1,000 Certs for Only 30 More Ammo!?

That's always the fate of games where advancement is unlimited, you can't stop players from eventually becoming all the same when all your choices just boil down to the order of unlocking things, instead of having to commit to anything.

Yup, one of the many things I missed about PS1 honestly. I just wish the Devs didn't have this crazy cert system. It just seems so thrown together without much thought. Well, maybe more input from the SOE bean counters more than anything.

that's most likely the case, It will get there though... probably.

Progression is NOT only in rpgs, infact progression is possibly in every game that has ever came out online or not. This has NOTHING to do with world of warcrack. This game gives you "false" progression, items that are not worth the amount of time you spent earning the certs in the first place, or items that are so dam exspensive that the entire task seems rather pointless to begin with. If this game has no story, no end game, and false progression then i ask you what is the reason to even play this game for longer then an hour?

Okay buddy, you said "in an mmo progression is implied" which is NOT a trait of an MMO. Progression is an implied trait of an RPG, but doesn't necessarily mean only RPGs have it. But an MMO doesn't HAVE to have progression. It is simply Massive, Multiplayer, and Online. Where in those three words does it imply progression? Please, enlighten me.


And the reason to play the game is FUN. It's fun to kill people. I don't need to chase a silly carrot on a stick to have fun in a game. I play Halo. There's no inherent progression in that. I play StarCraft. Zero progression in that game (except on an infinitesimally small scale - per game). I play Soul Calibur. No progression there either. Also I play Left 4 dead. Nope, still no progression.



Again - Progression is an RPG trait. This is not an RPG. But that's not to say it could not have progression. But the fact that it has limited progression isn't a problem, because progression is not a trait that defines MMOs, just MMORPGs, which are the traditional MMO. Which is why it's confusing to some people that MMO does not mean MMORPG (Since up until this point, there have been relatively few MMOs that were NOT MMORPGs).

this

I think you dont understand what progression really means. There is alot of different kinds of progression, Gear progression, Skill progression, Story progression, Level progression and thats just to name a few. SC2 for example has strictly skill progression and the main reason people play the game is because it has high reward for highly skilled players. Halo also has progression, it has story, it has a lvling system, a soon to be ranking system and hell they even thro in guns you can obtain through a point system. All the games that you name have progression one way or the other. This games primary progression system is infact gear and its a terrible one at that like i explained in the above post.

The difference with PS1 and this is that in PS1, you HAD to spend money to play, so limiting the roles you could engage in (without re-certing) was something that encouraged people to specialize. Yeah you could buy multiple accounts, but the vast majority of the population didn't do this.

PS2 is F2P and as such there is no point to restricting you to a certain number of certs or roles - you would just make another character. The current approach is MUCH cheaper in data storage resources (which still costs money, especially on this scale, regardless of how many people think it's trivial). Since in the end you would have as many different roles as you wanted anyway, there is no point to forcing you into one role.

These cert prices are crazy. It takes days just to get 1 gun. But good thing is, you don't need new guns - they all look the same anyways.
I would be fine with it if air battles weren't so pay to win. Unless you wan't to spend a week in game time getting enough certs to get items for air battles, you are most likely going to have to spend the 20$ to get them.

If you're going by that extremely loose definition (which is incredibly asinine) every game ever made ever has progression because they all have time progression.


Are you serious? Those aren't "Progression" in the sense that you were referring to previously.


PS2 also has this "skill" (subjective) progression, time progression, gear progression, battle progression, empire progression, etc. etc.


You can just make up arbitrary measurements of "progression" and then not apply those same arbitrary measurements to the game you're saying doesn't have any....

Ok obviously you are missing my point. I only started the progression rant because you said "progression" was only a trait in rpgs wich it is NOT. The skill progression is rather low so that is not enough to keep people interested(imo) Gear is the MAJOR focus of PROGRESSION in this game and my entire point is that its terrible and should be changed. Unless ofcourse you are buying gear then well progressin of gear seems rather quik. Remember to stay on topic or you might confuse yourself.

The price/benefit is skewed. It would be better say that they make the curve more curved instead of linear....

Such that, flak armor for example...has a opt end of 25% with the cert cost being something like....1,100,250,500, 1000 with 15%, 17.5, 20, 22.5, 25 .....
instead they should make it...10, 13, 17, 20, 25....

Heck...I cant see myself ever getting the final ammo for my vanguard...1000 certs for 2 more shells?....really?...I'll let my certs rot before I'll pay that.

If you play the game long enough, there will probably come a time when you are sitting on a mountain of certs and those two extra rounds for 1000 certs won't seem as bad. But yes right now there is a cost/benefit analysis you need to do with all the upgrades. On most things with 5 level going past level 3 generally isn't worth it unless level 4 is still relatively cheap.

Uh, how long will that take... a few years before anyone is "sitting on a moutain of certs" to waste 1,000 certs on 2 extra rounds.? Also, that is not taking into consideration that the Devs may add more certs in the future that would add even more things to dump certs into before wasting it on those silly high-end costs they currently have.

If you don't think spending a 1000 certs on those silly high end things that only give marginal benefits then don't? I know I won't be getting the last 3 for 4 ranks in my tank cannons ammo capacity until I have other things I want.

Also It will be very easy for people to start sitting on large sums of certs in the future if you are only interested in a few roles. You don't have to spend certs in everything.

Thanks, but you didn't really say anything that most of us don't already know. Yes, I KNOW I don't have to spend the certs on those things. Yes I KNOW I would have lots of extra certs if I ony specialized in some things. But, that doesn't mean I shouldn't suggest better options for something that clearly is flawed. So, according to replies like yours, we should just be content and happy with the things that work, and ignore the other things?

Haha

I think it works just fine and doesn't need any fixing. Just because you believe it is broken in no way means I am apathetic to the situation.

So wait, you actually think paying 1,000 certs for 2 extra rounds of ammo is "fine"?

Yes? It is the final step in a lengthy ammo upgrade tree, what is the problem? You are acting like there isn't an entire chain of upgrades that give you a good amount of ammo. You can spend 1000 certs in that line and get 20 more rounds in your pool. The Certs all go up in price drastically for last one or two blocks as a way to differentiate players that are willing to spend the points in it. Its personal choice man. Are your 1000 certs worth this or something else, that's for you to decide.