Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by HadesR, Apr 11, 2016.
I'm not going to get the pickforks out just yet but being able to spawn buildings with DBC sounds pretty P2W to me.
I would much rather have the unlocks DBC or certs and the spawns from the harvested resource only.
I don't see why on earth anyone should pay cash to spawn something the enemy can potentially destroy in a couple of minutes.
I could potentially see an argument why someone would spend cash to quickly replace with a complete fresh full-health model something the enemy destroyed a few seconds ago.
unlocking the ability to buy constructables for certs or DBC is fine, i don't think it's a good idea to offer the actual constructables for placement for DBC, it's a bad idea and undercuts the whole resource aspect if you can pay to bypass it.
lets not forget that last i checked if you die while having a constructable purchased but not placed it goes *poof*.
if they go through with this i expect tears from people that used DBC then died before they could place things.
I thought certainly no one would pay DBC for Bounties (25 cents). Boy was I wrong (on Connery).
that'd be horrible spending real money to spawn something and have it destroyed before it can even get built lol.
personally the construction system scares me, its too much of a change, PS2 is an FPS not a sandbox.
I think that's my main issue with the idea ...
" You have cut us off from our Cortium supplies and are wearing down our defenses .. O well I will just buy more "
saturday before the word got round the test was canceled i was on Amerish and before long it was like urban combat with the all the fortresses popping up. libs landing thru shields into auto AA guarded repair pads. shts gonna get crazy
as far as people spending dbc on stuff.. if you Really wanna burn your money like that i guess go ahead, i look forward to c4ing/ap shelling your cash-wall lol
Another step toward P2W. First step was the Implant system. Now it's the construction system.
Players paying for construction items with Cortium will have to wait on it to be mined, keeping an eye on what's in the silo so as not to deplete it (which would lead to insufficient power to run the items deployed). Meanwhile, players paying with DBC keep the Cortium in the silos for a real advantage. They can build much faster while maintaining power.
NO! NOT MY CASH WALL!
I'm confused that the forums are generally positive about it. The last thing I want in my FPS is friggin Minecraft.
I think this is a mistake as well, maybe a better approach would have been to offer a system which lets you trade cortium for DBC and vis versa. So you can take cortium to the warpgate and exchange it for a tiny amount of DBC, the cortium would then go into the global supply for the faction.
A buyer could then simply get the cortium directly for DBC. Automatically filling ants or silos. This would create a simple market system but restrict the amount to only what has been collected, no cortium magically appearing out of thin air.
The thing is that construction system would provide always changing terrain and bases, which would keep the game always fresh (kinda).
I personaly love the idea of the construction system, not too complex, simple but effitive buildings, always changing bases, erc.
The players that dont give damn about bulding can enjoy destroing others creations while others love to create them, i fall in both gategories as i love creating and destroying, even more when there is alot players evolved.
However things like this keep me worried, as the monetization of the system, sure i was expecting that every turret and new building would cost but i didn't expect that players could just buypass the freaking resource gathering, that souds a real stupid move.
This game has always been in the thin line of "is it pay2win or not" as new player can buy everything with ingame currency, but start with huge disadvantage compared to more money and time spendin players (example the vehicles need huge invesments before you can actualy do any good tank or plane combat)
Implant system was a failiure and construction system does seem nice but fi players can jusr buy all the buildings without gathering resources that seems real big advantage to paying players. (i might be wrong with this one but at the moment it seems like it)
This actually sounds much better, trading system would be much better than just directly buying a building without any resources used.
When professionals (or modders for that matter) design a base they're motivated to keep it balanced. When a defender designs a base they're motivated to keep it as imbalanced as possible, so they can just farm the attacker. The bases in this game are already generally skewed in the defender's favour, and this is going to get a lot worse.
If the enemy destroyed it a few seconds ago, how will you defend a weaker version with less health and resistances in the 45 seconds it requires to build itself?
I think that ti's a pretty good system. You can pay so you need less time to build the basics, but you are still reliant on Cortium to build the base itself.
Not to mention with the item restrictions making it nearly impossible to get a solid fortress up solo I don't think this will be a big problem at all. At worst you'll see an Outfit gathering some Cortium, building a Silo, buying the rest of the fortress because collecting resources is a bit too tough and you have a flashmob fortress powered and well. So... Is that OP? Well no, it's not as if they can use it to attack. These Fortresses are stationary, they can only be build outside of base area's (which is a big mistake in my book) and at best such a fortress will be another objective to destroy before moving on to the next base. Some group might be able to stave off a single lane attack during an alert, that's about the worst that can happen.
I would love to see my enemies build an entire fortress quickly in between bases, such as between Quartz Ridge and Indar Excavation. It gives a nice extra dimension to the fight to first have to defeat a player-build fortress like that before moving on.
I'm not going to spend cash on something that can be bypassed by 200 nanites of air vehicle. Or something that could easily be destroyed or lost due to a server glitch/outage.
Actually I would say it's the other way around. Spawnroom aside, almost every base in the game is designed for the attackers.
The attackers have vehicle superiority, otherwise they wouldn't be able to place Sunderers and would be the defenders.
The attackers have variable spawnpoints to attack, the defenders usually do not have this because of the vehicle superiority of the attackers.
Many places around points and generators are designed to be defended... Which is great for the attackers once they take hold of it, because holding the point will cause the spawnroom to deactivate and win them the fight. The defenders in the meanwhile only push attackers off and then have to go look for that Sunderer, because as long as the spawnpoint of the attackers is still alive the defenders will never have won. Camping the point isn't an option as eventually they will lose, compared to the attackers who only have to hold it for a certain length of time this is a massive disadvantage for the defenders.
Now yes, a defender designing his base would be motivated to keep it as imbalanced as possible... but wouldn't the attackers have the same ideology?
I think that considering PS2's nature it would be best if the defenders got more advantages to begin with to hold the attackers back. More chokepoints, more area's that can be prepped in advance for an enemy attack, easier ways to travers the base (right now only AMP stations offer a real way to get everywhere through jumppads, we need more options and more bases with it to prevent spawn camping/spawn warriors) and more emphasis on area control for both attackers and defenders. However, the attackers get more points to attack in a base. They would be capable of destroying things throughout each base to stop the defenders from having the advantages, reducing the amount of chokepoints, stopping the defenders from traveling around the base easily and even turning defenses against their owners. This way you get a much more staged assault, where you start off with a small amount of defenders being capable of holding back a larger force through tactics using those defenses to their advantage. A tactical team of attackers can then systematically shut down each defensive perimiter, trying to hold back the defenders from repairing and reactivating it. Naturally, the more players there are the less real tactics you need to employ... But rather than attacks hinging on breaching a single point room, you could spread out your forces and attack/defend multiple places at the same time until they can beat the strong defender/attacker position. In smaller fights the defenders can't defend every advantage, but that's no problem because all the time the attackers spend destroying and converting base defenses is time that the defenders can put into either getting those defenses back online or destroying the enemy Sunderer.
Pay2Build is absolutely unacceptable, and would absolutely be a Pay2Win mechanic. If you want to build the base faster, put more people on harvester duty.
A fully constructed base can easily have tens of thousands of cortium units invested in it (most structures are around 750-1500 apiece, so any base with more than 10 structures, wall segments included, gets into the 10k+ range). They may still have to fuel the base, but paying to construct it will easily save them enough resources to run the base for hours longer than someone who didn't pay, or at least long enough that the base will be destroyed before they even have to attempt a resupply. It's far too powerful.
It also destroys any opportunity to create an integrated resource economy in the future, because the ability to effectively print resources with RL cash (an external factor that the game can't control) would make the economy nearly impossible to balance.
Some version of the proposed trading system might be more tolerable if they *insist* on monetizing this, since then you'd be shuffling resources that have already been earned the hard way instead of printing them out of thin air, and the ability to earn DBC as a cortium miner on the flipside might at least make for an interesting experiment. It'd be hard to do and easy to screw up, but at least that wouldn't be inherently boneheaded the way buying the stuff outright would be.
i'm generally positive (or atleast neutral!) about most things, but turning PS2 into a sandbox isn't one of those things!
if it was any other "f2p" game i wouldn't be too worried, if it sucks i'd just play another game like it.
but there are no other contenders for PS2, there are wannabes, but nothing touches the scale of PS2.
plus i've spent a considerable amount of time and an embarrassingly large amount of money on this game,
I dread the thought of it getting ruined.
and as the game has been out for 3 years, everyone playing is playing for what it is, a MMO combined arms FPS.
even if i personally don't mind the construction system, the massive change in direction is bound to turn hundreds of players away.
i hate being a doomsayer but i fear what the construction system will bring and i'd urge DBG to reconsider.
(though i guess they've put too much time and resources into it that they probably couldn't go back if they wanted too.)
it'd have been so much better if all of this time and effort was put into more faction specific weapons/vehicles,
bulk up the content while not completely altering the direction of the game.
Separate names with a comma.