Why more Weapons is the Wrong Idea.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by maradine

I like Blacklight, but not enough to rip off their weapons system verbatim.

edit: sorry, "borrow".

Hardly a rip off of BR tbh, the AR-15 has been able to do this for years.

I've never played Blacklight in any case.

Originally Posted by Varsam

So after you unlock each attachment and platform (which won't take long given the current attachment list), then there's nothing left to monetize, unless you make the unlocks temporary, which is rather unpopular.

First of all, it is easier to nickel and dime people when you are actually nickel and diming them, not asking them to shell out larger sums of money.

It is also important to keep everything available via certs. Not to mention giving people more options means they spend more money. None of that gimmicky rent business either.

All SOE has to do to make it more of an SC sink is to have more tiers of attachments (adv laser, adv grip, etc). Plus they could let you swap scopes on the fly or switch from the compensator to the suppressor.

There are plenty of other things SOE can and will be adding to bring in the money. For example, I highly suspect they will be letting us turn ourselves into cyborgs at some point. I mean beyond the whole we are nanites thing.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I like this idea and I think it would be a neat system for the game but honestly I don't see it happening it would require some pretty hefty changes.

Agree. Not to mention that, while cool, would require another dozen loadouts or so to really make it work.

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Generally I make posts in response to threads.

Why make new posts about something that is already discussed? If someone else already started a discussion about the need for more weapon customization and Blacklight Retribution being the reference, there's really no need to hijack it and start a similar one 10 minutes after it. That's just bad forum etiquette and I'm kinda disappointed Hamma allows this actually.

Anyway, if we can agree that a BL:R system is nice but not likely going to happen, let's go back to my original suggestion that the devs should put more priority in keeping the current arsenal fresh with more customization options vs almost solely focusing on new toys.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Why make new posts about something that is already discussed? If someone else already started a discussion about the need for more weapon customization and Blacklight Retribution being the reference, there's really no need to hijack it and start a similar one 10 minutes after it. That's just bad forum etiquette and I'm kinda disappointed Hamma allows this actually.

Anyway, if we can agree that a BL:R system is nice but not likely going to happen, let's go back to my original suggestion that the devs should put more priority in keeping the current arsenal fresh with more customization options vs almost solely focusing on new toys.

Why are you so convinced you had anything to do with this thread?

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Why are you so convinced you had anything to do with this thread?

You said it yourself, didn't you? It really doesn't matter if people independently have similar ideas. If there's a topic already about it, no need to start one of your own, that's just forum overload.

[Varsam]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

First of all, it is easier to nickel and dime people when you are actually nickel and diming them, not asking them to shell out larger sums of money.

It is also important to keep everything available via certs. Not to mention giving people more options means they spend more money. None of that gimmicky rent business either.

With that business model, how do you expect them to make money if you take away their most lucrative payment option (temporary ownership)? If players get to own attachments forever, AND have the option to use free in-game currency to do so, SOE would need to either make each attachment ridiculously expensive, or keep pumping out attachments on a regular basis, which would quickly lead to many redundant items, and we'd be at square one.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

All SOE has to do to make it more of an SC sink is to have more tiers of attachments (adv laser, adv grip, etc). Plus they could let you swap scopes on the fly or switch from the compensator to the suppressor.

Adding more tiers of increasingly effective attachments available for purchase makes the game more pay to win, which runs contrary to what PS2 is about.

[almalino]

I hate many guns. I just got lost in them. Current arsenal is already more then enough. Gives us upgrades and that would be enough.

[Blynd]

Tbh the issue with the guns is that with every new gun the old ones seem to be down tuned. I got the serpent which was really good the smg came out had a go of that it was ok but at the same time the serpent seemed to be tking more rounds to kill with. So my issue with it is that to stop the power creep they have to make the old weapons rubbish to force people to buy the new ones and thus force people to spend money on SC which is wrong.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Rolfski

You said it yourself, didn't you? It really doesn't matter if people independently have similar ideas. If there's a topic already about it, no need to start one of your own, that's just forum overload.

I didn't know your thread existed, I guess I didn't make that clear enough for you. Sorry if you got a forum rash out of it.

Originally Posted by Varsam

With that business model, how do you expect them to make money if you take away their most lucrative payment option (temporary ownership)? If players get to own attachments forever, AND have the option to use free in-game currency to do so, SOE would need to either make each attachment ridiculously expensive, or keep pumping out attachments on a regular basis, which would quickly lead to many redundant items, and we'd be at square one.

First of all, people are more likely to spend money when it comes across as optional. If the only way to get new guns was SC, do you think this game would be anywhere near stable population wise?

Other games have proven that you don't need to make things overpriced to make it profitable.

Adding more tiers of increasingly effective attachments available for purchase makes the game more pay to win, which runs contrary to what PS2 is about.

Not if the same upgrades are available for certs. All SC does and should do is buy convenience. Getting something faster than someone else is convenient, not pay to win.

[Sturmhardt]

It doesn't really matter if they introduce new/op weapons or upgrades/attachments. Same shit, different label.

.sent via phone.

[HiroshiChugi]

Originally Posted by Sturmhardt

It doesn't really matter if they introduce new/op weapons or upgrades/attachments. Same shit, different label.

.sent via phone.

Agreed.

[Koadster]

I guess they still can bring in all the PS1 weapons. They could make a Faction and common pool varient on each so I guess they will keep pumping out weapons for a while. But I do see in the future they will run out of weapons to make for existing weapon categories.. How much more variation can you get for the Carbines/LMGs/Snipers/ARs that arent already covered by the former.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Why are you so convinced you had anything to do with this thread?

Indeed, clearly this thread is about my love of pies, not guns.

[Rolfski]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

I didn't know your thread existed, I guess I didn't make that clear enough for you. Sorry if you got a forum rash out of it.

Forget about it then and too bad for the redundant postings about the same idea. At least we both agree that devs should focus more on customization of the current arsenal vs new weapons, although your ideas are a bit more drastic than mine.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Figment

Indeed, clearly this thread is about my love of pies, not guns.

I'd think it would be about love of stroopwafels. When they're stale and sharpened, they're a considerable weapon.