Grenades cost resources, which is a good thing

[super pretendo]

Prevents grenade spam from dominating the game with no cost to the spammers. So with that in mind, I think all explosive anti-vehicle weapons should cost resources. Why? first of all, they should be powerful weapons, albeit clunky ones. Just making them not work against infantry is silly. So make them weapons that are powerful for their role, but cost something to use, and cost a lot to spam carelessly. I think everyone hates noobcannon spam.

[Dougnifico]

+1. Also, I think this might be the case already. I think all man-portable ordinance is going to have a resource cost. I really support this. Just look at what happens to BF3 in OpMetro or DavPeak. Or any damned level in COD. lol

[AzK]

No thanks, nades and medikit costing resources is already bullshit enough. I can understand vehicles since they can last indefinitely, but that's about it.

The way i would have sorted medikits and nades from being spammed would have been a) add a short cooldown or b)make it so the only way to replenish them is at a terminal and not via ammo boxes.

[super pretendo]

So, resources are a big part of the game, yet you want nothing game-changing to cost resources? Sorry, "I want to spam anti-vehicle cannons" is not a valid argument.

There is a reason the things you mentioned cost resources; They have a huge impact on gameplay. Thus they make resources matter.

[aceshigh]

Originally Posted by super pretendo

So, resources are a big part of the game, yet you want nothing game-changing to cost resources? Sorry, "I want to spam anti-vehicle cannons" is not a valid argument.

I think his point is that there is a good chance you could die without using it. Whereas with a vehicle, at least you use it and thus justify the resource cost.

[Bags]

At E3 the rockets didn't seem to hurt infantry unless it was a direct hit, which is good.

[MasterMind]

I think this is a great idea!

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by aceshigh

I think his point is that there is a good chance you could die without using it. Whereas with a vehicle, at least you use it and thus justify the resource cost.

Dying is something you should try to avoid anyway, so this isn't a problem

[Gandhi]

Resource cost isn't a substitute for proper balance, you can't make something overpowered and then say "Well it's ok because it costs resources". So with that in mind I'd rather have AV weapons that don't work well against infantry.

If you want to throw a resource cost on top of that, well that's fine I guess. But it all depends on how things play out in the beta. If AV weapons become too spammy it might be a good option, otherwise there may not even be a need for it.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by AzK

No thanks, nades and medikit costing resources is already bullshit enough. I can understand vehicles since they can last indefinitely, but that's about it.

The way i would have sorted medikits and nades from being spammed would have been a) add a short cooldown or b)make it so the only way to replenish them is at a terminal and not via ammo boxes.

We do not know anything about prices. Chances are a grenade will cost next to nothing...

Besides, this is an MMO, not simple FPS, so you have to put in some effort to do the good stuff.

[meiam]

Originally Posted by Bags

At E3 the rockets didn't seem to hurt infantry unless it was a direct hit, which is good.

I would like rocket to cost resource too instead, but that's just me I'm sure.

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by Azren

We do not know anything about prices. Chances are a grenade will cost next to nothing...

Besides, this is an MMO, not simple FPS, so you have to put in some effort to do the good stuff.

Once people have a little while to train for certs, the "effort" put in is irrelevant, and stuff can be spammed.

And a very low price is better than no price. Prevents resource inflation and makes you at least consider the cost.

[aceshigh]

Originally Posted by super pretendo

Dying is something you should try to avoid anyway, so this isn't a problem

You're missing the point. Grenade resource consumption is consumed on purchase vs on use. Imagine deciding you are going with your grenade loadout and then spawn and die immediately to campers...resources consumed.

[super pretendo]

Originally Posted by aceshigh

You're missing the point. Grenade resource consumption is consumed on purchase vs on use. Imagine deciding you are going with your grenade loadout and then spawn and die immediately to campers...resources consumed.

So, the answer is make rockets cost resources? Seems alright to me

[feuerdog]

I would agree that all man-portable explosive weapons should cost resources.

Grenades, Mines, Explosives, Rockets, Missiles, whatever.