News: New TotalBiscuit Video on IMPLANTS - Page 3

Warruz · 2012-08-07, 02:39 PM

I like how they are minor upgrades.

Tsunami · 2012-08-07, 02:44 PM

!

LZachariah · 2012-08-07, 02:54 PM

Yes, but the Level 1 upgrades should be like that; a "just noticeable difference" (JND). Level 3s should be at the magnitude of a standard FPS perk (easily noticeable).

~Zachariah

Lord Paladin · 2012-08-07, 02:56 PM

Remember, they don't want the difference in power or effectiveness between a 5 minute player and a 5 year player to be large. They want the difference to be in skill. These are to give you an edge, and to maybe help define your play-style, but not to give you a straight up advantage.

Warruz · 2012-08-07, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by LZachariah

Yes, but the Level 1 upgrades should be like that; a "just noticeable difference" (JND). Level 3s should be at the magnitude of a standard FPS perk (easily noticeable).

~Zachariah

I disagree otherwise you get into a situation with those who win have an easier time to continue winning.

LZachariah · 2012-08-07, 03:03 PM

*nod* It's definitely good that we're having a discussion; I don't feel too strongly either way, and I hear your disagreement. For me, the reason that balance isn't threatened by Implants being more powerful is because they cost regular amounts of resources. Those resources could otherwise be used to unlock new weapons or attachments. So if you choose to spend resources on Implants, you're denying yourself something else. Basically, you're offered the choice to focus on tools (ie- unlocks) or abilities (ie- implants), or trying to divide yourself between the two. I think that this could work out just fine. The FPS world is used to perks being a reasonable boost of ability.

~Zachariah

Firearms · 2012-08-07, 03:12 PM

I thought a top level would give you 20% - So if a reload is noticeable at 20%....

LZachariah · 2012-08-07, 03:16 PM

That's for unlocks and sidegrades. Higby has said that Implants cost resources BECAUSE they are a straight-up power increase.

Ruffdog · 2012-08-07, 03:22 PM

This is just the info I wanted. Thanks.
Will be interested in the XP booster implant. With a job, wife and 2 kids I will probably be forking out SC for this.

Also check out that carbine weapon sound

Syphus · 2012-08-07, 03:22 PM

Even if we assume there won't be any more implants coming or any changes, it's still rather important to know how fast you get Auraxim.

Lord Paladin · 2012-08-07, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by LZachariah

*nod* It's definitely good that we're having a discussion; I don't feel too strongly either way, and I hear your disagreement. For me, the reason that balance isn't threatened by Implants being more powerful is because they cost regular amounts of resources. Those resources could otherwise be used to unlock new weapons or attachments. So if you choose to spend resources on Implants, you're denying yourself something else. Basically, you're offered the choice to focus on tools (ie- unlocks) or abilities (ie- implants), or trying to divide yourself between the two. I think that this could work out just fine. The FPS world is used to perks being a reasonable boost of ability.

~Zachariah

Except, as mentioned, this means that the winners get more powerful, and the losers stay disadvantaged.

These should not be seen as a purchasable advantage, that gives an advantage to the side that can afford more.

They should be an edge, which I would define as a play style choice which may or may not come up during the coarse of combat. If it does, then in that situation, you have a better chance at coming out on top, not a guarantee. e.g. someone playing smart could still beat you due to skill.

LZachariah · 2012-08-07, 03:33 PM

I definitely agree, and if we're conceptualizing them at the same benefit-level as Perks (ie- as in MW), a MW player without Perks (which basically never happens) could definitely beat a player with Perks. It doesn't make a huge difference; it's not as if one player has a primary weapon and the other player only has a sidearm.

Tuoweit · 2012-08-07, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by LZachariah

*nod* It's definitely good that we're having a discussion; I don't feel too strongly either way, and I hear your disagreement. For me, the reason that balance isn't threatened by Implants being more powerful is because they cost regular amounts of resources. Those resources could otherwise be used to unlock new weapons or attachments.

I could be wrong, but from what I understand this is incorrect.

Resources, which are gained through faction performance (i.e. holding territory) are used to buy vehicles and equipment, which tend to be direct power upgrades. Long-time players can have poor resource income due to poor faction performance.

Unlocks/Certs are via xp, which I gather is gained mostly through individual performance (and presumably also territory captures/defenses, if you are participating), and are permanent (no recurring costs).

Harasus · 2012-08-07, 03:40 PM

Interesting. It looks fine, and there is no +20% damage boost or some other shit, which is also nice. I can be a bit sceptic, but I see few problems with this right now.

LZachariah · 2012-08-07, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tuoweit

I could be wrong, but from what I understand this is incorrect.

Resources, which are gained through faction performance (i.e. holding territory) are used to buy vehicles and equipment, which tend to be direct power upgrades. Long-time players can have poor resource income due to poor faction performance.

Unlocks/Certs are via xp, which I gather is gained mostly through individual performance (and presumably also territory captures/defenses, if you are participating), and are permanent (no recurring costs).

I believe that unlocks and new items are purchased with Auraxium. Exp only progresses you to the next Battle Rank (and gives you Cert Points).