here we are, it's pay to win.

It's like developing AAA games costs money or something...

Fairly low? The full membership bonus gives you what, 50% more resources? Meaning that you can pull 50% more vehicles and consumables than a free player. I guess we have a different definition of "fairly low", then. Being able to make myself 50% more powerful than a free player by paying money doesn't qualify as "fairly low on the p2w scale" by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, I think you sig pic says it quite well. Well, I guess you should add, 'Pay-to-Win' comment in there somewhere now.

Mmm, yes, expecting a game to be fair. How entitled of me.

Let me guess... any time you die you say to yourself "he/she must be a subscriber, cheating P2W bastard!"

You can't say they are lying without comparing the LoL model to this one and explaining how this one is P2W and that one is not.

Perhaps you haven't played in a while. With alerts, bonus exp for vehicle kills, bonus exp for awards every 10 kills with a weapon, bonus EXP for simply playing on an alert continent, defending a base, even bonus exp for healing and repairing stuff, you can get 1000 cert points in about 12-14 hours of gameplay. Since guns cost $7 USD or 1000 certs. That means you are getting paid at a minimum $0.50 per hour to do something for fun. I will agree it hasn't always been like this, but if you maintain this mindset, then your experience must be from before April. That makes your experience outdated and invalid.

All things must be compared to a standard. Refer to the comment above about comparing LoL to this one (since you believe it should be the standard for all F2P models).

If you look at my posting, you will see I am pointing my finger at not just one model, but at several. If I were to list all of the games, the post would be too long to read. I personally do not believe that LoL is the standard model for all F2P games, it just happens to be a better model than all others I have experienced. Just because you don't like what IS the standard, doesn't mean that standard is any less valid.

Having 50% more resources doesn't make you anywhere near 50% more powerful. Stop being foolish to try to prove your point. You pull less vehicles, not less powerful versions of them. A cautious player can pull more than enough tanks to be effective. Especially if you mix in teamwork (ie you gun for my MBT then I gun for yours when mine blows up) and cautious play (ie realizing that a repaired tank is better than a smoking one and that 1 mbt vs 10 infantry is a poor fight to pick. And there's many very powerful roles that don't rely on resources at all. There's been plenty of armor fights that 2 players staying in back doing repairs with an ammo sundy would of been more powerful than 5 more MBTs in the field. Plenty of base defenses where 2 more MBTs behind the walls are far weaker than 4 more people manning and repairing the AA turrets.

A blatant p2w would be to restrict armor to subscribers only. Or to restrict MBTs to paid and make the lightning far weaker than a MBT. Or to make station cash weapons to simply superior than cert weapons. Ie a paid sub pulls a tank with double the damage that takes only half damage in comparison to a f2p player. Maybe have the turrets also have a cert cost or just be restricted to subs.

All in all, yes PS2 is fairly low on the p2w scale for f2ps.

I fail to see how gaining resources %50 faster somehow makes it less fair. Maybe you should just be more careful with your resources.

But wait a second. Why should paying money NOT give some advantages, like faster resource recovery? It's not a guarantee that the extra resources actually helps you win.

But hey, it's also not fair that the BR100 has more gear and certs then the BR1. But BR1's have to deal with it, and gain more gear. What's the difference? Some people have money to spend on boosts and memberships and weapons, some people have time to spend grinding for certs and upgraded gear. If you don't have money or time, then you still get a totally free AAA game that you can still do very well in. Treat it as a challenge if you want. My F2P VS BR20+ character gets almost double the SPM of my NC character, even though my NC character has had boosts and about $100 spent on weapons, and is BR 40+. It's because when I was learning to play, I did poorly on my NC character cause it was my first, and now that I know how to play PS2, I can do very well with my VS character. It's not gear or resources that matter, its your skill that does.

Feel free to use that as part of your sig if you like it

That's what I've done like three times now.

Yeah, okay, I'll give you that it's gotten somewhat better. But c'mon, 14 hours is still a lot. That's like two days of full-time work. Which is fine if you're a schoolchild who has nothing else to do all day or you live in your mom's basement, but there are people in this world who have maybe like an hour every other day to play. So that's a month to unlock a single gun. Still sound reasonable? What about all the other stuff you need certs for, like class abilities, vehicle abilities, etc.? Yeah, it's better than it used to be, but it's still not good. It's just somewhat less terrible.

I never said I believed LoL to be the standard for all F2P models, I merely pointed out that Smedley seems to like it.

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Who says LoL is the standard of anything? Can't we just compare f2p games to what the f2p business model should be in the best case scenario, i.e. no pay2win elements at all, only cosmetics?

Let me guess... they dropped you on your head right after you were born? Like, ten or fifteen times at least?

I'm sorry to hear that, but as you said, that is your failure. Perhaps you should give it a bit more thought than you're giving it.

How exactly does the new resource system works anyway? I know I get some resources, but I'm just not sure how the heck that works anymore. I notice that it is very little from the actions I do though.


Unfortunately/fortunately for me, the tank mines are now useless since you can't lob it under an already parked vehicle, and I never even bothered to Cert into anything else so far, nor do I really use grenades. So I guess Infantry Resource just kinda go unused most of the time for me.

How exactly is being able to pull 50% more tanks different from simply being able to pull the same number of tanks that are 50% stronger?

Each base has a resource type assigned to it. You get some every 5 minutes based on what bases your empire owns. You also get some for fighting; if you fight in an infantry resource base, you get infantry resource.

Every 25 xp is one resource point of whatever type the facility you're in provides.

And if you're not med-kitting, you're not living as long as you could be.

If your progress is slow, that's what boosts are for. If you can't afford boosts, then there is always the stock weapons that are actually very good. Sorry if it's not fair, but thats life. I'm doing just fine on my F2P Vanu character, with no upgraded infantry weapons and no bought weapons, even with certs. It's PayToNotGrind, not pay to win. But this whole discussion is on resources, not infantry weapons, and I have never used resource boosts and I still do fine.

2. if you balance the game around people that only play a little bit, the people that actually play maybe 1-2 hours a day will get to BR100 in no time.

3. Pulling %50 more tanks is not the same as being able to pull a tank that is %50 better, I have no idea how people think this is true.

Who says the F2P business model shouldn't have any boosts (pay to advance) quicker? Isn't that what PS2 boosts and selling of guns do? Again, what is the definition of Pay-to-Win? I've always understood it to be that something in-game in unattainable without paying real money and gives an advantage over everything else in-game that doesn't cost real money.

Resources don't work any different. They just made things you buy with resources cost more.

Mmm, yes, you're making a great case for PS2 not being p2w there. "If you're not winning, pay some money. You'll win more."

Given that BR is completely meaningless, I don't see the problem. More to the point, the discussion is about resources, which have nothing to do with BR.

As someone else pointed out, p2w isn't a black and white kind of problem. Yes, technically everything that affects gameplay is attainable simply by playing the game in PS2. But it takes so damn long that it may as well be unattainable.

wanna see a real psw fps, try combat arms.

Wut...
Heh heh, I never said that if you are not winning you should pay more. What I said was "If your progress is slow, that's what boosts are for." So if you are running out of resources, then maybe you should buy some boosts. Remember, resources do not equal success. %50 more resources does not equal %50 more wins or whatever. If you are not winning, paying money for sure will not make you win. You will still be just as bad, you just might have more tanks to be bad in.

And I've watched you try to defend your narrow point of view despite others discussing blatant P2W aspects of LoL that are on par with what PS2 delivers. I'm guessing you are lacking experience in the standard or that it in fact does not affect your personal gameplay as much... perhaps you play with/against the same team every time.

I don't understand your defense here..... Are you saying that you should have the same amount of items and cert points when you have 2 hours of gameplay as someone with 2 days of gameplay??? This is not true in any game that has progressive character building. It's not true of LoL either... perhaps you could play checkers or backgammon.

I'm sorry, I edited the post for clarity sometime after you replied. I realize placing this narrow simple statement broke down the conversation.

The point of this last area is that the standard for a F2P model is all the other models out there that are truly pay to win. The standard is that a pay player will always be more powerful than a free player. This is simply not the case in PS2, and the elements that are there require such micro-management to exploit that it doesn't really affect more than the time that is required to acquire more versatility and not really straight up power. After you pay money, you still have to spend in game time to upgrade the weapon.

It is clear to me with this statement (and similar you have made to others) that you simply do not wish to have a open minded conversation about this subject matter. Basically the conversation is going like this

You: "This P2W"
Others: "How?"
You: "because"
Others: "Huh?"
You: "Because P2W"
Others: "NO, still fun for free"
You: "Your momma must be dumb, that why you dumb"

I know this is an extensively long flame here at the end, but it is obvious your agenda is to incite anger in others rather than contribute to the discussion. /thread

Yep, and yet I can still tell the difference between P2W and P2NotGrind unlike some people.

Oh, maybe you do understand what P2W means... The real issue seems to be either a lack of patience on your part or an inability to get XP...

People are sitting on thousands of certs, have fully loaded consumables, and don't have vehicle resource problems without being subscribers... exactly how much easier do you want them to make this game?

http://www.hellokittyonline.com/