Cert Changes - Page 4

Sunrock · 2012-09-17, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Kipper

"Pay to win" means only one thing: money > all.

This is now how PS2 is slated to work. Those who spend money can obtain something quicker than those who don't, but they cannot obtain something that those who don't pay have no access to.

Pay to win would be saying "here's a gun that will do 1.5x damage, and you can only buy it with real money."

Boosters aren't pay to win because they just accelerate progress, not provide a direct advantage. They can be cash only. Likewise camo / cosmetics because they don't do anything except change how you look in game.

If you can obtain something quicker then some one else you will have an advantage. Say you're the only one that pay SK for the dual photon canon and every one else waits to they have 12500 Aurixium you will for a time be unstoppable and get allot more kills then every one else only because you have a OP weapon that does 100 times more damage then the standard one. In this case you did pay to win.

Kipper · 2012-09-18, 08:00 AM

Um no, you paid for to get access to something quicker, it's not the same at all.

Besides, they may put BR requirements on some modules that do give you an advantage, which would negate the situation you described by setting it at a level where most people could have reasonably afforded it with auraxium (if they so choose).

Firearms · 2012-09-18, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

only because you have a OP weapon that does 100 times more damage then the standard one.

That doesn't fit in very well with the 20% mantra.

The Pay 2 Win argument is catch22 anyway. We all know that p2w means being able to buy an elite weapon/item that is not available via non payment. That's just a fact.
Making the same phrase fit a broader instance that happens to include cash is just anal (and much like the inane OMGOPBUFFnoNERF arguments, damaging if ppl in actual control listen too much)

If you drop down to the lowest rung you'll get p2w is a subscriber that gets faster cert against a non subscriber.....st00pid IMO

SpottyGekko · 2012-09-18, 08:53 AM

People complained endlessly about paying subs for MMO's.
Now F2P is the standard payment model (ironically), and people still complain endlessly because they can't actually play completely for free and still be equal to those that DO pay.

They insist that the Cash Shop should only sell items that are irrelevant to actual game play and progression. Of course, in that case the Cash Shop will generate pitiful revenue and the game will close down.

Each vehicle or infantry class has a fixed number of upgrade slots. Each slot has a variety of ALTERNATIVE things that can be equipped in it. So the "added power" that can be unlocked via certs is capped. One player can never stay ahead of another indefinitely, because sooner or later they will both spend the maximum allowed certs for one upgrade slot.

In a game that has 12v12 battles, 3 or 4 players with 25% advantage will most likely dominate. In PS2, we have 600v600v600 on one continent. If half of the players have a 25% advantage, it will most likely make very little difference. There are just too many interesting ways of dying when there's that many players in a relatively small area.

SFJake · 2012-09-18, 11:41 AM

I've never found either subscription -or- free to play fair.

So whatever.

Put a freakin' fee up front and deal with that (60$). Charge for "expansions" package every year or be not allowed to get the content of the next year (for 40$ or so). Remove all F2P and subscription bull, keep cosmetics for money for additional funding.

Everybody's ****** happy. Good money income. Happy fanbase. Give a "demo" like feature for people to get a glimpse of the game and have trial-like limits (but unlimited time). Don't call it F2P.

But they ain't that smart.

Ipimpnoobs · 2012-09-18, 11:56 AM

Upfront payments cause the amount of people needed for this game to work to diminish.

Sunrock has been preaching about unfair advantages. So what, as long as every person has access to it, there is no problem.

Every other f2p has a you must buy for the uber weapon. This game doesn't like the person above stated, who clearly got his sources crossed.

Your opinions imo are not valid as constructive because you say no, but do not provide an alternative solution.

Customers want everything free. Business's are in business to make money. It doesn't need to be a lose lose situation.

Here let me help you... My idea was to have player generated content (they will be implementing this by the way). This content could be sold to other players for Station cash. That cash could not only pay for a premium account which would make SOE happy but also put money in the players pocket. Imagine how far you could take this. You could even make a living off it, like players in eve online.

Now that is constructive and a win win.

Now you try...please.

Sunrock · 2012-09-18, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Firearms

That doesn't fit in very well with the 20% mantra.

The Pay 2 Win argument is catch22 anyway. We all know that p2w means being able to buy an elite weapon/item that is not available via non payment. That's just a fact.
Making the same phrase fit a broader instance that happens to include cash is just anal (and much like the inane OMGOPBUFFnoNERF arguments, damaging if ppl in actual control listen too much)

If you drop down to the lowest rung you'll get p2w is a subscriber that gets faster cert against a non subscriber.....st00pid IMO

No we all don't know that. And no that is not what pay to win means. Pay to win means you pay money to get an advantage. Same fucking deal back in the day with EQ where people payed real money to get some OP weapon that you could gind for. Back then it was considered cheating when a player sold it to an other play but its just fine now when the game company does the same thing? No its not. Its still as bad.

Sunrock · 2012-09-18, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ipimpnoobs

Customers want everything free. Business's are in business to make money. It doesn't need to be a lose lose situation.

I'm comparing the F2P business model to the monthly fee business model. And the monthly fee business model has more fair game play.

Sunrock · 2012-09-18, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Is it true that males were required to chop off their balls to play EQ?

Only if you wanted to be server first.

VikingKong · 2012-09-18, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Well that's because this IS a pay-to-win system...

Sorry, but a benefit that allows you to directly advance faster then your non-paying counterparts is paying for that advantage.

You're ignoring the fact that the "advances" don't effect your ability to kill or cap a base in the slightest. Where's the advantage?

Originally Posted by Sunrock

Say you're the only one that pay SK for the dual photon canon and every one else waits to they have 12500 Aurixium

You can't buy guns with StationCash. It's Auraxium or nothing. You're arguing against something that exists only in your head.

Originally Posted by Sunrock

No we all don't know that. And no that is not what pay to win means. Pay to win means you pay money to get an advantage.

That's nice and all, but wtf has it got to do with PS2?

It's amazing how much people can whine about a game they know so little about.

Sunrock · 2012-09-18, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by VikingKong

You can't buy guns with StationCash. It's Auraxium or nothing. You're arguing against something that exists only in your head.

In the beta? No you cant... But do you really believe that will be the case when the game go live? Hell no.

Crator · 2012-09-18, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by VikingKong

You can't buy guns with StationCash. It's Auraxium or nothing. You're arguing against something that exists only in your head.

Then why do they have a 'SC' tag on the weapons in the cash shop? They all currently have no value listed next to them but that's only cause we are in beta.

VikingKong · 2012-09-18, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

In the beta? No you cant... But do you really believe that will be the case when the game go live? Hell no.

That's what the devs had said, yeah. Either way, I fail to see how that could possibly be considered unfair. All the guns are equally capable of making things bleed.

Crator · 2012-09-18, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by VikingKong

That's what the devs had said, yeah. Either way, I fail to see how that could possibly be considered unfair. All the guns are equally capable of making things bleed.

This is just an example but they offer a heavy assault weapon that has lock-on capabilities to vehicles in the cash shop currently. I can only assume that this type of weapon won't be tagged to be bought with SC and only available to be bought with in-game currency. But right now they do show a 'SC' next to it in the cash shop so it looks pay-to-win.

WilliamB · 2012-09-18, 04:49 PM

Anyone know if the new rate will be the same as before or lower?