Bring back the old resource system, or FIX this one

You have to understand that infantry are infinite, in some ways more mobile, and that some counters to vehicles don't cost resources. Tankers and pilots complain all the time that they have to much too deal with. I remember about a month ago when the devs were discussing blanket nerfs to all MBT main cannons, tankers were in an uproar because they would be forced closer to infantry and infantry can take them out no problem.

I've seen AI mines take out whole groups of, admittedly oblivious, enemies. The potential of any piece of equipment rests solely on the users. Yes, tanks, being tanks, can wreck. But they are supposed to. They are force multipliers. Ultimately, the resource change is fine. Maybe the cost for several things can be tweaked and so can the gameplay effects of those things. For example, smoke grenades, not being lethal in the slightest, maybe could get a resource cost reduction. And maybe Flashes can cost less than Concussions. The Sunderer with the new shield should definitely cost more.

Ultimately, no system is perfect. But this is doing a pretty good job.

Someone on page 2 shyed away from it, so I wont: Yes MisterBond, we absolutely want you to go play arma, someplace else... far away.

Christ on a bike you are an angry little cuss aren't you.

WTF are you talking about OP. I see more vehicles than ever before.

If the system stays like it is, I'm perfectly fine with it.

I just pulled a lightning at the warpgate as a test. The cost had been raised to 350 for some reason, which was slightly disappointing, but I was relieved to discover that the nanite reserve for having the vehicle out either doesn't exist (I really hope they dropped that feature) or isn't 100% of the value of the tank. I was fairly quickly back up from 400 to 575 resources while still in my tank when I logged off, but I hadn't actually left the warpgate area so I don't know if that is factor.

Raise the max to over 1,000

750 is too much micro

With these changes I'm not so sure this argument is as strong as it once was.

If you and I meet on the battlefield and you are in an MBT and I am an infantry, who has the advantage? If your resource gain allows you to pull force multipliers with greater frequency then yes you do have advantage and overall will be able to win more often.

I may also be able to access an equally strong force multiplier but since I cannot do so with the frequency of a subscriber that means the subscriber does have a potential power advantage. It may be slight and of course it depends on whether we are trying to maximize our time using these multipliers but the fact remains that subscribers do have greater potential that can only be bought. True, it is not in the form of a more powerful object but it is in the form of greater availability of that powerful object.

Whether this is good, bad, okay, or mostly irrelevant is up for debate, of course, but it most certainly exists and the more resources are a bottleneck to multipliers the greater the difference becomes.

Not sure if the data exists for the public but I am sure SOE has it- we could measure the average impact of being a subsriber by using some basic regression equations.

Oh, you want a ressnade?

Sorry people, I may want a tank or a max so no.

Oh whats that? someone spawn a galaxy....sorry, my headphones are playing up, cant hear you......

Correct, any attempts to limit spam and explosives (and especially explosive spam) is a step in the right direction IMO.

All I am saying is that by only addressing certain types of spam and explosives while leaving other explosive spam untouched is not likely to alleviate the problem so much as funnel it towards those that have been left untouched.

It is just like any nerf/buff really. If A and B perform similar functions (i.e. explosive AOE, good against hardened targets, etc.) then a nerf to A is a de facto buff to B, a buff to A is a de facto nerf to B and so on. Ergo, suppose that A and B are relatively balanced and then suddenly A costs more than B (or using A limits your ability to use C but using B does not) then it would seem quite natural for a shift to occur where people simply start using A less and B more.

You mean like slapping a couple C4s on those now reduced-in price/timerless flashes? That can turn invisible?

And didn't C4 get cheaper too?

Funny thing is, people whined for cost upping on vehicles because of zerging, but now you'll never see a vehicle anywhere but in a zerg.

I believe, this was the goal of resource revamp -_-
WTF man, did you rly expect they goal of resource revamp was to make it easier to spam everyhing? If they wanted that, they'd just removed resources all together. Not that they mean much as it is. Just can't throw 30 grenades 2 minutes anymore, or chain pull ESF -> Lib -> Lightning - > MBT -> ESF ....

UPGRADE MEOW!

Seriously though, outfits will probably just lean on subscribers a bit more for those kinds of things. Some may still be able to leverage those who only play regular infantry but with the changes to grenades/medkits/etc. that will be a bit trickier.

Personally, rez grenades- for the potential power- have always been a little too cheap and spammable IMO. The things I think this really hurts the most is the equipment I think is most fun and least overblown (flash bangs, smoke grenades, EMPs). Flash bangs were never especially effective and smoke has always has the free UBGL as competition- now these are just wastes.

Medkits? Also a waste, I'll just put the Regen implant on all my classes and have a little more patience.

About the only consumable I think may still be worthwhile is C4 and maybe tank mines. Though, these are down in value with the new Sunderer shield so those too are probably not worth it when compared to the potential of a well certed vehicle or MAX.

How many rounds from the MAX AV options equals 1 brick of C4? MAXs can be revived and resupplied indefinitely. From a purely economic perspective the power of consumables seem overwhelmingly dwarfed by the alternatives (vehicles/MAXs).

So many dudes in these thread have such a great gift for predicting future outcomes of events that haven't happened yet, could some please give me this weeks Powerball numbers with you innate prediction talents?

Wait a minute here. You want to argue "if you're in a tank and I'm not"? What the ****? What if YOU'RE and I'm not. I guess that evens out then. But what if we're BOTH in tanks? THAT'S where it matters. What a giant strawman you just propped! If you have to start the argument from a intellectually disingenuous position, you've already lost.

Ok, now that crap has been dispensed with, let's have a REAL argument about it. So, we both meet in evenly matched tanks, and you are CLEARLY the better tank driver, but I have my boosts. How is that really going to help me? You will undoubtedly dispatch my tank with my meager skills, and yes I may do some damage. So now, I have my massive pool of resources for "TEH INSTANT WINZ!", right? So what's going to happen? I'm going to respawn at the nearest base and you are going to....what? Sit there and wait for my return without repairing or anything? No. Who the **** would be THAT stupid? No. You're going to pull back and patch and reload. And then you know what you're gong to do? You're going to come back and kick my *** again. Because I'm outmatched. It's doesn't matter how many resources I have. They don't do me any good IN THE FIGHT.

And that is why the P2W argument is bull****. So don't give me that. Either come honest, or don't come at all.

You know what's REALLY gonna make the difference? My friends. I'm not going to come alone. I'm gonna bring the crew and we're gonna roll your ***. Because in this game, THAT'S what wins.

Moin

The new system isn't really that bad. I will be a lot more careful about the infantry ressources I spend, wouldn't be bad if you could stockpile them at least a bit (like 5 or 10 per consumable, or maybe a total of 40 different consumables so players can choose which consumables they want to stockpile). But the new system will be a nice way to reduce the silly vehicle spam we had so far, which may allow for some vehicle buffs after a while (pls let go of those stupid tankchanges).

actually predicting the impact of changes on systems and behaviour is what I do for a living, its not really that hard and quite often when things like this come up in games, an outcome is easily predictable, and I am often shocked that devs dont foresee it.

What the hell? The new system is awesome -- I can pull MBTs/lightnings none stop, and still be capped half the time. Everything doesn't cost more now because you're getting 250 resources every 5 minutes that you can spend on whatever you want, where as in the old system, you get on average 200 resources every 5 minutes and there might be a category that you just can't use that time. Plus the infantry consumables now cost less.

oh so you make a living predicting how changes in an online video game environment that has absolutely no peers to compare it to then?

Umm... okay... so we're both in tanks and we are so evenly matched for skill that we both destroy each others tanks. Now, as a subscriber you can pull another one immediately whereas as a non-subscriber I cannot. Now you're in a tank and I am not. See how easy that is?

No, it's not BS at all you just do not want to accept that somehow your subscription gives you an advantage. It is really simple. Do force multipliers provide an advantage? Yup, sure do. Does it cost resources to use a force multiplier? Yup, sure does. Does a subcriber gain resources faster than a non-subscriber? You betcha. Can a subscriber, therefore, use more force multipliers? Sure can.

Lets make this clearer with a hypothetical. Suppose we have two players, player A and player B. Player A is a subscriber whereas player B is not. Suppose we have an item that has extraordinary power, like an Orbital strike (not entirely dissimilar from a few volleys of rocket pods). Now, both player A and B have access to this item but using the item costs 100 points. Player A gains points at x/m (x points per minute) and Player B gains points at y/m (y points per minute) where x>y. Is there any advantage to being player A or player B?

Of course, we can also show that your statement is false using reductio ad absurdum. Player A and B both have access to X. Using X destroys everything else in the game. In order to use X you need Y amount of points. It always takes player B (the non-paying player) 100 hours to accumulate Y points to use X. Meanwhile, it always takes player A (the paying player) 10 minutes to accumulate Y points to use X. Is this pay-to-win?

Your argument is akin to saying that income inequality is irrelevant so long as the poorest of the poor can afford the same lunch as the richest of the rich without considering that the richest of the rich can afford to each that lunch 100x a day whereas it would take the poorest of the poor a week to save enough to eat it once. Are they eating the same lunch? Sure are. Is this at all an equal situation? Sure isn't.

So I save a week to buy my lunch and along comes a bird and snatches it out of my hands- looks like it will be another week before I eat. Meanwhile, Johnny Silverspoon also has his lunch stolen by a bird but what does he care when he can immediately buy another?

I'm not saying that paying customers should not have advantages- I've put way more money into this game than any other AAA title ever and I'm glad about that and felt good (mostly) to support the game. But to say that subscribers do not have an advantage when resources are a bottleneck for powerups and the only way to increase resource gain is through subscription is a lie. Plain and simple.

True, in a 1v1 with equally certed equipment it will be skill/circumstance that decides the outcome. The difference is that overall a subscriber will be able to more frequently use the powerful items and thus overall will have an advantage over those with fewer resources.

To put it another way, if resources are meaningful whatsoever and you can pay to have more of them then there is no way around the fact that you can pay for power.

Or let me put that another way, you have the choice to play for team A or team B in Planetside 2. Both teams are exactly evenly matched in terms of both skill and the level of certed equipment. However, all members of team A are subscribers and all members of team B are not- what team would you rather play with? What team do you think will, over the long run, accumulate more caps, kills, etc.?

What I dislike about is that there is now absolutely no benefit to capturing territory, other than taking a continent, which is way too big of a reasonable objective for a standard session, especially as a PL. What's the point of playing an objective-based game with no objectives?

Have you played this yet? There are WAY MORE TANKS and Maxes then ever before. This has become a freaking simulator

Seriously fighting the NC is like playing mech warrior....

Devs did it again, managed make the game take two steps back one more time.... What a horrible patch, nanites where needed, but the way to implemented them is HORRIBLE!