

What if that tank by reaching enemy warpgate could disable it for say 30 minutes :)

BF2142 anyone ? :)

http://guides.gamepressure.com/battlefield2142northernstrike/gfx/gallery/large/Screenshots/screen2_large1.jpg

[Dougnifico]

I would support it as long as it was a way of giving more options. No extra health or damage, just more battlefield flexibility.

[psijaka]

I would be for unlocking more flexibility in the class system, allowing people to specialise by mixing up the classes in unusual ways (LA with a sniper rifle, for example), or giving a small boost to a certain attribute at the expense of another (slightly increased speed but reduced health).

But I am most certainly NOT in favour of having high level unlocks such as a general speed increase or cloaked tanks that give a vet a big advantage over a novice. Newbs have a hard enough time as it is; give them a fighting chance.

[Thunderhawk]

The type of fair specialization that this game currently allows is already in the game.....

Do you want to use Tank mines ? or AP mines ?

Do you want to use concussion grenades ? or normal grenades ?

Do you want to use Flash bangs ? or Normal grenades ?

You have to make a decision to "specialize" into one thing or another, sure you can cert for both, but you cannot USE both at the same time so you have to make a decision to use one or t'other.

People starting off don't have Flash bangs, don't have C4, don't have Tank mines, don't have AP Mines....

Need I carry on ?

This whole entire thread has been a waste of time (from my point of view).

The amount you can make yourself "unique" in the game by is already in the game for you to use if you so wished, So i don't see where all these ideas of horizontal specialization is coming from.

[Figment]

I would like to have big ass 20 people crew tank that moves very slow, have regenerating health that is generated by the energy plates attached to it around. Fraction can spawn only 1 tank per continent at a time by one of the platoon leaders.

So, first thing enemy must do is to destroy energy plates and only then it could destroy the tank.

What if that tank by reaching enemy warpgate could disable it for say 30 minutes :)

BF2142 anyone ? :)

http://guides.gamepressure.com/battlefield2142northernstrike/gfx/gallery/large/Screenshots/screen2_large1.jpg

How about you look if it fits in the context of the game first to see if it fits the philosophy of the game? What role it would fulfill? How would you balance it? Why it is needed? How likely it is to face the type of opposition you imagine for it right now? How would it be abused? How easy would it be to be abused?

Why do people throw out ideas without any sense of why or how and more importantly, why not?



This isn't BF2142, the objectives are different, the player composition and tools are different, the map is different, the defensive layout is different and that makes the entire gameplay different. It means some things could fit in while others could not.

One of the min problems people tend to ovebrlook is regular differences in player group composition. That means platoons vs squads, platoons vs half squads. It also means one or two people running off with your 20 crew vehicle (either abusing it, could even be by dual boxing it with several free accounts, or ruining the chances of your faction by throwing it away).





Let's not first design a "solution", before first formulating the problem, context and needs. You're designing the wrong way around: You first design an unit based on "ZOMGZ WOULD BE AWESUM", then design a role? :/ How's that good design?

[firestrike]

i though SOE are planing for heavy tank ?

[psijaka]

i though SOE are planing for heavy tank ?

Not that heavy, thank you.

[firestrike]

Not that heavy, thank you.

think of it this way those thing will cost a bomb load of resource and may need a whole squad to crew.

[almalino]

think of it this way those thing will cost a bomb load of resource and may need a whole squad to crew.

And another squad to protect it on foot or it will be destroyed fast. I think those tanks will be kin od a small moving minibases that will attract a fight around them.

It is nice sometimes to have a fight in a unexpected places rather then always at the same fixed bases or bridges.

[almalino]

It also means one or two people running off with your 20 crew vehicle (either abusing it, could even be by dual boxing it with several free accounts, or ruining the chances of your faction by throwing it away).

:) Thank you for your opinion. I actually mentionied that vehicle could be spawned only by platoon leader with biggest platoon on the continent who applied for the vehicle. Assuming he will request platoon members to populate the vehicle.

I'm quite sure such vehicles could find they use in PS2 but , of courcs it is a lot coding for developers and I do not see it happening anytime soon if not at all.

[Rothnang]

Come on Rothnang. Put some hours into an idea before you post it and stop designing for yourself. Because all you're doing is posting what YOU want and at most what a small portion of the longer term players MIGHT want, completely disregarding the needs of other groups of players, like the new people and those that don't exploit the most grindable ways of playing. And please, start realising this sort of thing.

I just don't see this whole issue you're raising of new players getting such a raw deal by adding more advancement options for long term players, or how this forces people to grind more.

There seems to be this victim mentality with you, where somehow new people suffer and can't enjoy the game if there are serious benefits to being a long term player. Also you seem to think that anyone who isn't grinding certs like mad would somehow be left unable to enjoy the game.

What about the needs of long term players though? If they aren't allowed to have any serious advancement then why bother with a cert system at all? Just spawn everyone with everything unlocked. That's what you'd have to do in order for new players not to be disadvantaged right? The thing is, we all know how quickly the game would fall apart and be relegated to the same niche status as PS1 if there was nothing to work for. The whole game is driven by XP, and sooner or later the devs are going to have to come up with new ways of spending it. For people who really specialize in something the point where certs are no longer a motivation is already here, because there isn't anything worthwhile to keep spending on if you have a favorite unit or two. You can only cert up everything else and gradually obliterate your uniqueness.

I don't see trying to appease new players who want everything instantly without any work as more essential than giving people who like playing for rewards something to do long term.

Also let's not forget, weapons, boosts and premium are essentially ALL strongly based on giving you extra certs, so as the ability to invest more certs in the units you like decreases over time so does your incentive to keep making use of those payed services that give you more certs to spend. At some point or another it's going to be inevitable for the devs to introduce crazy expensive cert options, like a 10000+ unlocks if they want this game to be around a few years down the road. I mean currently we're still at the point where only a tiny fraction of people who are just insane about the game have so many certs that they can optimize all their units, but where will this game be in a year or two?

[Figment]

think of it this way those thing will cost a bomb load of resource and may need a whole squad to crew.

Resources don't mean anything in this game, so why would we care if it does?

[almalino]

Resources don't mean anything in this game, so why would we care if it does?

It could be requested to use real certs on these vehicles :) Say 100 certs per super tank spawn. Expensive shit. Real money. Though then it will be pay to win :)

[Figment]

Rothnang, are you just trying to make a fool out of yourself, or trying to prove I'm right and you don't really think about things? Because the answers to your questions are painfully obvious and you havn't even considered them...




How long is this tunnel you're in anyway?




Are you really that dumb that you want to suggest I'm suggesting people to have everything from the start (which is what PS2 does and you're not solving either, btw) and that the sole motivation for people to play this game is to drool at the screen while there's some sort of ticker going up that suggests progress?


Do you really have that low a value judgment of players and yourself? Are your standards that low, that you can only have a good time if somewhere a ticker suggests you have achieved something? Is it that hard for you to make out if you had a good time playing or that you felt you achieved something? Do you really need the game to constantly remind you of some sort of arbitrary progress to the extend you make your entire gameplay experience revolve around making that sort of progress go up, even if it will regardless of what you do?

Do you really have such low standards of life?


And stop contradicting yourself constantly: "serious advantage" and suggesting new players wouldn't be disadvantaged in two alineas is typical for you. You often contradict yourself in the next alinea. And yeah... You don't "see" it. That's painfully obvious too.

[Figment]

It could be requested to use real certs on these vehicles :) Say 100 certs per super tank spawn. Expensive shit. Real money. Though then it will be pay to win :)

Certs don't mean a thing either, you login and get half of that. You play for an hour and get double that. And say you get them, there'll be some other super weapon that'll kill you in under three seconds flat. Sorry, but I can't see how that's worth development time, balancable or fun.

Especially over time, once you've researched what you want to research, you'll just put all your cert points into unit acquisition. And with the amount of people playing, over time that would lead to tons of units. You're simply creating a future problem (just like Rothnang).

[Figment]

:) Thank you for your opinion. I actually mentionied that vehicle could be spawned only by platoon leader with biggest platoon on the continent who applied for the vehicle. Assuming he will request platoon members to populate the vehicle.

So you're saying it's for zergfits only, which means you'll encourage random outfits to start to vie for being the biggest outfit around, causing outfit recruitment spam over quality recruitment and denying non-zergfits a chance to operate equipment in game? >_>

Can you imagine it would make smaller outfits less appealing, because they would not get access to the super-units? It's hard enough already to compete with larger outfits that can run more consistently large groups, as people soon realise running a single squad or less is often pointless to even try. You'd make that effect worse by adding extra incentives to joining an already big outfit.

[Sledgecrushr]

The game is mostly fair to the newest players and does add great benefits to players that have earned a ton of certs. Without medipacks my heavy wouldnt be nearly as effective in long drawn out fights. It takes a while to accumulate enough certs for those med packs. I am happy with the system in place now with cert progression.

[Realmofdarkness]

There should be a level system classwise. from grunt to major or whatever the ranks are called. each rank provides more abillities to spend cert point on. for example, a grunt sniper can ofc snipe but you need to level up to lieutenant before you can spend cert in cloaking. or you need to be lieutenant engineer before you can deploy mana turret and spend cert points on that one, a later rank would grant access to AV mana turret and so on.

[Micro]

http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1335/89/1335891301503.jpg
Mixed opinions FTW.

[almalino]

Especially over time, once you've researched what you want to research, you'll just put all your cert points into unit acquisition. And with the amount of people playing, over time that would lead to tons of units. You're simply creating a future problem (just like Rothnang).

Nope. Read my suggestion. 1 unit per continent per fraction at a time owned by a biggest platoon. So, maximum 3 units at a time :)

[Sturmhardt]

Oh man.. This thread is so full of shortsighted ideas because some guy thinks "wouldn't it be awesome if..."...plz stop.

.sent via phone.

[almalino]

Oh man.. This thread is so full of shortsighted ideas because some guy thinks "wouldn't it be awesome if..."...plz stop.

.sent via phone.

Please explain what are the enablers to post our ideas on this forum?
- 23 pages of small text explaining it?
- 3 000 000 messages on this forum first?
- 1000 hours of PS2 playtime?

:)

Any ideas that do not fit criteria above considered shortsighted? :=)

[hashish]

Ah i like the idea.. Do not FULLY agree but i think the current way that they have designed it is not soo good..

I played ps1 heavily and continue to mack out ps2.. But i do feel the lack of progression is evident and its damaging for the game as a whole.. U need that feeling that you have earned this or that, Mastered this or that. Have unique abilities in this or that because u spent loads of time being a pro at it and EARNED IT !

In ps2 right now, it seems everyone is the same generic player with a bunch of shitty "sidegrades"... This is a really shit mmo concept.. We need to properly level and gain benefits from it.. 99% of weapons look exactly the same and unfortunatly you do not have the diverseness of players like u did in ps1 :( U need the diversity and uniqueness to really captivate long time player to KEEP playing..

If u guys remember in ps1, you actually had to EARN your reaver or mosquito. U didnt just magically get it, so every spams magriders and scythes.. This is very unfortunate they have allowed acess to EVERYTHING right off the bat ! Its good if u want to attract new players, but really it doesnt help the game in the long run, kinda like shooting urself in the foot..

Now i personally think the only way to combat this or improve upon the current system is to introduce a whole MASS of new vehicles + weapons + armour that is not available off the bat. This is particularly important for vehicles.. My idea is that we could have something like your "base/start" vehicles that you start the game with which are the ones available now.. And then with like 1000 or 2000 certs u can unlock more advanced units or vehicles.. This would really help progression when we see like 25 new vehicles like you do in Other proper MMO's.. Like eve for example has BILLIONS of ships.. (im not saying we need so many but VARIETY IS NEEDED !)

[Lonehunter]

NO.


The basic concept that makes PS2 fair for new players and vets is that everyone has access to everything their first time playing. Yes I know you won't get a thousand certs on day 1, but when you start making tiers and prerequisites you add content not available for new players. Plus now you're preventing a certain population (new players) from much more then just a vehicle. That's a strategy they can't use but still have to counter. You could argue it won't be a drastically different vehicle that requires new tactics but then why add it at all?

This is one shooter/mmo mechanic that doesn't belong in Planetside, because it would break it, and drastically lower the amount of new people entering the game

[Figment]

Nope. Read my suggestion. 1 unit per continent per fraction at a time owned by a biggest platoon. So, maximum 3 units at a time :)

I did.

And how many players within that one platoon do you suppose can replace it once it is destroyed?

And how easy do you think it'll be to bypass any squad/platoon leader limitations you place on them? Disbanding and reforming platoons is easy. And if that "biggest platoon" changes composition, does the unit just disband?

Can someone else quickly make one?

What if outfits like the Enclave, who have several platoons active at the same time, can just alternate between the three platoons?

Why should they have more power on top of their numerical organization advantage they already possess over other players?

Does the power of platoons need strengthening in the first place?

Will friendlies even try to destroy it so they can create their own?

If you penalize destroying it, what stops anyone from using an alt on a free account? Etc.

Your limitation is very weak and I can already think of at least six ways to bypass it. :/ Unfortunately, this isn't Command & Conquer: you can't say "there's only one per map", because the limitations you impose are going to be circumvented in all kinds of manners.



And you still haven't defined any reason to have it in the first place. "Because it sounds cool" isn't a reason, btw.

[Chaff]

.
One of the funniest aspects of any blog site, is how self-centered most of us are, or allow ourselves to "appear" online.

Everyone has an opinion. Some of us think the OP has an idea with some decent merit to it. Even in this group, we'd all go about implementing OPs idea(s) in different ways. ON this particular thread, there is more I disagree with than like, but it did spur me to think of some things that would make the game better and more interesting (IMO).

Opposition to any PSU post is simpler. Those with a closed mind or those who fall lnto the I-already-know-it-all camp resort to BIG FONT, or "HELL NO" as their justification.

Bringing nothing more than a closed mind to a forum to discuss ideas is one the oldest forms of trolling there is.

None of us can factually know what positives any new idea might add, nor can we know what negative changes it would bring into the game.

"Exploitation" is one of the few absolutes I expect from any change. If there's a way for players to exploit a new or old mechanic, it will happen.

I'm sorry, but newbs are newbs. TTK is at a level that will always allow a newb to be and feel relevent in any fight. This is especially true if a newb is in a bigger fight. 1v1, the more experienced player should win (regardless who has a weapon advantage). An experienced FPS player can come into PS2 as a "newb", but pretty much pown 80% of the opposition Day-1 if he has the hand-eye coordination that every great player seems to be born with.

I don't think these sorts of ideas are looking or asking for anything remotely near OP. To me this thread is about Reward/Incentives that may be worth considering. Longtime players should be able to easily identify long-term goals. Everybody plays for different reasons. Everybody stays longer, or leaves sooner, for equally diverse reasons. Hence, logic says that a decent percentage of this game should be structured to provide ways to acheive different perks, rewards, certs, ..... we're all different. We all need to be able to accept some gameplay elements which won't be well received by every player.

Quit shouting out your ONE OPINION for - or against - any thread. It's old. People need to leave their over-inflated egos at the door. Your boorish pontificating helped us pigeonhole your personality type long ago. I imagine at least half of y'all know who you are. I suspect most of you get off on being jack wagons, so I know the response will still be the same. It always is.

.

[maradine]

Rothnang, are you just trying to make a fool out of yourself, or trying to prove I'm right and you don't really think about things?

How long is this tunnel you're in anyway?

Are you really that dumb that you want to suggest I'm suggesting people to have everything from the start (which is what PS2 does and you're not solving either, btw) and that the sole motivation for people to play this game is to drool at the screen while there's some sort of ticker going up that suggests progress?


Do you really have that low a value judgment of players and yourself?

Are your standards that low, that you can only have a good time if somewhere a ticker suggests you have achieved something?

Is it that hard for you to make out if you had a good time playing or that you felt you achieved something?

Do you really have such low standards of life?


I love threads where you're basically 100% correct but are such a flaming asshole about it that I'm psychologically inclined to side with the other guy. You need to work on your bedside manner, friend.

[Phantomdestiny]

tbh we need a resource system overhaul before we design any time of heavy vehicle. because we need to know how the new supply line system will work before we choose how to manage vehicle specially if want them to be outfit/platoon/empire unique/specific

[Figment]

I love threads where you're basically 100% correct but are such a flaming asshole about it that I'm psychologically inclined to side with the other guy. You need to work on your bedside manner, friend.

Understand the sentiment. But people need to learn to stop posting rubbish, cause then I don't need to tell them it's rubbish and explain why in excruciatingly emberassing detail, because anyone with common sense can see why it's a bad idea.

I'd rather shoot this down now and make it die a painful death and not be subtle about it, than get more "BR40 type issues" on top of the existing "BR40 issues" in PS2.


Entitlement reasoning to ask for power creep without care for the opposition and self-worshipping are basically the cause of half the problematic designs in game. Those were implemented due to similar shortsighted reasonings as Rothnang's and I'm tired of people being so damn shortsighted. I'm even more tired of people seeing themselves as ultra-skilled while using handicap tools and then proclaiming they are entitled to owning handicap tools by declaring themselves special for one reasong or another, while at the same time denying those handicaps to players who didn't play as long as they did. These people will demand more such things in the future, leading to ever increasing power creep: by the same reasoning, why would a 3 year vet be "only" as powerful as a 2 year vet? Or a 6 year vet only as powerful as a 5 year vet? Where does it end?



I'm not going to sit here and be respectful to someone who wants to see the very core of PlanetSide design philosophy destroyed.

Fights based on a completely equal chance between newbee and veterans (provided you got the certs) is what PS has always been about and is what competitive gaming is about. If someone feels too high and mighty to play a game on an equal level with someone else, he can sod off for all I care. Especially if the only difference is invested time.

Especially not if the idea this person generates then doesn't even come close to solving an issue that person pretends to be addressing (or worse, results in quite the contrary); in this case specialization; issue: too little, solution, make all people powerful in everything over time. Then later, when everyone yet again has everything, do it again. Just like they do in WoW and other games without actual interesting content and where the grind is the objective of playing the game, instead of... you know, playing the game.


Just, no. No to power creep! There's too much in game already!


Sorry, but if he doesn't even take his own idea serious to put sufficient thought in it and refine it before posting (in the wrong forum section at that!), why the hell should I take it or him serious?

[Figment]

Opposition to any PSU post is simpler. Those with a closed mind or those who fall lnto the I-already-know-it-all camp resort to BIG FONT, or "HELL NO" as their justification.

Then maybe you should read the rest of the argumentation, because the whole point of the HELL NO is being more openminded and able to see the consequences. ALL of the consequences, not just the merits to the happy few!

It also means evaluating the suggestion on its merits and weighing it against its bad points. Which in this case are huge.

None of us can factually know what positives any new idea might add, nor can we know what negative changes it would bring into the game.

Because there's no such things as previous experience, previous examples, scenario building, can combine things ahead of time, read context, be creative and run a demo or twenty in their heads. Right? It also doesn't help to see how this would be in the short term, but then also consider the longest possible terms?

Actually, if you can't predict any consequences of a design of any sort, maybe you're just not good at analysis? >.>

"Exploitation" is one of the few absolutes I expect from any change. If there's a way for players to exploit a new or old mechanic, it will happen.

Which is why the first thing you should do is find ways to exploit your idea by pondering WHAT ELSE you could do with something. That's called scenario building.

I'm sorry, but newbs are newbs. TTK is at a level that will always allow a newb to be and feel relevent in any fight. This is especially true if a newb is in a bigger fight. 1v1, the more experienced player should win (regardless who has a weapon advantage). An experienced FPS player can come into PS2 as a "newb", but pretty much pown 80% of the opposition Day-1 if he has the hand-eye coordination that every great player seems to be born with.

At which point Rothnang says "No! Newb TTK should be longer than veteran TTK BY DESIGN, despite the veteran having more gaming experience that already should reduce their TTK and lengthen that of their opposition".

I don't think these sorts of ideas are looking or asking for anything remotely near OP. To me this thread is about Reward/Incentives that may be worth considering. Longtime players should be able to easily identify long-term goals. Everybody plays for different reasons. Everybody stays longer, or leaves sooner, for equally diverse reasons. Hence, logic says that a decent percentage of this game should be structured to provide ways to acheive different perks, rewards, certs, ..... we're all different. We all need to be able to accept some gameplay elements which won't be well received by every player.

Great. Which is why we've gotten spawncamp by design everywhere (some people like to spawncamp!). Which is why we got tons of one hit kill weapons (some people like to one hit kill their opposition, with anything!). Which is why we got NO proper team vehicles at all. Not even the Liberator and especially not the MBTs. etc. etc.

Your reasoning is lousy.

Quit shouting out your ONE OPINION for - or against - any thread. It's old. People need to leave their over-inflated egos at the door. Your boorish pontificating helped us pigeonhole your personality type long ago. I imagine at least half of y'all know who you are. I suspect most of you get off on being jack wagons, so I know the response will still be the same. It always is.

People need to leave their over-inflated egoes out and selfish reasonings out of multiplayer game design. Period. No exceptions.

The goal for multiplayer game design should be to ensure everyone (in any composition and role) has a decent and fair chance and has fun. People that are found in worse positions are therefore to be compensated one way or another so they can still enjoy their disadvantaged position.

Instead, we're in a topic talking about how the already advantaged should get more advantages because they want to feel more important based on entitlement and a need for self-confirmation.

[Sledgecrushr]

Im all for levels in this game. And perhaps after a certain level it might unlock a particular super cool camo or weapon skin. But I dont really believe that super experienced heavily certed veterans need any more advantage than what they already have over the new player.

[Dragonskin]

I love threads where you're basically 100% correct but are such a flaming asshole about it that I'm psychologically inclined to side with the other guy. You need to work on your bedside manner, friend.

This is why I occasionally agrue with Figment. I know he is right, but just feels like I should be against his posts. hahaha.

[Rothnang]

Being able to unlock something special for yourself doesn't mean it's overpowered and it doesn't mean new players are at a disadvantage. All it means is that you actually have long term goals and won't eventually get bored because as you earn more and more certs the very nature of the advancement system has you actively eroding your own strongsuits to turn into another jack of all trades character by forcing you to spend certs across the board instead of where you'd most want them.

This whole argument of "new players need access to everything" just makes no sense. There is not a shred of evidence in 15 years of MMOs that games do better when it's easy for new people to get everything but veterans have nothing to play for long term.

There is a sweet spot where your game is open enough to new players but has enough room to grow to keep people, and it's just silly that a bunch of people seem to be arguing that any slight move toward giving a game more meaningful long term goals would somehow ruin it for new players. There is simply no evidence for that anywhere in the MMO world, on the contrary, there are tons of games that have failed because there was nothing to play for after a month or two.

[Figment]

Again, you presume the game is so boring you need a carrot to have long term goals.


Why the fuck are you playing this game?


And where the fuck do you get an argument from that new players need access to everything? I've never once said that, yet you're clearly argueing with me. I believe in one of the first posts I said something about losing 75-90% of the available choices after selecting whatever it is you're allowed to have.


I'm about forcing players to make long term affecting decisions. You're just about adding more long term power and carrot gameplay: reach that next level, get that new cert... BORING! GET THE DAMN BASE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO ADVANCE YOUR EMPIRE AND BEAT YOUR ENEMY, NOT BECAUSE YOU WILL UNLOCK "PISTOL SILENCER"! How about you start playing the game, instead of letting the game play you for a fool!


Well Sergeant of the Master Sergeants Most Important Person Of Extreme Sergeants To The Max, why don't you actually try to understand what you're argueing with and about before you make a statement?




Also, look up the definition of meaningful, because I'm quite sure you've never looked it up. Grow some balls and start to play to beat your opponent and prove you're the better player, team and empire, not to grow your epeen by watching a ticker fill up and glee over obtaining a meaningless trinket everyone will get by simply time sinking.



You think getting the Auraxium AMS Driver merit made you special in PS1? You'd get that in a couple weeks regardless of whether you tried to get it or not: just have an AMS, you'll get it. Showing that off means what to other people? How about bragging about that time you (with or without your team) went in against 98% of the populace (all TR) on a continent and made them sit 15 more minutes in a facility because you got through their defenses and resecured?

THAT is something you can tell to your buddies and enemies. You think going "oh wow, I unlocked tier 75 pistol silencer!" means anything to other people aside from thinking you have no life?

[Chaff]

.

^
....right after you look up arrogant pompous condescending douchewibbler ?

LEVEL play for "new" players in PS1 ?....huh.

Assuming EQUAL SKILLS, a newb in PS1 had far LESS chance to survive a vet than a newb in PS2. I esentially base this on the TTK of PS2. A PS1 vet (BR20+) had pretty much any armor & weapon he needed and knew when and how to best use it. I don't see how that made a LEVEL playing field for newbs in that game. Breaking into PS1 was no picnic. Not for the average player anyway.

Again, the SAME people fail to be able to leave their ego at the door. ONE opinion is ONE opinion. Pompous arrogance does not add influence here - it greatly dimiishes it. It's sad (pathetic actually) when guys with such passion and knowledge of the game continually speak in an arrogant tone & manner. They lose all the cred they had before their egos stripped it away.

Most of us who can't shoot straight know it. Some guys seem to think better game skills (or stats) make them better people, or possess supior game ideas & opinions.

They're like the drunk local sports star (or a wannabe) who gets pulled over for a DUI .... and spouts, "...do you know who I am..?"

Some cats will NEVER get it. Some impress themselves by frequently replying to posts they find aborrant with a WALL OF TEXT ....... 99% of us scan past it ....their myopic polemic verbage that they think is scathingly brilliant because they feel superior to the average player.

I don't have to like or support one single thing rothnang (or others) posts. Who they are and how the choose to conduct themselves as people is what will, or won't, generate something worth "listening" to.

I support the guy. He puts out an opinion, and does so with class. Some people are unable or unwilling to return the common courtesys of human cohabitation. We "Kind of hear you", but essentially it immediately goes out the other ear. Quite ironic, because in Figgys case I've NEVER doubted his game knowledge, opinions, or passion for PS.
....it's the oddest thing to see him continaually undermine himself by being a horses ass wrinkle so much of the time.


.

[Figment]

.

^
....right after you look up arrogant pompous condescending douchewibbler ?

Your point being people's ego gets hurt quickly and people don't have the attentionspan to read less than an A4 or two of text so people will never be able to graduate from high school? Sorry, I don't buy that. I get that people don't like getting smacked in the face and put in their place. But that doesn't mean it's arrogant, when the person who does so is actually right, perhaps, just perhaps, that person getting the lecture is due for one.


Walls of text don't exist. It's just an excuse lazy people use to excuse their own lack of reading discipline.


Why should I pretend to respect something I don't btw? Why should I lie to you or anyone else? Is that courtesy, or deception? I think deception is worse than being blunt, but hey. At least I'm honest. I don't mind you thinking what you think of me, I'm glad you told me. However, I disagree with you disposition we should all be nice to one another. I utterly despise the design attitude Rothnang's portraying as it is an insult to the average gamer's intelligence, presuming they're nothing but a horse chasing a carrot on a stick. That attitude has caused tons of 'modern' games to be of ever decreasing quality and making them more superficial and lacking in challenge and fairness. It's pretty much time someone says "enough is enough" and I'm not going to tolerate that argument, nor player elitism anywhere. in that respect it's funny you think he acts with class, while in reality he makes one insulting and arrogant assertion after the other, while also outright dismissing issues without addressing them or backing them up with argument. That's not courtesy, that's rude. Entitlement argumentation? That's downright arrogance and a lack of respect for other players by pretending you're more important.


Name me some MMOs released in the past years that hasn't copied the "advancement" and "random loot drop" systems in an attempt to veil from the player that there's no actual new content and replayability, nor progression, while abusing the completionist and instant satisfaction psychology to lull the player into thinking they're doing something more or better than before, while all they've done is made the game easier for the player - meaning the player needs LESS skill to do the same thing over time. By now a lot of players are so indoctrinated, they think it's a MUST and they even feel ENTITLED to it. Including Rothnang.

And I'm the one being arrogant? Good grief. I'm not the one claiming I should have more power over other people because I've been around longer. THAT is pompous and arrogant. Not to mention condescending. Guess I'm simply returning the favour.

[Rothnang]

We're all playing out a back and forth of different sides of an argument in the hopes that the devs will read it and find themselves inspired. What ultimately goes in the game should be the best that all of us have said and thought and written about, not any single one person's idea.

Self advocacy is part of that process. Everyone arguing for what's important to them personally instead of trying to dictate what should be important to others is what gives us the most truthful and genuine representation of what different sides of an issue have to say.

In this entire process it's important to remember not to poison the discussion however. Attacking the people behind the argument, or being so polarized that you can't even acknowledge the discussion as healthy simply doesn't create anything that's ultimately useful. Do you think any dev still reads this post if it's just people bashing their head against the wall? That doesn't help them one bit to refine their game.


Posting on a forum is not a tug of war between two sides of the argument where the winner takes all. It's more like a Ouija board that has many hands pulling in different directions that all together make a message. There are no winners or losers here, but if we all keep the process going in a friendly manner we can be helpful to the games development as a community. This whole upvote downvote mentality of just counting out "for" and "against" simply isn't helpful to create synergistic ideas that represent the best of all sides.

[Kail]

Walls of text don't exist.

ORLY? (http://api.*********/files/2fUHuwCP7yjsFdxcorIhTr2hOJYPHdrlASATjsIFb8vL0V4*nq 1Ir10yeXa3QRPkepq-qPoo8Gj1WO650SKW1RxMakQs0HY-/vietnammemorial.jpg) :)

Edit: Direct image didn't work, /sadface

[Obstruction]

devs don't read crap like this. also you know what was truly great about PS1?

no assholes bringing up PS1 all the time.

edit: the word rothnang is looking for is "consensus" and i agree. but it's really not going to be found in 5 pages of wishing it was a different game and people calling each other names. with a game this complex they are likely to ruin it themselves by changing some formerly insignificant feature, without your help. just saying.

[Figment]

"That's all fine and dandy, but I'm a spoiled brat who wants more power to confirm I'm better than other players and in doing so I'll upset any and all delicate balance in game, but I don't care, because I get to have more power and thus kill people and be happy - that me getting a better K/D means others get a worse - especially new people - is totally irrelevant to me because by that time I'm not a new player anymore and I don't care".

That is what your argumentation behind the suggestion generally boils down to when I read it. You use eufemisms and of course would never call yourself spoiled or anything. But in the end, it's simply not a good suggestion because it is "but I want to be entitled". What's wrong with saying your feedback is horrible when it is? I'm not here to provide morale support, am I? Do I have to tread very careful to not step on the toes of people that think they're better designers than they are? What does that do?

I'm sorry if I don't have much if any respect for bad feedback, particularly not if the person stating it goes stubborn and basically says "but I want it and I don't see your issues, so let's move on". You can't demand respect for your ideas and expect to receive it. Quite the contrary. Selfish designers are the worst kind of designers in existence and the sooner they realise that, the better. You are the one in tunnelvision, you didn't accept any critique, manner of delivery aside: I already saw how you responded to the critique of others. Clearly, it didn't get through to you and I wonder if it will.

Ignoring you're currently a poor designer with a poor, selfish design attitude would not be doing you, me, the devs, the game, nor this debate any favours. I'm not going to pretend you're any good at it just to sustain your ego.


Be honest here:

How long had you thought about this before you posted it? How many different groups of players did you have in mind? Just the veterans who play for completionism? Beyond trivialising their disadvantage, did you look at it from a new player perspective by trying to place yourself in a new player position 5 years from now? What's the time period you considered? Short term (+/- month to half year of progression)? Did you ever consider the context of never ending cert supplies? Etc.

How many questions did you ask yourself before you posted this in the wrong forum section?

PS: Who's doing upvote/downvote? PS2 forums I suppose?
PS2: Note that this is strictly critique on your ability as a designer. You're not the only person I question their capabilities and attitude of in that regard. Hell, some of them do it for a living. I simply hate seeing those sort of mentalities and I always call people out on those things. I've seen enough of it to recognise it. It's a shame my critique is confused with bad manners. I expect people to be old enough to handle certain harsh critiques. I'd rather be blunt and harsh than subtle, sugarcoating and letting something linger.