Shift the nanite cost of Vehicles / MAXes to a cert cost per pull and also implement a token system for daybreak cash. (The cert cost would actually tie pulling force multipliers to in game performance.) i.e. 1 token for a Lightning/Harasser/Valk 2 Tokens for a MBT / MAX / ESF 3 Tokens for a Lib/Gal Each token would cost 1 - 2 day break cash. Sundy and Flash will stick with regular nanites or whatever. Imagine the increase in satisfaction one would get from C4'ing a tank or killing a MAX unit with this change. Screw pay 2 win, just think how it would clean up the spam in the game if you actually had to think "should I pull this force multiplier farming chariot or actually help my empire capture the point."
Don't see the need for tokens in current system. The idea is curiously fun, but it's not something I'd like to see implemented, even if it's meant remaining at current status quo. EDIT: **** like that, where you can't experience the game properly without investing real money, is one of the reason I shun games like World of Tanks, where you either buy real ammunition for money, or let your tank shoot chewed paper.
There was definitely some tongue in cheek humor behind the idea. The big thing I mentioned though was having it be a Cert or Token cost to pull means that you don't actually have to pay real money to experience everything and that you would have to accomplish things to gain access to superior firepower (rather than just sit in game).
The certs for vehicles idea reminds me of an ARMA server that I played on a few times. On that server, you earned cash that could be spent on renting or permanently purchasing equipment as well as the use of a vehicle. I actually did quite like the setup. I liked the system because offensive vehicles were very rare and powerful, while still counter-able. Infantry could not fight the APC head on because it had an automatic weapon, a semi-automatic grenade launcher, and a high zoom FLIR camera, making engaging infantry out to 1,000m easy. However, inside the city, we were abruptly dispatched by a single rocket.
No. While I appreciate what you're trying to do, the impact of this goes far beyond just what you've proposed. Just to name one example : SL/PLing is already a crap enough job, especially if you run open platoons. Since it usually falls to the SL/PL to arrange transport, either you'll see a LOT more redeployside (which is bad, mkay?) or you're effectively placing a cert/money tax on the very people who are gimping their own gameplay to help PS2 stay afloat. Sorry, but this is a terrible idea.
Firstly, $1-3 to pull a single vehicle is an absurd price. But anyway, once people start paying real money for individual vehicles, they'll be extremely pissed off when they get instagibbed, which happens to vehicles quite often. They'll start raging about whatever killed them and how it needs to be nerfed because it doesn't cost real money. "C4 can instakill my $2.00 MBT for only a few measly nanites?! Nerf!" AV turrets? Nerf! Rocket launchers? Nerf! Trees? Nerf! Not only that, but you said your purpose was to reduce spam, meaning you'd need to reduce the ability of players to pull vehicles for 'free' (playing normally). Meaning players who pay will be able to gain a tangible tactical advantage. That's called Pay2win. Sorry, but no, this is a terrible idea.
Also, they would likely lose money. I, for one, would cancel my membership. 90% reason I pay a monthly fee is to have those extra resources to pull vehicles faster.
Although I myself would have no problem paying 3-5 certs per lib-pull. This would make me beyond overpowered given my current flying abilities. I would nearly always come out with a cert gain, and I'd be able to pull ad eaternum. On the other hand, a new pilot would cry himself to death paying certs every time.
I don't hate the idea. But one of the problems with the Planetside F2P is that it's already crowded with lots of Pay systems in place already: 1) Membership 2) Cosmetics 3) Weapons/Certs 4) Implants 5) Boosts Adding another layer of Pay to these further pushes the Pay system to trip on its own (already poorly coordinated) feet. It's not that I think the current Pay systems are done well. I don't. I think #3 and #4 are notably both poorly done on a basic level (#3 fails because they don't make enough Weapons/Certs decent enough to be usable. Imagine a store where 90% of the items were garbage and nobody ever purchased them: what a waste of shelf space)(#4 fails because there is no Crafting Combo to actually get a specific one you want, so the permutation trees for the high ones becomes an excersize in Russian Roulette, like some nightmare Quest in an old MMO. Furthermore, you can only use 1 Implant which limits what players will get/buy/use; I'd make it like a [non-Random] Magic/Hearthstone Hand where players choose and stack 3-5+ Implants that have synergy with each other, and mostly of equivalent level [no crazy high levels]; treat it like Hearthstone [can disenchant any Implant to dust for partial value, can craft any Implant for dust: nobody likes grinding random output Crafting when it's not trivial])(view Implants as Magic/Hearthstone cards or Alternate Adcanvement increments [each an incremental bonus players can pick from; though they have to choose the ones they want at each Spawn Loadout and they only can use a Max number], and the system gets a lot easier and more interesting for players and Loadout builds and much more profitable). Another problem is (yet again) for New Players. New Players already earn Certs at much slower rates AND have much worse Loadouts AND make more bad Cert purchases because they don't know what's good AND have lots and lots more basic areas they need to save Certs for. Adding this will just cut them off from Vehicles altogether, or put them in a position where they struggle even more to Cert out (unless they're very good). And what about things like "learning to fly ESFs"? People already say it's too tough to learn and they die to experienced players immediately (sometimes hunted down before they even hit the enemy front). Imagine how much more difficult it will be to learn ESF if players had to pay Cets/$$ for each try: confusion, frustration, plus broke. Another issue is Membership. Many players feel (and I back this 100%) that paying for Membership should basically make the game fully playable on an entry fee level (not pay for all Items/Certs, but pay for the admission fees that crowd the game: resources, wait times, etc.). Why? Because they're paying for the game full price. So adding a Cert Cost to renting Vehicles would need to have a Cert bump to Membership Rewards, or Members would feel like they are being Scammed. Also, such a change will motivate DBC to make Vehicles better: gotta make em worth the price of admission. And we know that DBC can't resist making changes that will be more profitable to them. This is bad for multiple reasons: 1) Vehicles are already monsters in the Standard Game in many engagements, boosting them more would add to this. Imagine BOOSTED Libs in small fights 2) DBC would be motivated to boost AV: kill more Vehicles faster, players have to pay to spawn more, repeat for profit. 3) Tying Vehicles to payments means that if a side can't afford Vehicles, then they can't pull proper Counters, and the game balance/Strategy is done 4) DBC Devs can't balance ~anything. Server Smash/Hardcore Organized Gameplay is one area where many Vehicles WOULD benefit from being boosted in power... but they have no idea (or perhaps no care) to do so. It's been years of not doing it, don't expect them to suddenly to be able and rushing to do it (though we have seen some recent change efforts that are promising). And it goes on and on. More and more issues that pop-up because of a Pay system that has so many different legs it trips itself up. A Dev group that can't balance, fix broken things, etc. A Micro-Transactions Dev who doesn't know how to hookup a proper system for the game. And Management that pushes for breaking the game to chase profit. But I do think your idea is decent. Could be a part of a good Revenue Model. But it's such a jacked Pay system already and the people running it don't have a handle on it, so I fear it would throw (another) wrench into their system that they wouldn't know how to handle well.
Don't we already have Map problems where certain Bases approaches are murder for Infantry and the game grinds to a Vehicle deadlock? Wouldn't boosting Vehicles in non-base Terrain further make these Base approaches Alert gridlock. Or promote more Server Smash style tactics (trivializing most non-Air Vehicles) of just skipping the Terrain between bases and Gal/Val/Beacon dropping troops directly onto base targets?
Just slapping a cert cost on vehicles and calling it a day certainly would not work for Planetside. The main thing that I liked about the vehicles in ARMA was that they were very powerful, but also very scarce and could still be countered quickly, and that a power-up system that slowed your progression could be fun while also serving as a way to increase scarcity. Even as powerful as they were, it was difficult to earn back the money you paid into your tank. Less vehicles being around could help with some of the stale mate issues, but I would pin the stalemates more on map/base design, which is a whole different discussion.
Gotcha. I misunderstood. I was taking it as a straight translation, not adjusting PS2 gameplay to account for the change.
You should play with a friend of mine, he wrecks all opponents with superior positioning, movement and flanking. He doesnt purchase any premium ammo or tanks. If you get to know all the soft vulnerable parts of each tank you can take them down quite easily assuming your using the correct tier. I used to play a lot of WOT, lost interest tho since all i ever seemed to hear was 'we could not penetrate their armour' even after buying the big guns on my Russian TDs (i didnt know all the soft points unlike others in my outfit). Guess thats where the premium rounds do come into play. As i said tho you can still compete if you know the ins and outs of every vehicle and every map. I consider it pay to win of course, but i dont consider it 'have to pay to win'
I'm not interested in WoT enough to get so good at that game that I can win against players with 30% better equipment by playing 50% better than them. Give me only a sidearm as LA, I'll still get kills, just less of them, and I'll have to play twice as good.
