Bring back the old resource system, or FIX this one

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by MisterBond, Aug 5, 2014.

  1. Yuki10

    You like to rely on logic, but it fails you badly.

    Someone who is able to gain resources faster doesn't have an automatic advantage at the start, but it does have a cumulative effect of that person being able to practice use of vehicles more due to more resources, thus learning faster and becoming a better player.

    You are also forgetting that those with membership earn certs faster, meaning they can buy meaningful upgrades faster - rocketpods for the win my friend... and as a member, you can get them 50% faster than a non-member. And when you get them, your benefit will accumulate - more XP and cert per kill, faster respawn due to accelerated ninite gain.

    Membership has always been about giving people advantage, otherwise no one would pay for it...Advantage that members get results in very substantial cumulative effect on many levels. I used to be a member and yes - it helps a lot. I can chain use medkits like crazy every time i take a few hits without worrying about running out of resources...The same is true for grenades - with maxed out grenade bandoleer and membership resource gain grenades will net me more kills than primary weapon usage.

    In fact, ammo capacity is the last true equalizer in this game. You may not think of it this way, but imagine what would happen if members had 50% more ammo or faster rate of fire... this is what members have with grenades, mines and air/ground resources right now.
  2. Degenatron

    How is that a "win"? That's a TIE. What I do and what you do AFTER the fight means nothing IN the fight. Let's get this f*cking STRAIGHT right f*cking now:

    "Pay 2 Win" means I win the fight. Not "Losing the fight hurts a little less" - that's called "paying for convenience" and that's EXACTLY what I'm doing. I don't win fights because I pay. That's the sh*t you need to get straight. It's not P2W no matter how hard you cry about losing.

    Again with the f*cking strawman. This time, you have to rely on literally "an instant win" that doesn't even exist in the game. You have to remove all skill out of the equation before your argument can even hold water. It's bullsh*t and you f*cking know it. That's not how this game works. If this were EVE Online, then yea you'd have an argument because that's how that game does work. But here, it's a BS argument. IT. DOESN'T. EFFECT. THE. FIGHT.

    Again, you have to set up a RIDICULOUSLY IMPROBABLE scenario to support your argument. It just shows how patently false the P2W argument really is. Is your empire made up exclusively of "The Poor"? No. It's not. So why don't you stop hand-wringing over sh*t that doesn't exist? Just because you don't subscribe doesn't mean everyone on your team doesn't either. I'd say it's a safe bet that the demographics are pretty homogeneous. So that argument is moot because it's not going to effect the turn of the battle. My one boosted subscription is not going to make a difference in the cacophony of a Planetside battle.

    And you might ask "Hey D-Gen, why are you so mad?" I'll tell you why, because I don't like being called a f*cking cheater because I support the game. And that's EXACTLY what the P2W finger pointers are saying. In spite of the fact that they can't point to anything about subbing that helps me win a fight.
    • Up x 4
  3. Aegie

    All I am trying to say here is that if resources have a meaningful impact on the game and the only way to have more potential resources is with a monetary exchange then a monetary exchange has a meaningful impact on the game.

    To the extent that this impact is problematic and how best to manage this impact should be the nature of the discussion, not whether the impact exists.

    This is because either A) resources are meaningless and we would simply be better off without them or B) resources are meaningful and we are better off having a discussion about how this interacts with the monetization because it is interacting with it.

    Now, just because this is the case does that mean PS2 is unfun, or not absolutely worth playing even if you play for free? Of course not- this is quite possibly my favorite game and I recommend it to everyone. I do not currently subscribe but I have before and for quite some time- I've spent way more money on this game than any AAA title and often times I did so primarily because I wanted to support the game and keep it free of P2W systems.

    When I was a subscriber did I have advantages? Yes, but XP, line jumping, and SC only buy time and time primarily buys options. Though it is true that cert trees do have vertical elements, most of these are relatively minor and when I have started new characters I never felt my rank made things unfair- to the extent I was a scrub, I deserved to be because I was new and there is a certain instrinsic satisfaction in leveling up and waiting to unlock something with anticipation.

    Personally, I agree with your sentiment:
    So, IMO, at least so far throughout the life of the game- the impact of money on resources has probably been minimal at best.

    That being said, I think that it is an important discussion to have if only to prevent it from having a negative impact. The difficulty seems to be that trying to have a conversation about how to manage the impact often gets derailed by people's emotional reaction to the idea that there even is one.
  4. GreenCZ

    I'm 90% venicle driver and this system brings me more frutration then old system. I mean, I never feld a frustration about old system, because, if I lose my MBT in first two minutes, with old resources I can easily buy Lib, next Mosquito or Lighting. Now I donť because I must wait next 5 min to get Nanites. And what happend, if I have unlucky day and around spawn pad are mines?

    I turn off the game and I'm so upset because this systemso sux. Also next negative thing, there is no reason to attack biolabs or AMP station, because there isn't strategic value (faster turret buff or regen are pointless things).

    The only true frustration about old system was, I must invested some certs to passive systems.
    • Up x 2
  5. FateJH

    I am forgetting nothing of the sort of which you extrapolate.
    My answer is unswayed. How you use something is still much more important than how much of something you have.
    • Up x 2
  6. Ghosty11

    I agree. Many of the cheese tactics people use to destroy Sunderers and other vehicles will be curtailed with this new resources system. Crashing an ESF into a Sundy then tossing mines underneath will probably no longer be a viable tactic.

    I seen one guy last night crash at least 2 ESF's into the base I was at just to get a few cheap kills as an LA.

    With this new system you won't be able to spam infantry consumables, then grab a vehicle get it destroyed than grab another vehicle get that destroyed then go back to spamming infantry consumables. That is the point of the revamp.
    • Up x 1
  7. Aegie

    I am genuinely sorry that I have offended you- it was not my intention whatsoever and I apologize that you feel as though I was calling you a cheater.

    Let me be clear, I do not in any way think that you or any other subscriber is a cheater. Quite the opposite actually.

    I was a subscriber myself for quite some time and have been putting money into the game pretty much since beta. I do so because it is quite possibly my favorite game and I do so because I believe that helps others enjoy the game as well regardless of whether they pay or not.

    Moreover, I think it was genius of SOE to make it so that squad's get XP boost from paying customers because that promotes the exact kind of community that is healthy for a game like this- one where it is clear that everyone benefits from paying customers directly and indirectly. I think future monetization should focus on this kind of approach.

    I thank you for supporting PS2 because I too want this game to thrive.

    In large part, it is because I too care about the game that I think it is important we have meaningful discussions about the monetary aspects because the last thing I would want to see is for PS2 to develop into a game where that is salient.

    Therefore, when they revamp the resource system and people post about it like this I take it seriously. I do not automatically agree with what is said or other people's opinions, but I do take the subject seriously because I think it is an important discussion.

    Again, I am truly sorry that I have offended you- my object was to have a meaningful discussion about how monetization impacts resources so that we can have a system where people would not think that of you and you would not be inclined to feel that way.
    • Up x 1
  8. Degenatron

    Again, the bullsh*t argument.

    Do you have the ability the ability to equip these things? Yes you do. I'm not paying for anything you can't get too.

    Is a med kit or a grenade an "automatic win"? No it's not. Just because someone might have those, that doesn't even mean they'll get a chance to use it. Of if they do, it'll even be effective.

    And that's what makes this a bullsh*t argument.

    You know what, there IS a gameplay element to help resource deficits. It's called teamwork. The team that works together, wins together. And resources don't have anything to do with that.

    Subs and boosts don't give anyone anything you don't have access to yourself. You get same gear, you get the same weapons, you get the vehicles. If you can't make 'em last, that's YOUR problem. I don't run around thinking "how can I get rid of this grenade in my hand?" I use 'em when I need 'em, and if that's what YOU do, you'll be fine.
    • Up x 1
  9. TraatAdmiral

    Excellent. That's the idea.
    • Up x 1
  10. GreenCZ

    less mines, less galaxies, less sunderrers... that means, all infantry will walk on foot to another region.

    I think wasting time is much funny, then wasting venicles for Sony.
  11. TraatAdmiral

    Urrr. A slightly different example. Say you and somebody else are using guns that have exactly equal stats except that your gun has a 100-shot magazine and his has a 50-shot magazine. Usually, you'll be pretty equally matched, right? It's rare that you need fifty shots in any one encounter, so most of the time it won't matter. But occasionally, you'll get into a situation in which he has to reload and you've only fired half your shots, and then you'll win, because you'd paid for a better gun. This is the same situation. Most of the time, it won't matter that you have more grenades, or tanks, or C4. But sometimes it will, and that isn't fair.
  12. Revanmug

    You avoid, the question but kind of fail at it.

    But you pretty much admit that they are power, powers that a normal player cannot substain. No matter what excusse you came up with, it doesn't matter. You are buying power.

    You might be entirely oblivious to the power of AV nades and medical kit, but I'm not and neither is my outfit.
  13. Paragon Exile

    • Up x 2
  14. Bernd Lauert

    Maybe I can offer you a seat in my sundy which I can easily pull after a big fight because I kill with my gun at zero resource cost.
  15. Aegie

    I have spent far more on this game than any other AAA title- I have been a subscriber and for quite some time.

    I think the most ingenius changes are the ones where those paying for boosts give a slight boost to squad mates- this promotes the kind of healthy attitudes we need because yes paying customers support the game. The trick is to make it so that everyone benefits and I think, by and large, SOE has done a good job with that.

    I think the only difference between me and most people in this thread is that I can see both sides of the argument and I care about both concerns.

    Traditionally, do I think resources have had a big impact on the game or how much fun it is? No, I do not. Recently, as a non-subscriber, do I think that the game has been unfair because other people gain resources faster than me? Nope. Do I enjoy the game less because I do not subscribe? Nope.

    Thing is, I have not had time with the new resource system nor has there been enough time to really know what, if any, effect it may have overall. I just take the concern that resources are becoming a bigger bottleneck seriously and try to understand both sides of the discussion because both have some merit, even if only because people give them merit.
  16. Thunde333

    They should have 1 vehicles nanite pool and 1 infantry nanite pool.

    But the infantry update is great I think, now you can only have 4 grenades and you need to choose if you want to have a vehicle or more stuff on your soldier. But 450 nanites for a galaxy?
  17. MaxDamage

    Wait, where is the thumbs down option?
    • Up x 1
  18. GreenCZ

    If Sony hasn't -50% discount resources per continent lock, maybe there wasn't such a "frustration" about venicles.
  19. Thunde333

    I miss it too
    • Up x 2
  20. Yuki10

    yea, your argument is not valid....everyone is using everything available to the best of their ability, but some have more available to them. Your argument is similar to winning a race in a Ferrari against Honda Civic and claiming that just because you have a Ferrari, it's not an automatic win, because you may not push the accelerator during the race...And if they don't have a Ferrari, tough luck go back to Zimbabwe picking garbage and save up for one.