Potential For Selling Pay To Win - Page 8

Xyntech · 2012-06-04, 10:00 PM

I (along with the commonly accepted definitions of F2P and P2W) disagree with you p0intman.

Pay 2 Win applies when a person can pay to get a game changing item which can not be gotten through free play.

I think it also comes into play when there are large gaps between the power level of long time players vs new players. For example, in most MMORPG's, being several levels higher than another player will almost guarantee your victory in a fight. This simply isn't true in Planetside 2, because sidegrades will offer a significantly smaller advantage.

Undoubtedly having a sidegrade will give you an advantage in some scenarios, but a more skilled player in a more tactically advantageous situation will still be guaranteed a kill. That's not even mentioning the fact that most fights won't be 1 vs 1, so a single players slight advantages won't affect the outcome of the fight as much as the combined skill of each empires groups in the fight.

There is also the rock paper scissors gameplay of Planetside. A tank equipped for anti-infantry won't have to worry about what their target infantry have spent real money on. Only how skilled they are, whether they have AV weapons, and how many of them there are.

You can call it P2W if you want, but that isn't the definition. If you don't like it, fine. nobody is forcing you to play it. If you insist on playing it anyways and on trying to exploit it, go for it. I doubt this particular issue will be that exploitable, but I'm sure there will be plenty of other broken game mechanics that will be ripe for exploiting, so please, have at it. I doubt the game will end up being the game you want it to be when you're done exploiting it's flaws, but it will doubtless be better for your diligence.

Brusi · 2012-06-04, 10:01 PM

Resource boost does mean that a player can spam grenades for money... basically.

But it is still not directly selling power. I would assume that anyone who does not want to pay for a resource boost would still be able to compete and more importantly, enjoy their gaming experience.

CTheRain · 2012-06-04, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I believe we all expected XP boosts (and some consider them P2W, others do not, I'm in the 'not' category).

Some suspected resource boosts, but the scale of the boost is utterly stunning - 3x. I expected something like 20-25% resource boost. That's enough to give you a clear advantage but not enough to completely break the game. I had also hoped such boosts would be in-game facility benefits or some sort of territory control reward. That's something that you can obtain and deny directly in-game and could make for a great objective to fight over.

A multiplier like 3x on the resource system - the core driving factor for territory and, as Higby says, success in PlanetSide 2 - is absurd.

I'll spend $60 on this game like any other game that comes out new. I'll be max level in a few weeks/months. If I get killed with my so called advantage then that person is the better player. Noobs are gonna complain. The dedicated players will play 20-30+ hours a week. The zerg will hop on after school for 1-2 hours and go do something else. Maybe they should limit everyone playtime per week. So that everyone gets equal playtime and doesn't have an advantage. Because life is fair and whatnot right?

**Malorn** · 2012-06-04, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Brusi

Not directly.

Yes, directly.

Matt Higby:

The importance of resources can't be overstated. These resources are going to add so much to the way people play, and the way that your empire, the way that your outfit, and the way that you manage resources is really going to affect your success or failure on the battlefield.

...And if you pay some smedbux or auraxium you get a 3x multiplier on resources. If you can't see the problem with that you're beyond hope.

The fact that it is in a category of items that can be purchased either with in-game resources or smedbux doesn't change the massive impact it has on gameplay, nor does it give a clear advantage to those who pay some cash and always have it.

FPClark · 2012-06-04, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by CTheRain

I'll spend $60 on this game like any other game that comes out new. I'll be max level in a few weeks/months. If I get killed with my so called advantage then that person is the better player. Noobs are gonna complain. The dedicated players will play 20-30+ hours a week. The zerg will hop on after school for 1-2 hours and go do something else. Maybe they should limit everyone playtime per week. So that everyone gets equal playtime and doesn't have an advantage. Because life is fair and whatnot right?

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 10:04 PM

This thread really is starting to weed out people who understand strategy in planetside and those who don't.

anyone who disagrees with resource boosting being paying to win very clearly doesn't understand continental or intercontinental strategy in which planetside is based as a core gameplay element.

and for those who persist..

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-04, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I believe we all expected XP boosts (and some consider them P2W, others do not, I'm in the 'not' category).

Some suspected resource boosts, but the scale of the boost is utterly stunning - 3x. I expected something like 20-25% resource boost. That's enough to give you a clear advantage but not enough to completely break the game. I had also hoped such boosts would be in-game facility benefits or some sort of territory control reward. That's something that you can obtain and deny directly in-game and could make for a great objective to fight over.

A multiplier like 3x on the resource system - the core driving factor for territory and, as Higby says, success in PlanetSide 2 - is absurd.

I believe the x3 represents the quantity. You get 3 of each. Unless they have the boosters in tiers, it is just redundant to then slap a time three on it.

CutterJohn · 2012-06-04, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

The issue isn't F2P. Everyone has know it for years now and if they'd really have any problem with it they wouldn't be on this forum, following the game's development. It's how F2P can regress into P2W that people are afraid of.

Afraid of what, specifically? That they will be forced to pay to compete? And?

Lets say F2P fails, and skins and helmets are not enough to maintain the game in the black.

Now you have two options.

Option 1. Increase the monetization. Sell more stuff, sell power.

Effect on the players: They will be heavily influenced to pay so as to compete on a level playing field.

Option 2. Revert to a subscription based service.

Effect on the players: They will be absolutely required to pay money so as to play at all.

Right then. Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different, and exactly how still being able to play for free despite being at a disadvantage is worse than not being able to play at all for free. Be very clear with this. I am extremely curious.

Originally Posted by p0intman

anyone who disagrees with resource boosting being paying to win very clearly doesn't understand continental or intercontinental strategy in which planetside is based as a core gameplay element.

Who cares if it's pay to win. Stop being a cheap and pay for the services you are being provided.

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-04, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

This thread really is starting to weed out people who understand strategy in planetside and those who don't.

anyone who disagrees with resource boosting being paying to win very clearly doesn't understand continental or intercontinental strategy in which planetside is based as a core gameplay element.

and for those who persist..

That is why you fail - YouTube

I think you are standing on a pretty tall soap box there. Can you please then inform of us of how it does ruin this strategy which you keep so secret? Seems silly to refrence something then never elaborate.

Xyntech · 2012-06-04, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Brusi

Resource boost does mean that a player can spam grenades for money... basically.

But it is still not directly selling power. I would assume that anyone who does not want to pay for a resource boost would still be able to compete and more importantly, enjoy their gaming experience.

It's also something that can be balanced out, by things like timers. Instead of something too harsh like having a timer for every time you purchase a grenade, have a timer where you can purchase up to x amount as quickly as you want (sitting at a terminal spamming them as soon as you get them), but with a timer that slowly counts down, allowing you to purchase another single grade after 2 minutes, a second one after 4 minutes, etc.

I'm not saying they are going to do this, I'm just using it as an example that there are ways to keep a thumb on the gameplay impact of even something as troubling as a resource booster. They have already suggested they are doing it for vehicles and perhaps MAXes, so it's not an unreasonable possibility.

I guess where we differ is that I plan to exploit anything broken once we get in beta, where p0intman would rather condemn the game now.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Afraid of what, specifically? That they will be forced to pay to compete? And?

Lets say F2P fails, and skins and helmets are not enough to maintain the game in the black.

Now you have two options.

Option 1. Increase the monetization. Sell more stuff, sell power.

Effect on the players: They will be heavily influenced to pay so as to compete on a level playing field.

Option 2. Revert to a subscription based service.

Effect on the players: They will be absolutely required to pay money so as to play at all.

Right then. Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different, and exactly how still being able to play for free despite being at a disadvantage is worse than not being able to play at all for free. Be very clear with this. I am extremely curious.

with the second, anyone who is playing is on an even playing field.

CTheRain · 2012-06-04, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Afraid of what, specifically? That they will be forced to pay to compete? And?

Lets say F2P fails, and skins and helmets are not enough to maintain the game in the black.

Now you have two options.

Option 1. Increase the monetization. Sell more stuff, sell power.

Effect on the players: They will be heavily influenced to pay so as to compete on a level playing field.

Option 2. Revert to a subscription based service.

Effect on the players: They will be absolutely required to pay money so as to play at all.

Right then. Point out, exactly, how option 1 and option 2 are different, and exactly how still being able to play for free despite being at a disadvantage is worse than not being able to play at all for free. Be very clear with this. I am extremely curious.

Option 1 preys on the competitive players. The people that want to win and have an advantage or be ahead of everyone.

Option 2 is the community grows slower or not at all. Its the same with a box game. It will sell around 30k-900k depending on the franchise.

So with f2p we bring in more people, more money and a better challenge.

CutterJohn · 2012-06-04, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

with the second, anyone who is playing is on an even playing field.

No they aren't. The game, through its rpg nature, has power progression, awarded merely for slogging out xp. Just as PS1 had.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

No they aren't. The game, through its rpg nature, has power progression, awarded merely for slogging out xp. Just as PS1 had.

put in enough time and it goes away. for the record, I'm all for dissolving leveling entirely.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-04, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by CTheRain

I'll spend $60 on this game like any other game that comes out new. I'll be max level in a few weeks/months. If I get killed with my so called advantage then that person is the better player. Noobs are gonna complain. The dedicated players will play 20-30+ hours a week. The zerg will hop on after school for 1-2 hours and go do something else. Maybe they should limit everyone playtime per week. So that everyone gets equal playtime and doesn't have an advantage. Because life is fair and whatnot
right?

It isn't the same as an XP boost. People are trying to argue for resource boosts as if they are XP boosts. They are not.

Resources earned and consumed per unit time does not change if you play 60 hours a week vs 2 hours a week.

A resource boost of the order of 3x would allow the person who has it to spam grenades, always have medkits, and use large orbital strikes on cooldown, not to mention be immune to and not care about the entire resource aspect of the game.

(And before people get into arguments about whether I don't want to pay or support the game - I have disposable income, I don't care about money and already have maxed out my smedbux at 50k and continue to pay for a PS1 subscription even though I haven't logged into it for months and really played it seriously for years. I will happily continue to support PS2. I will buy all of the bells and whistles they throw at me except for $70 monacles.

What I don't want is for the game to be dumbed down and the entire territory control and resource model to be made completely worthless because they decide to sell unlimited resources in the station store. They will make mistakes in monetization and we all have fears they won't monetize the right things. Resource boosts of the magnitude we have seen are completely absurd and will be a serious detriment to the game.)