Advanced Units - Page 4

Figment · 2013-04-04, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by almalino

Thank you for your opinion. I actually mentionied that vehicle could be spawned only by platoon leader with biggest platoon on the continent who applied for the vehicle. Assuming he will request platoon members to populate the vehicle.

So you're saying it's for zergfits only, which means you'll encourage random outfits to start to vie for being the biggest outfit around, causing outfit recruitment spam over quality recruitment and denying non-zergfits a chance to operate equipment in game? >_>

Can you imagine it would make smaller outfits less appealing, because they would not get access to the super-units? It's hard enough already to compete with larger outfits that can run more consistently large groups, as people soon realise running a single squad or less is often pointless to even try. You'd make that effect worse by adding extra incentives to joining an already big outfit.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-04-04, 10:25 AM

The game is mostly fair to the newest players and does add great benefits to players that have earned a ton of certs. Without medipacks my heavy wouldnt be nearly as effective in long drawn out fights. It takes a while to accumulate enough certs for those med packs. I am happy with the system in place now with cert progression.

Realmofdarkness · 2013-04-04, 10:37 AM

There should be a level system classwise. from grunt to major or whatever the ranks are called. each rank provides more abillities to spend cert point on. for example, a grunt sniper can ofc snipe but you need to level up to lieutenant before you can spend cert in cloaking. or you need to be lieutenant engineer before you can deploy mana turret and spend cert points on that one, a later rank would grant access to AV mana turret and so on.

Micro · 2013-04-04, 10:43 AM

Mixed opinions FTW.

almalino · 2013-04-04, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Especially over time, once you've researched what you want to research, you'll just put all your cert points into unit acquisition. And with the amount of people playing, over time that would lead to tons of units. You're simply creating a future problem (just like Rothnang).

Nope. Read my suggestion. 1 unit per continent per fraction at a time owned by a biggest platoon. So, maximum 3 units at a time

Sturmhardt · 2013-04-04, 10:48 AM

Oh man.. This thread is so full of shortsighted ideas because some guy thinks "wouldn't it be awesome if..."...plz stop.

.sent via phone.

almalino · 2013-04-04, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sturmhardt

Oh man.. This thread is so full of shortsighted ideas because some guy thinks "wouldn't it be awesome if..."...plz stop.

.sent via phone.

Please explain what are the enablers to post our ideas on this forum?
- 23 pages of small text explaining it?
- 3 000 000 messages on this forum first?
- 1000 hours of PS2 playtime?

Any ideas that do not fit criteria above considered shortsighted? :=)

hashish · 2013-04-04, 11:26 AM

Ah i like the idea.. Do not FULLY agree but i think the current way that they have designed it is not soo good..

I played ps1 heavily and continue to mack out ps2.. But i do feel the lack of progression is evident and its damaging for the game as a whole.. U need that feeling that you have earned this or that, Mastered this or that. Have unique abilities in this or that because u spent loads of time being a pro at it and EARNED IT !

In ps2 right now, it seems everyone is the same generic player with a bunch of shitty "sidegrades"... This is a really shit mmo concept.. We need to properly level and gain benefits from it.. 99% of weapons look exactly the same and unfortunatly you do not have the diverseness of players like u did in ps1

U need the diversity and uniqueness to really captivate long time player to KEEP playing..

If u guys remember in ps1, you actually had to EARN your reaver or mosquito. U didnt just magically get it, so every spams magriders and scythes.. This is very unfortunate they have allowed acess to EVERYTHING right off the bat ! Its good if u want to attract new players, but really it doesnt help the game in the long run, kinda like shooting urself in the foot..

Now i personally think the only way to combat this or improve upon the current system is to introduce a whole MASS of new vehicles + weapons + armour that is not available off the bat. This is particularly important for vehicles.. My idea is that we could have something like your "base/start" vehicles that you start the game with which are the ones available now.. And then with like 1000 or 2000 certs u can unlock more advanced units or vehicles.. This would really help progression when we see like 25 new vehicles like you do in Other proper MMO's.. Like eve for example has BILLIONS of ships.. (im not saying we need so many but VARIETY IS NEEDED !)

Lonehunter · 2013-04-04, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

NO.

The basic concept that makes PS2 fair for new players and vets is that everyone has access to everything their first time playing. Yes I know you won't get a thousand certs on day 1, but when you start making tiers and prerequisites you add content not available for new players. Plus now you're preventing a certain population (new players) from much more then just a vehicle. That's a strategy they can't use but still have to counter. You could argue it won't be a drastically different vehicle that requires new tactics but then why add it at all?

This is one shooter/mmo mechanic that doesn't belong in Planetside, because it would break it, and drastically lower the amount of new people entering the game

Figment · 2013-04-04, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by almalino

Nope. Read my suggestion. 1 unit per continent per fraction at a time owned by a biggest platoon. So, maximum 3 units at a time

I did.

And how many players within that one platoon do you suppose can replace it once it is destroyed?

And how easy do you think it'll be to bypass any squad/platoon leader limitations you place on them? Disbanding and reforming platoons is easy. And if that "biggest platoon" changes composition, does the unit just disband?

Can someone else quickly make one?

What if outfits like the Enclave, who have several platoons active at the same time, can just alternate between the three platoons?

Why should they have more power on top of their numerical organization advantage they already possess over other players?

Does the power of platoons need strengthening in the first place?

Will friendlies even try to destroy it so they can create their own?

If you penalize destroying it, what stops anyone from using an alt on a free account? Etc.

Your limitation is very weak and I can already think of at least six ways to bypass it. :/ Unfortunately, this isn't Command & Conquer: you can't say "there's only one per map", because the limitations you impose are going to be circumvented in all kinds of manners.

And you still haven't defined any reason to have it in the first place. "Because it sounds cool" isn't a reason, btw.

Chaff · 2013-04-04, 12:19 PM

.
One of the funniest aspects of any blog site, is how self-centered most of us are, or allow ourselves to "appear" online.

Everyone has an opinion. Some of us think the OP has an idea with some decent merit to it. Even in this group, we'd all go about implementing OPs idea(s) in different ways. ON this particular thread, there is more I disagree with than like, but it did spur me to think of some things that would make the game better and more interesting (IMO).

Opposition to any PSU post is simpler. Those with a closed mind or those who fall lnto the I-already-know-it-all camp resort to BIG FONT, or "HELL NO" as their justification.

Bringing nothing more than a closed mind to a forum to discuss ideas is one the oldest forms of trolling there is.

None of us can factually know what positives any new idea might add, nor can we know what negative changes it would bring into the game.

"Exploitation" is one of the few absolutes I expect from any change. If there's a way for players to exploit a new or old mechanic, it will happen.

I'm sorry, but newbs are newbs. TTK is at a level that will always allow a newb to be and feel relevent in any fight. This is especially true if a newb is in a bigger fight. 1v1, the more experienced player should win (regardless who has a weapon advantage). An experienced FPS player can come into PS2 as a "newb", but pretty much pown 80% of the opposition Day-1 if he has the hand-eye coordination that every great player seems to be born with.

I don't think these sorts of ideas are looking or asking for anything remotely near OP. To me this thread is about Reward/Incentives that may be worth considering. Longtime players should be able to easily identify long-term goals. Everybody plays for different reasons. Everybody stays longer, or leaves sooner, for equally diverse reasons. Hence, logic says that a decent percentage of this game should be structured to provide ways to acheive different perks, rewards, certs, ..... we're all different. We all need to be able to accept some gameplay elements which won't be well received by every player.

Quit shouting out your ONE OPINION for - or against - any thread. It's old. People need to leave their over-inflated egos at the door. Your boorish pontificating helped us pigeonhole your personality type long ago. I imagine at least half of y'all know who you are. I suspect most of you get off on being jack wagons, so I know the response will still be the same. It always is.

.

maradine · 2013-04-04, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Rothnang, are you just trying to make a fool out of yourself, or trying to prove I'm right and you don't really think about things?

How long is this tunnel you're in anyway?

Are you really that dumb that you want to suggest I'm suggesting people to have everything from the start (which is what PS2 does and you're not solving either, btw) and that the sole motivation for people to play this game is to drool at the screen while there's some sort of ticker going up that suggests progress?

Do you really have that low a value judgment of players and yourself?

Are your standards that low, that you can only have a good time if somewhere a ticker suggests you have achieved something?

Is it that hard for you to make out if you had a good time playing or that you felt you achieved something?

Do you really have such low standards of life?

I love threads where you're basically 100% correct but are such a flaming asshole about it that I'm psychologically inclined to side with the other guy. You need to work on your bedside manner, friend.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-04-04, 12:21 PM

tbh we need a resource system overhaul before we design any time of heavy vehicle. because we need to know how the new supply line system will work before we choose how to manage vehicle specially if want them to be outfit/platoon/empire unique/specific

Figment · 2013-04-04, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

I love threads where you're basically 100% correct but are such a flaming asshole about it that I'm psychologically inclined to side with the other guy. You need to work on your bedside manner, friend.

Understand the sentiment. But people need to learn to stop posting rubbish, cause then I don't need to tell them it's rubbish and explain why in excruciatingly emberassing detail, because anyone with common sense can see why it's a bad idea.

I'd rather shoot this down now and make it die a painful death and not be subtle about it, than get more "BR40 type issues" on top of the existing "BR40 issues" in PS2.

Entitlement reasoning to ask for power creep without care for the opposition and self-worshipping are basically the cause of half the problematic designs in game. Those were implemented due to similar shortsighted reasonings as Rothnang's and I'm tired of people being so damn shortsighted. I'm even more tired of people seeing themselves as ultra-skilled while using handicap tools and then proclaiming they are entitled to owning handicap tools by declaring themselves special for one reasong or another, while at the same time denying those handicaps to players who didn't play as long as they did. These people will demand more such things in the future, leading to ever increasing power creep: by the same reasoning, why would a 3 year vet be "only" as powerful as a 2 year vet? Or a 6 year vet only as powerful as a 5 year vet? Where does it end?

I'm not going to sit here and be respectful to someone who wants to see the very core of PlanetSide design philosophy destroyed.

Fights based on a completely equal chance between newbee and veterans (provided you got the certs) is what PS has always been about and is what competitive gaming is about. If someone feels too high and mighty to play a game on an equal level with someone else, he can sod off for all I care. Especially if the only difference is invested time.

Especially not if the idea this person generates then doesn't even come close to solving an issue that person pretends to be addressing (or worse, results in quite the contrary); in this case specialization; issue: too little, solution, make all people powerful in everything over time. Then later, when everyone yet again has everything, do it again. Just like they do in WoW and other games without actual interesting content and where the grind is the objective of playing the game, instead of... you know, playing the game.

Just, no. No to power creep! There's too much in game already!

Sorry, but if he doesn't even take his own idea serious to put sufficient thought in it and refine it before posting (in the wrong forum section at that!), why the hell should I take it or him serious?

Figment · 2013-04-04, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Chaff

Opposition to any PSU post is simpler. Those with a closed mind or those who fall lnto the I-already-know-it-all camp resort to BIG FONT, or "HELL NO" as their justification.

Then maybe you should read the rest of the argumentation, because the whole point of the HELL NO is being more openminded and able to see the consequences. ALL of the consequences, not just the merits to the happy few!

It also means evaluating the suggestion on its merits and weighing it against its bad points. Which in this case are huge.

None of us can factually know what positives any new idea might add, nor can we know what negative changes it would bring into the game.

Because there's no such things as previous experience, previous examples, scenario building, can combine things ahead of time, read context, be creative and run a demo or twenty in their heads. Right? It also doesn't help to see how this would be in the short term, but then also consider the longest possible terms?

Actually, if you can't predict any consequences of a design of any sort, maybe you're just not good at analysis? >.>

"Exploitation" is one of the few absolutes I expect from any change. If there's a way for players to exploit a new or old mechanic, it will happen.

Which is why the first thing you should do is find ways to exploit your idea by pondering WHAT ELSE you could do with something. That's called scenario building.

I'm sorry, but newbs are newbs. TTK is at a level that will always allow a newb to be and feel relevent in any fight. This is especially true if a newb is in a bigger fight. 1v1, the more experienced player should win (regardless who has a weapon advantage). An experienced FPS player can come into PS2 as a "newb", but pretty much pown 80% of the opposition Day-1 if he has the hand-eye coordination that every great player seems to be born with.

At which point Rothnang says "No! Newb TTK should be longer than veteran TTK BY DESIGN, despite the veteran having more gaming experience that already should reduce their TTK and lengthen that of their opposition".

I don't think these sorts of ideas are looking or asking for anything remotely near OP. To me this thread is about Reward/Incentives that may be worth considering. Longtime players should be able to easily identify long-term goals. Everybody plays for different reasons. Everybody stays longer, or leaves sooner, for equally diverse reasons. Hence, logic says that a decent percentage of this game should be structured to provide ways to acheive different perks, rewards, certs, ..... we're all different. We all need to be able to accept some gameplay elements which won't be well received by every player.

Great. Which is why we've gotten spawncamp by design everywhere (some people like to spawncamp!). Which is why we got tons of one hit kill weapons (some people like to one hit kill their opposition, with anything!). Which is why we got NO proper team vehicles at all. Not even the Liberator and especially not the MBTs. etc. etc.

Your reasoning is lousy.

Quit shouting out your ONE OPINION for - or against - any thread. It's old. People need to leave their over-inflated egos at the door. Your boorish pontificating helped us pigeonhole your personality type long ago. I imagine at least half of y'all know who you are. I suspect most of you get off on being jack wagons, so I know the response will still be the same. It always is.

People need to leave their over-inflated egoes out and selfish reasonings out of multiplayer game design. Period. No exceptions.

The goal for multiplayer game design should be to ensure everyone (in any composition and role) has a decent and fair chance and has fun. People that are found in worse positions are therefore to be compensated one way or another so they can still enjoy their disadvantaged position.

Instead, we're in a topic talking about how the already advantaged should get more advantages because they want to feel more important based on entitlement and a need for self-confirmation.