New nanite system means members are buying power

Why are there people who always want to call this game pay-to-win?

So you think Pay to win is good?

Extra resources need to be removed from membership or i think a lot of ppl will leave this game, and they are running out of servers to merge...

If there is no reason to pay for anything, a lot more will be leaving when the servers go the way of Vanguard.

I don't understand threads like this. The title basically says "People that pay get stuff! And that's not fair!"

I'm not sure what they're seeing in the game, whether they can't pull a tank every three minutes or something or just complaining at the idea. I've never seen so much C4 and grenade usage, and I doubt all of those people are paying.

But nothing changed. Before the revamp membership gave you extra resources. And to be fair it used to be a much bigger issue before the change. Resources came in slower so the extra 50% made the difference for me between being able to pull stuff consistently or not being able to pull. Now it doesn't really matter as resources are floating in with out those 25 extra nanites already.

I'm all for members getting more resources than non members. IMO I it's a fair way to compensate them for PAYING.

If members were given a tank with 1000HP more than non members, or a a handheld PPA, then we would have "pay to win."

What we have now, and have always had in the past, is "pay for convenience"

With the zerg orientetion of this game, this is sadly the worst pay2win example.
Zerg with more members simply wins in long term & the most angry ones wont be the casuals, but members in the loosing zerg.
Trust me, i saw very similar system kill Savage2 & that was a one-time payemt membership!

Once more revmap phases pass & resources will matter more, this can cause fatal damage to PS2
In theese days of f2p games around every corner, u cant afford "not to be fair" !!!

Non-members are casuals and zerg.

Members don't normally zerg. We're actually vested in the game remember?

That's the ironic thing about this game. Casuals zerg for certs. But being a member makes that easier. But the members play to actually win. But they're paying for the part that makes it so farming is easier. The reality of the situation is there is a L2P issue and some of these players are seeing Members winning and blaming it on the fact we pay for something. When it is actually because they are farming and wondering why they lose bases.

Here's a little hint. We didn't take the base because we used something that costs nanites. We took it because we got on point and held it till the base flipped. Anyone can do that without spending nanites.

If you all want to win, stop farming and stop making excuses.

This dont break the fact members can pull stuff faser.
Pay for advantage is still P2W

Because you know a couple minutes is a HUGE advantage. You're forgetting this is assuming you chain pull and die right away. If you pull something and live long enough the membership bonus is irrelevent.

This is why I call it a L2P issue.

In a straight up fight, it doesn't give an advantage. My gun shoots no more bullets than yours, my bullets do no more damage, and my armour takes no more punishment.

True, I might be able to be a little more reckless, bounce back from defeat just a little easier and a little more frequently, but when I meet you out on the field, it gives me no advantage whatsoever.

It's always been like this.

We defiantly do get to pull things faster but the only really advantage i think we get it the ability to spam explosives for a while. Everything else is no different then another player using the same tools

Anyone complaining about P2W should play the F2P version of Battlefield, where there was an "elite" version of many guns that have better statistics (larger mag, lower deviance, higher damage etc) than their normal counterparts and they can only be bought with funds and cannot be obtained by simply playing the game. (And also stuff like you have to pay to have hit direction indicators). PS2 is FAR from P2W.

If resources weren't overabundant, the member bonus would mean 100% more armor, as the member could buy something while the F2P player of equal skill, ability, time alive, or whatever, was still waiting for resources.

I was only able to run out of resources, for the first time ever, today, by flipping four Lightnings in fairly rapid succession. When I got back from taking a leak, I had 350 resources again.

Because they have have a fairly solid argument: paying gives you a tangible advantage.

This game could only not be pay-to-win to any degree, if the only purchasable elements were purely cosmetic. Not even camo would count, because many of these actually work as camo (I've accidentally TKed enough VS wearing black and red to have proven this to them).

This is mostly nonsense and a gross over generalization.

There are plenty of casuals who pay, and plenty of dedicated players who do not. People can have a vested interest in something and either not have the money to spare, or have different priorities regarding their expenditures. There is also nothing to suggest that paying or not paying has anything to do with skill, in and of itself. Indeed, the opposite could more easily be argued the case, as to get to the same sort of advancement, a non-member has to invest more time, and thus tends to have more experience for that degree of advancement.

Quite right. Nanites come very fast for the price and duration of most assets...which is why I am confident they are going to reduce the rate, or increase prices.

SOE does not want any supposed feature of membership to be irrelevant, they want to make people without membership ache for membership.

There is a correlation between paying and seriousness. In Beta when it was Alpha Squad, there wasn't as much zerging. In Planetside 1 the game was P2P and from the accounts of veterans of that game, there also wasn't any zerging.

Does every freebie zerg? Probably not. Are they still casual? Absolutely. No one has been able to explain how someone could be seriously vested in this game, and serious about helping their squad on a continent they are stuck in a queue for. You can't explain that.

And you're putting words into my mouth, I never said anything about player skill. A newbie can still be a non-casual. A veteran can still be casual. The reason I brought up the L2P issue is that players are using Premium Member Benefits as an excuse. Because that's all this thread is. Hardcore newbies don't make excuses, they adapt. Casuals can adapt too, and many do. But there is a select few that won't.

[quote="Taemien" snip[/quote]

Well Im a paying member and Im casual and I do zerg a fair amount of times. But this is all anecdotal, doesnt prove anything.

I would have thought that there is no real corrleation between hardcore/casual game style and becoming a paying member. A casual would pay just as readily as a hardcore player but for a different reason: quicker cert gain -> less grind and that is ideal for a player who plays at most 1 hour a day.
I completely agree that being a paying member doesnt make me a "better" player who has a bigger impact on a battle than a non-paying member. I wrote a page back that being an auraxium member means that in 15 minutes of gameplay I can pull 3 MAX units opposed to the 2 a non-paying member can. This is NOT a huge impact.

I disagree. There are free players who have invested huge amounts of time into the game and who play very regularly/consistently.

Significant queues aren't that common and have been declining along with populations. Continent lock also reduces the odds that someone will be on the "wrong" continent.

Even when populations were higher, who do you think would be more likely to be available, the free player who may have to wait 10 minutes to get to a given continent, but who is playing more consistently, or the subscriber who plays less often for less time at a stretch?

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but these terms have definitions.

Casual implies that one is inconsistent or impermanent, which usually implies less experienced, dedicated, and skilled. Many free players are the opposite of casual.

Regular/Consistent play doesn't mean anything here. You can play causally every day. Again its the GOAL that defines it. Casual players want certs. More serious players want to win.

Those players inbetween trying to win by playing in a casual manner are fooling themselves. You can't win by lonewolfing. You can't win by not being coordinated. You can't win without taking or contributing to taking points.

Connery during US Primetime still has queues.

As I sais, its the goal that defines what a casual is. And I just don't see how someone could be anything but casual by sitting in a queue, or if they need to use vehicles as much as the OP is claiming they need to be able to do would not sub. Yeah everyone's got priorities, sometimes RL gets involved and stops you from spending money how you want.

But how is that my problem? When I play in other games whether they be online video games, or in competitive sports/events. I expect my teammates to pull their own weight, and that includes equipment. I see membership in PS2 as like a piece of equipment. Its like Paintball. Yeah you can play without a membership and have loads of fun. Just like in the paintball field you can load up with rental markers and masks, but you're going to be less effective. And no serious team is going to take you on.

This isn't a P2W game. You can't spend more than a membership to win. Everyone's on the same page when they sub.