The Weapon Sales Problem, and my opinion.

[p0intman]

I don't like the way SOE operates. I don't like how they've had this pattern of releasing weapons, and nerfing ones currently in use in order to drive sales of the new weapons. Its shady as fuck and smacks of paying to win. They did it with the shotguns, they did it with SMGs, they did it with several of the LMGs and rocket launchers (Crow, hawk, annihilator, phoenix) and im sure they've done it with other weapons. Likewise, I disagree with the lack of work on PS1 being made free to play. I will not fund something that I find to be dishonest, and contrary to what I think is fun.

SOE is of course, a business. In order to best use that fact in order to showcase the above issues, this is a statement of disagreement by way of showing what I've done with the money SOE is not being paid by me because of the above reasons. It is written in such a way as to compare it specifically to the value of entertainment and competing game developers, as I see them being worthwhile to support. Could they give me a reason to pay them? Sure. The above points need to be rectified before I'll consider it, however. I have spent a small amount of money on this game, but compared to the below, its peanuts, and that is what I mean to emphasize.

Things I have done with expendable income instead of paying SOE as it specifically pertains to competing game developers, since launch of PS2:
- Bought the Collectors Edition for EVE's Second Decade anniversary ($150)
- Backed Star Citizen ($65)
- pre-ordered Watch Dogs for the PC ($60~)
- pre-ordered Grid 2 ($60)
- bought farcry 3 ($50)
- bought assassin's creed 3 ($50)

In summary, I don't like how PS2 is being developed, so I've been giving money to competition instead of SOE because their competition actually makes stuff that is worthwhile. Unlike buying weapons from SOE, I don't feel that any of the above is liable to make me feel scammed in the future or like it was a waste. For the cash above, you could buy a ton of stuff in PS2 and be relatively set for quite a while, and that really is the entire point of having listed it: For whatever it could buy in ps2, it was better spent elsewhere.

If they decide to correct the above problems, great. If not their loss, literally. I can't possibly be the only one who has not been buying SC and has instead spent that money elsewhere.

[Koadster]

Your money which you can do with as you please. Dont need to make a rant post about it, we all know your stance on PS2.

[AThreatToYou]

I don't like the way SOE operates. I don't like how they've had this pattern of releasing weapons, and nerfing ones currently in use in order to drive sales of the new weapons.

....

I really don't think they do this intentionally. When all is said & done, the game is getting more and more balanced, and you say they shouldn't nerf weapons?

Have you considered that you don't have to pay money for weapons?
Have you considered that they sell weapons for convenience of access?

Have you considered that they can't... "nerf" cosmetics?
i.e. what you actually have to pay for

It's okay if you're new to F2P. Even on games that are pay-and-play-forever, this happens with patches. It happened with NS, NS2, Savage, Savage 2, HON (before fuckup), Global Agenda (before F2P), TF2 (before F2P). Shit gets nerfed. Y'know, it might keep happening. It might not. Really I think it will, because PS2 is a continually evolving game.

Now, this pattern I've seen with Tribes: Ascend. They tried to fix it. They really did. HiRez tried really balls hard to make balanced weapons at release. You know what happened? The new weapons were UP, and way more people quit over being pissed with what they bought. I also see this pattern with LoL.

It's your money, your choice, but WAH

[p0intman]

Your money which you can do with as you please. Dont need to make a rant post about it, we all know your stance on PS2.
For how I usually say things, this is me being nice. No no no, THIS thread here (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=53821) is a rant.

....

I really don't think they do this intentionally. When all is said & done, the game is getting more and more balanced, and you say they shouldn't nerf weapons?

Have you considered that you don't have to pay money for weapons?
Have you considered that they sell weapons for convenience of access?

Have you considered that they can't... "nerf" cosmetics?
i.e. what you actually have to pay for

It's okay if you're new to F2P. Sometimes not all the problems of a weapon hits live. Now we have test. Sometimes a weapon that gets released is genuinely OP/not working as intended. See Phoenix.
None of that is the point. The point is that while I *could* spend cash on it, there are specific reasons I'm not going to. Why? Because its complete bullshit how they've been releasing them and nerfing them to drive sales of people who DO spend money on it. Intentional or not, whats done is done, and its a problem.

[AThreatToYou]

Because its complete bullshit how they've been releasing them and nerfing them to drive sales of people who DO spend money on it. Intentional or not, whats done is done, and its a problem.

You either have this completely backwards in and out itself, or I am misunderstanding something. How can they not intend it if they are doing it to drive the sales of people who do spend money on it? Please, try to explain this so we can try to fix it.

[p0intman]

You either have this completely backwards in and out itself, or I am misunderstanding something. How can they not intend it if they are doing it to drive the sales of people who do spend money on it? Please, try to explain this so we can try to fix it.
You claimed it wasn't intentional. I disagree, clearly. Either way, it doesn't matter, because that's still how it went down.

[AThreatToYou]

I don't see how it is intentional.

Now, I don't have any direct evidence that states it isn't intentional, either. However, I don't think that we could find any direct evidence that it is intentional.

I suggest that it is not intentional because I see this pattern even in non-F2P games. It doesn't matter how much pre-production they give new content, once it hits Live, unpredictable things happen and then it can be clear if something is or isn't working as intended. Even mere psychological differences between the testing players and the live players can make something appear stronger or weaker in certain situations. Blizzard likes to emphasize this in how they attempt to balance StarCraft 2.

Evidence toward it being intentional can possibly be found in the poster-child of F2P: League of Legends. That game is fairly infamous for releasing OP champions, and then nerfing them a week later. However, I'll say that I personally haven't seen this happen in awhile. This makes me believe that it isn't intentional because Riot is a very novice company inexperienced at game development thus far, especially when it comes to releasing new content into a live environment. They've gotten more experienced so new Live content is more polished and balanced now.

Can the practice of nerfing newly released weapons be fixed? Yes. Test throws in a lot of changes at once; there could be a post-test where live patches are placed so that new content can be trialed before put on live in the "new live environment". They could also offer new content completely free access for 7 days, and after the 7 day period (next patch window), the content would be placed into the normal cert-requirement or pay-requirement setting. That way SOE would be able to rapidly know if content is working as intended since all players would have access to it, and nobody could complain about spending money on it and then having it nerfed a week later.

F2P relies on willingness to pay. Perfect information to the buyers is generally considered have no effect on WTP from an economics standpoint, so I do not think that the 7-day free practice would reduce long-term sales.

/e: SOE could offer this 7-day access period exclusively to subscribers, or in any case a player who has previously paid for station cash.

[DeltaGun]

It's called "Balancing". More old weapons will be further balanced as the game changes with new additions. If you can't deal with that then why would you ever play any constantly updated game.

At the end of the post it just feels like you are having some serious Buyer's Remorse. Nothing SoE can do about that, or PSU for that matter.

[p0intman]

I don't see how it is intentional.

Now, I don't have any direct evidence that states it isn't intentional, either. However, I don't think that we could find any direct evidence that it is intentional.

I suggest that it is not intentional because I see this pattern even in non-F2P games. It doesn't matter how much pre-production they give new content, once it hits Live, unpredictable things happen and then it can be clear if something is or isn't working as intended. Even mere psychological differences between the testing players and the live players can make something appear stronger or weaker in certain situations. Blizzard likes to emphasize this in how they attempt to balance StarCraft 2.

Evidence toward it being intentional can possibly be found in the poster-child of F2P: League of Legends. That game is fairly infamous for releasing OP champions, and then nerfing them a week later. However, I'll say that I personally haven't seen this happen in awhile. This makes me believe that it isn't intentional because Riot is a very novice company inexperienced at game development thus far, especially when it comes to releasing new content into a live environment. They've gotten more experienced so new Live content is more polished and balanced now.

Can the practice of nerfing newly released weapons be fixed? Yes. Test throws in a lot of changes at once; there could be a post-test where live patches are placed so that new content can be trialed before put on live in the "new live environment". They could also offer new content completely free access for 7 days, and after the 7 day period (next patch window), the content would be placed into the normal cert-requirement or pay-requirement setting. That way SOE would be able to rapidly know if content is working as intended since all players would have access to it, and nobody could complain about spending money on it and then having it nerfed a week later.

F2P relies on willingness to pay. Perfect information to the buyers is generally considered have no effect on WTP from an economics standpoint, so I do not think that the 7-day free practice would reduce long-term sales.

/e: SOE could offer this 7-day access period exclusively to subscribers, or in any case a player who has previously paid for station cash.

The reason I say it IS intentional is because SOE does not have the excuse of being new. By this point, they should very well already be able to at least consider how weapons will be used. They've been developing MMOs for 14 years. Am I honestly supposed to believe that even with the last decade or so of the entire planetside history, NOTHING has been learned and that EVERYTHING was forgotten? At best that paints them as incompetent, at worst dishonest. Further, they did the same thing with multiple classes of weapons over multiple months of live development.

Some of these weapons actually existed and were extensively tested during Beta. It is not as if they came right out of the gate with no knowledge, they had plenty of it. I cannot seem to want to think any member of the development team is outright incompetent (except Smed), but they've had data the entire time. To suggest that they can't or haven't consulted it prior to releasing new weapons is silly. Edit: In addition, SOE has a history of questionable development ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies#Trials_of_Obi-Wan).

With all of that said, I cannot see any excuse other than it being intentional.

[Ruffdog]

It was always going to be rough with the new weapon types - the SMGs and Pump shotguns, with no test server and no VR. But there did seem to be a deliberate burn of the first release to overstate the second. Hailstorm and Blackjack > Armastice and Uppercut. Not even sidegrade, but straight upgrade.

The next test will be the NS revolvers. SOE will be tempted to burn these immediately prior to the release of empire specific heavy pistols. Glad I've stayed out of that one.

I call it a revolving burn policy. Like my first job, everyone got treated like utter nothing because there was a good supply of new people to replace the leavers. The new guys found out in time and left after being treated badly and then more new guys came in after them.

I feel sorry for the guys who know nothing about x3 sales.

[Falcon_br]

The truth is, since they announced that planetside 2 was going to be free to play I already expected that.
It is the most expensive game I am playing now, BF-3 got like 8-9 DLCs and it is still cheaper to play them planetside 2 for me.
But because I am having fun, I can live with that.

[Fenrys]

Buy equipment for the role it is supposed to fill once it gets balanced, not for the flavor of the week OP stats.

They could also offer new content completely free access for 7 days, and after the 7 day period (next patch window), the content would be placed into the normal cert-requirement or pay-requirement setting. That way SOE would be able to rapidly know if content is working as intended since all players would have access to it, and nobody could complain about spending money on it and then having it nerfed a week later.

F2P relies on willingness to pay. Perfect information to the buyers is generally considered have no effect on WTP from an economics standpoint, so I do not think that the 7-day free practice would reduce long-term sales.

/e: SOE could offer this 7-day access period exclusively to subscribers, or in any case a player who has previously paid for station cash.


As much as I like this idea, I think it would end up costing SOE money to implement.

Some portion of their sales, IDK what portion, comes from players purchasing novelty. They'll use the gun for a while, then get bored of it and want a novel thing to play with for a while before they get bored of that too. It's not the gun they are paying for, but the fresh experience.

[Fenrys]

double post, this can be deleted

[moosepoop]

You claimed it wasn't intentional. I disagree, clearly. Either way, it doesn't matter, because that's still how it went down.

the weapons go on sale right before they get nerfed from op to balanced.

if you were lusting after their power, you would feel cheated. if you expected to get an op weapon and gain an unfair advantage for a cheap price, you would feel its a dirty tactic.

you wanted an op weapon and got suckered. you deserve it.

The truth is, since they announced that planetside 2 was going to be free to play I already expected that.
It is the most expensive game I am playing now, BF-3 got like 8-9 DLCs and it is still cheaper to play them planetside 2 for me.
But because I am having fun, I can live with that.



planetside 2 is hybrid pay 2 win. the power of new op weapons is only temporary. this way you get to milk the power stat chasers and still keep the game balanced.

[GraniteRok]

http://i.imgur.com/hHQfwVD.jpg

Quite interesting that you seem to have spent SC on weapons including those that sell for SC only (no certs) being the new revolvers including the black and gold ones! How can this be when you're so adamant about not buying SC? How did you put it...

I can't possibly be the only one who has not been buying SC and has instead spent that money elsewhere.

and

The point is that while I *could* spend cash on it, there are specific reasons I'm not going to.

plus interestingly, four days after you buy the gold revolver, you post this in this thread; http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=914346#post914346 ...

er.. why would i give a damn about a blinged out weapon?

This along with the other weapons in your arsenal that you probably bought as well; Crow, Phoenix, Annihilator, etc. Appears to be you're nothing but bitching for the sake of bitching, again.

[Punker]

hahaha!

[Canaris]

http://i.imgur.com/hHQfwVD.jpg

Quite interesting that you seem to have spent SC on weapons including those that sell for SC only (no certs) being the new revolvers including the black and gold ones! How can this be when you're so adamant about not buying SC? How did you put it...



and



plus interestingly, four days after you buy the gold revolver, you post this in this thread; http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=914346#post914346 ...



This along with the other weapons in your arsenal that you probably bought as well; Crow, Phoenix, Annihilator, etc. Appears to be you're nothing but bitching for the sake of bitching, again.

You do know when you first use a weapon in the VR room it comes up there as being unlocked, not saying he didn't buy those just saying the most likely scenario is he tested them out on the firing range.

[GraniteRok]

You do know when you first use a weapon in the VR room it comes up there as being unlocked, not saying he didn't buy those just saying the most likely scenario is he tested them out on the firing range.

I did not know that. I apologize p0intman for false pretense picture part. However, still bitching for the sake of bitching as I see it.

[ringring]

I look at this from two angles.

Firstly I expected this. It goes with the territory of FTP.
However, I think SOE are going at it too hard. Too many guns released too often. It feels like they're trying to milk their customers.

They are selling power and not just cosmetics and boosts and I know this is mitigated because everything can be bought with certs but it is leaving a 'taste' in my mouth.

My advice is to cool it for a little while.

[Emperor Newt]

The problem I have with the nerfing/buffing and release of new weapons is only one: costs.
If weapons would be cheaper I would spend more SC on it. But currently I am on hold and only buy SC on tripple sale and weapons when they are on store sale. 10 bucks for a single gun is just too much for a game aiming at having hundreds. And then we haven't even talked about cosmetics (which I think where a f2ps main income should be, but that's my opinion).

I would happily buy more weapons, if I wouldn't know that there are coming more versatile (or maybe even better) weapons down the road. I have also bought plenty of weapons which are now more or less obsolete or turned out not to be as good as one might have thought and are just sitting there never being used.

If weapons would be cheaper I think it would also be less of a problem (especially) when they are nerfed. For a gun I only payed one or two bucks I don't care if it's not as great as when I bough it (as long as it's not nerfed into the ground). But when you payed 10 bucks for it? A fifth of the price of a full game? Completely different matter.

And to go a bit off-topic: For me that's less of an issue (although I still consider it to be one). But for a new user who doesn't know about double or tripple sc sales? I can completely understand when they turn away when looking at the store. I know we all love sc sales but I would even go out and say I would prefer soe to cut tripple sc sales and have less double sc sales. And in return lower all sc prices in the store.

And on a closing note: we need more loadout slots if you want to sell us more stuff. And please don't sell those. That would be a dickish move.

[Canaris]

The problem I have with the nerfing/buffing and release of new weapons is only one: costs.
If weapons would be cheaper I would spend more SC on it. But currently I am on hold and only buy SC on tripple sale and weapons when they are on store sale. 10 bucks for a single gun is just too much for a game aiming at having hundreds. And then we haven't even talked about cosmetics (which I think where a f2ps main income should be, but that's my opinion).

I would happily buy more weapons, if I wouldn't know that there are coming more versatile (or maybe even better) weapons down the road. I have also bought plenty of weapons which are now more or less obsolete or turned out not to be as good as one might have thought (AP).

If weapons would be cheaper I think it would also be less of a problem (especially) when they are nerfed. For a gun I only payed one or two bucks I don't care if it's not as great as when I bough it (as long as it's not nerfed into the ground). But when you payed 10 bucks for it? A fifth of the price of a full game? Completely different matter.

And to go a bit off-topic: For me that's less of an issue (although I still consider it to be one). But for a new user who doesn't know about double or tripple sc sales? I can completely understand when they turn away when looking at the store. I know we all love sc sales but I would even go out and say I would prefer soe to cut tripple sc sales and have less double sc sales. And in return lower all sc prices in the store.

can't but agree with that

[p0intman]

http://i.imgur.com/hHQfwVD.jpg

Quite interesting that you seem to have spent SC on weapons including those that sell for SC only (no certs) being the new revolvers including the black and gold ones! How can this be when you're so adamant about not buying SC? How did you put it...



and



plus interestingly, four days after you buy the gold revolver, you post this in this thread; http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=914346#post914346 ...



This along with the other weapons in your arsenal that you probably bought as well; Crow, Phoenix, Annihilator, etc. Appears to be you're nothing but bitching for the sake of bitching, again.

last weapon i bought was the phoenix. what the fuck. I tested them in VR, but I didn't buy them.
edit: logged in and checked
http://i.imgur.com/o4CQbHt.jpg

Edit: Thanks for the idea (and confirmation of said idea working) to troll some of you via testing crap out in the VR.

[Canaris]

last weapon i bought was the phoenix. what the fuck. I tested them in VR, but I didn't buy them. If my account actually has them for live play, I have other bigger concerns.

it would be nice hehe, though all it means is it's unlocked and added to your stats page not live play. I think just as if you'd trialed it.

[Rolfski]

If SOE would intentionally release new weapons overpowered, only to nerf them after launch, they would screw up their own business model which is heavily based on customer loyalty and retention purchases.

It's the player base continuity that keeps their offices running. Last thing they want is for the 5% that pays for this game to become disgruntled and turn their back on them.
So no, this is definitely not intentional. Of course you have always haters like OP that gonna hate and who fail to see otherwise.

[AThreatToYou]

Well, this is an F2P game. I'm not going to buy anything "new" in it because I know this is going to happen.

[leifnielsen]

Things I have done with expendable income instead of paying SOE as it specifically pertains to competing game developers, since launch of PS2:
- Bought the Collectors Edition for EVE's Second Decade anniversary ($150)
- Backed Star Citizen ($65)
- pre-ordered Watch Dogs for the PC ($60~)
- pre-ordered Grid 2 ($60)
- bought farcry 3 ($50)
- bought assassin's creed 3 ($50)

In summary, I don't like how PS2 is being developed, so I've been giving money to competition instead of SOE because their competition actually makes stuff that is worthwhile. Unlike buying weapons from SOE, I don't feel that any of the above is liable to make me feel scammed in the future or like it was a waste. For the cash above, you could buy a ton of stuff in PS2 and be relatively set for quite a while, and that really is the entire point of having listed it: For whatever it could buy in ps2, it was better spent elsewhere.

Are you freaking kidding me?! This is such a joke. I know (and so do you but you don't want to admit it because it would invalidate your point) that even if Planetside 2 was the shit and you loved everything about it, you would still pre-order Watch Dogs and Grid 2, you would still buy Farcry 3, Assassin's Creed 3, EVE...really the only thing you MIGHT not have done is backed a Kickstarter with $65.

Why? Because obviously you're a gamer, and all gamers know that you DO NOT pull funds from other games you're itching to play. Instead, You eat less, you skimp on gas, you turn down friends that want to go to the bar or out to restaurants, you use the credit card more, you hold off on paying your bills on time... You do whatever you have to do to pay for the games you're looking forward to.

Saying that your money either has to go to PS2 OR those other games is retarded.

How much cash are the most expensive weapons in the game? $7.00?

The cost for all the games you've listed comes out to $435.

As of March 9th, the cost to buy every weapon for a single faction was $327. So even if you DID buy every weapon, unless you're talking about cosmetics as well...You'd still have $108 leftover that you wouldn't be putting into Planetside.

But you don't need to buy every weapon. You choose a carbine you like, you buy that. You choose a rocket launcher you like, you buy that...it serves you well until SOE releases a new rocket launcher that's a little bit better, you buy that. This is all small change compared to the $435 you claim you'd be throwing in to Planetside if they fixed these "issues".


Think of it like this...You buy the gun that you think is the best. It gives you an advantage over the other players that have not bought the new gun. It serves you well for awhile, meaning you get your money's worth out of it. Later on, they release a NEW gun that's better than the one you bought. Now, you can decide whether you want to hold off and buy it later with certs and be at a slight disadvantage for awhile, or you can buy it with cash right away and remain on top with the advantage. Either way, you still got your money's worth out of the first gun. The only time this wouldn't be acceptable is if SOE released a better gun, reaped the rewards, and then IMMEDIATELY released an even better gun.

This is the business model for Planetside 2. It works fine. Weapons are just going to become somewhat weaker over time as new weapons are released.

[ringring]

If SOE would intentionally release new weapons overpowered, only to nerf them after launch, they would screw up their own business model which is heavily based on customer loyalty and retention purchases.

It's the player base continuity that keeps their offices running. Last thing they want is for the 5% that pays for this game to become disgruntled and turn their back on them.
So no, this is definitely not intentional. Of course you have always haters like OP that gonna hate and who fail to see otherwise.

Well this is what they've done so I suppose your contention is that they've done this accidentally.

But you don't need to assume bad faith to realise weapons are going to get nerfed. Examine the process; a gun is produced, it is tested internally and on PST and released. However it is only after a few weeks of constant use that the mass player-base becomes used to it and also that the devs have stats and can observe playstyle changes.

It's inevitable that weapons will be adjusted based on how they actually work out in-game and that may possibly be a buff, but then a buff for one weapon corresponds to a nerf elsewhere.

[Rolfski]

It's inevitable that weapons will be adjusted based on how they actually work out in-game and that may possibly be a buff, but then a buff for one weapon corresponds to a nerf elsewhere.

Of course most weapons get a balance pass sooner or later but that's a whole lot different vs intentionally releasing them overpowered.

[AThreatToYou]

Of course most weapons get a balance pass sooner or later but that's a whole lot different vs intentionally releasing them overpowered.

That's kind of what we are trying to say. I haven't seen the NS pistols get nerfbat yet.

[Vashyo]

I do find everything in the store to be too steep for my gaming budget. Only way I would buy stuff is if I have triple SC money and the item itself is on sale, then the prices becomes more acceptable. I would not pay more than 1-2$ for one item, ever. I'd rather get some cool game for the price of one of those new cool helmets in steam instead, most of the items are too similar in appearance too so I dont even have any temptation to buy items, the new helmets I would be willing to buy but not at the current price. For now I'm just sitting on my stack of 17670 SC.

Though weapon balance I dont have an issue with, I know it can be hard to balance a new gun immediately after release and it's easier to make stuff too good than bad. I'm bit miffed by the fracture guns on TR maxes though, I feel they're awesomely powerful and I keep getting blown to bits in a second by them. I just knew they're gonna be used against infantry before release.

[Mox]

The moment SOE announced that they will sell weapons i knew this game will be p2w.
But we have to look at it the other way around....
I think they dont release more than 2 or 3 weapons per month which are OP and therefore we have to buy it. Thats about 1400 to 2100 SC per month. If you buy at a double or triple SC day that about 5 to ten bucks per month. So you are able to patricipate in a p2w-game for less money then a sub-based game would cost. Not too bad imo.

[p0intman]

Are you freaking kidding me?! This is such a joke. I know (and so do you but you don't want to admit it because it would invalidate your point) that even if Planetside 2 was the shit and you loved everything about it, you would still pre-order Watch Dogs and Grid 2, you would still buy Farcry 3, Assassin's Creed 3, EVE...really the only thing you MIGHT not have done is backed a Kickstarter with $65.

Why? Because obviously you're a gamer, and all gamers know that you DO NOT pull funds from other games you're itching to play. Instead, You eat less, you skimp on gas, you turn down friends that want to go to the bar or out to restaurants, you use the credit card more, you hold off on paying your bills on time... You do whatever you have to do to pay for the games you're looking forward to.

How much cash are the most expensive weapons in the game? $7.00?



firstly, you assume I have no other priorities.
and do you know what I can do with 7 bucks? Fucking awesome deli sandwiches.

[moosepoop]

The moment SOE announced that they will sell weapons i knew this game will be p2w.
But we have to look at it the other way around....
I think they dont release more than 2 or 3 weapons per month which are OP and therefore we have to buy it. Thats about 1400 to 2100 SC per month. If you buy at a double or triple SC day that about 5 to ten bucks per month. So you are able to patricipate in a p2w-game for less money then a sub-based game would cost. Not too bad imo.

i think SOE is improving on their strategy.

its only been 3 days since new MAX weapons are out, and they are already getting nerfed. they are trimming the time limit down for temporary pay2win, and now its just right.

[Sturmhardt]

I think there are just too many weapons. Who needs 50 different weapons for each faction? It's just weapon spam and there are many many weapons who just feel the same copypasta with different visuals. Less is more in that field, but I guess it's already too late. Older shooters never had more than 10-20 Guns and that was perfectly fine because then they could all have their unique place. Who needs 5 different shotguns? I need an automatic and a pump action shotgun and THAT'S IT. All the other shotguns just add noise. PS2 has too many weapons to fill too few roles.

I predict 20 more weapons per faction by the end of 2013...

[megashades]

Personally, I kind of wished the game remained in some sort of beta stage for about another 6 months or so before they released. The game feels more like an open beta with the ability to purchase items before it's "released".

If I was to pay 7$ for a new weapon, I'd like it to at least have some new aesthetics to them instead of being part of the same 6-10 interchangeable modular parts that make up the same weapons. Balance is a whole different issue, but why can't we at least get totally new models, sounds, and animations instead of just being recycled off the current ones already put in the game? Even the SMG animations borrow the first 15-30 frames of the reload animation from the carbines. Though, the revolvers are at least a nice recent change.

Unfortunately, for the most part, we're practically spending cash on numerical values changed in a script file.

[Osskscosco]

Far cry 3 and AC3? hahahahaha.

[AThreatToYou]

Personally, I kind of wished the game remained in some sort of beta stage for about another 6 months or so before they released. The game feels more like an open beta with the ability to purchase items before it's "released".

If I was to pay 7$ for a new weapon, I'd like it to at least have some new aesthetics to them instead of being part of the same 6-10 interchangeable modular parts that make up the same weapons. Balance is a whole different issue, but why can't we at least get totally new models, sounds, and animations instead of just being recycled off the current ones already put in the game? Even the SMG animations borrow the first 15-30 frames of the reload animation from the carbines. Though, the revolvers are at least a nice recent change.

Unfortunately, for the most part, we're practically spending cash on numerical values changed in a script file.

The SMGs, pump actions, New HA AV weapons, New MAX AV weapons, revolvers have been more or less unique weapons. Though I certainly agree we should have much more quality and diversity in new content.

[p0intman]

Far cry 3 and AC3? hahahahaha.

this will sting: They're both more fun than PS2 atm.

[moosepoop]

this will sting: They're both more fun than PS2 atm.

planetside 2 is fun. but only for 30 min a day.

the cert system requires you to farm certs up to 2 hours a day for any real progress. it makes free players fatigued from endless frantic shooting. too much action + exhaustive grind is not a good option.

[Timealude]

this will sting: They're both more fun than PS2 atm.

i dont know about you but i got tired of AC3 faster then any game I have played recently.

[leifnielsen]

Yeah AC2: Revelations has been the best one so far in my opinion, but man...Burning the drug fields in Farcry 3 was one of the coolest moments I've seen in video games lately.

[bpostal]

planetside 2 is fun. but only for 30 min a day.

the cert system requires you to farm certs up to 2 hours a day for any real progress. it makes free players fatigued from endless frantic shooting. too much action + exhaustive grind is not a good option.

I added some emphasis to the quote to point out that I also feel the same way. I want to be able to play this game for longer without either getting bored or pissed off at the innumerable little nitpicks I have (that end up killing the experience and leaving a bitter taste in my mouth) but it just isn't so.

[AThreatToYou]

planetside 2 is fun. but only for 30 min a day.

the cert system requires you to farm certs up to 2 hours a day for any real progress. it makes free players fatigued from endless frantic shooting. too much action + exhaustive grind is not a good option.


After you make so much progress, though, you can sit on 2k certs and be like "what do i do with this?"

and this is me playing 30 minutes to an hour every day. Then again, the average player is [not that good], and they probably cap out at getting 20-30 certs an hour with most of those coming from base capture awards and assists.

[Nur]

planetside 2 is fun. but only for 30 min a day.

the cert system requires you to farm certs up to 2 hours a day for any real progress. it makes free players fatigued from endless frantic shooting. too much action + exhaustive grind is not a good option.

The progress is playing better not farming K/D, ribbons and XPs.

You will need to understand this soon guys, as the "progress" is how you play in situations.

Truly, farming in PS2 has NO SENSE.

[Emperor Newt]

The progress is playing better not farming K/D, ribbons and XPs.

You will need to understand this soon guys, as the "progress" is how you play in situations.

Truly, farming in PS2 has NO SENSE.

This "argument" is moot once you have a progression system where upgrades are hidden behind a "playtime wall". And that's the case in PS2. They have stated that cert stuff are upgrades in the magnitude of approx 20%. That's a deliberate design decision. PS2 is not going the "soft monetization" route, so that's a system that's going to stick with it.

Once you have that, people are required to farm. Playing only for the fun of it is mostly out of the equation as long as people have the feeling that there is stuff they are required to get.This is a design decision and a psychologial trick. It's not the players fault if he feels the need to farm.
You don't want people to farm? Then don't make them to. There is no other way around it.

But they want you to farm. They don't want you to play just for the fun of it. Simply because they want you to keep playing and sell you boosts. If you would not feel the need to get more certs, you wouldn't buy those.
A progression system is able to keep people playing although they do not enjoy the game and would have dropped it otherwise. It's a strange system, but it seems to work (although I haven't seen very convincing data on that yet).

That's the only reason progression systems exists. Being it in MMOs or normal arena shooters, the basic reason is the same. To keep you playing. Designers have the strange fear that once you loose your feeling of progression you will stop playing. Individual skill, for some strange reason, is no longer a reason to play. At least that's what recent game design tells us. The "old" idea died when MMORPGs became mainstream.
For me that sounds like designers not having enough faith in their own skills in making a fun game... but well.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that you are wrong on a personal standpoint and it's good that players can shut those progression system out of their enjoyment they have with a game. But many if not most players cant. And it's the designers fault if people complain about that, not the players.

[Shogun]

The progress is playing better not farming K/D, ribbons and XPs.

You will need to understand this soon guys, as the "progress" is how you play in situations.

Truly, farming in PS2 has NO SENSE.

?
farming is needed if you want to play the game for free.
i already spend all my station cash on weapons that are obsolete now, and i will not spend another dime until the game is more fun to play.

and right now i don´t play because i would need to do stupid farming all the time like following tank columns with my ammo sunderer because i can´t hit shit with the weapons i got, so this is the only way to get certs for new weapons. but playing for an hour doesn´t even give enough certs for one weapon, let alone the upgrades that are needed to make the gun usable.

there are too many weapons and they are too expensive. and i simply don´t buy stuff when i know that better stuff will come soon. but this will be the case here forever. the new weapons will be better than the old ones, to boost sales.
f2p was not a good decision for the game at all!

damn there are so many weapons, i can´t even decide what to buy! how many shotguns are there? how many do we need? two. the jackhammer as ES ha and the sweeper as NS. that´s it. having 40 different variants with marginal differences makes weaponchoice very difficult.

i would prefer a monthly sub and a reasonable choice of weapons.

[Hamma]

I have to say I don't feel like they have nerfed anything to uselessness to push new weapons. It's an MMO, things change. Nothing has been made completely useless where it was a waste of money.