News: New TotalBiscuit Video on IMPLANTS - Page 10

Scotsh · 2012-08-08, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

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

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

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

GreenBanana · 2012-08-08, 07:44 AM

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

exLupo · 2012-08-08, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

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

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

Sunrock · 2012-08-08, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Scotsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

exLupo · 2012-08-08, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

Liwen Diamond · 2012-08-08, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Otleaz

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

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

Originally Posted by Otleaz

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

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

Originally Posted by exLupo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

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

Sunrock · 2012-08-08, 08:04 AM

Originally Posted by exLupo

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

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

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

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

Klockan · 2012-08-08, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

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

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

Originally Posted by Otleaz

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Liwen Diamond

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

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

Liwen Diamond · 2012-08-08, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

Scotsh · 2012-08-08, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

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

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

Sunrock · 2012-08-08, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Scotsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Klockan · 2012-08-08, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

Liwen Diamond · 2012-08-08, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scotsh · 2012-08-08, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

See the difference?

Originally Posted by Sunrock

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

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

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

Sunrock · 2012-08-08, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Klockan

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

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