Construction items can be spawned and placed with DBC ($)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by HadesR, Apr 11, 2016.

  1. Foxirus

    In all seriousness however, Am I the only one worried about what higby said?

    "For every item you place, Thats one less player that will render for you.."
    • Up x 2
  2. Trudriban


    Everyone here: Dude what the hell people can bypass the resource system entirely what the heck!? This is unfair and promotes winning through wallets!

    RadarX: Okay I hear those concerns but I don't care, peeps that spend money will be able to do it again if you shoot em
  3. Demigan

    Well considering every single player that already renders is one less player that renders for you isn't giving a lot of trouble (at least for me), I don't think it's that much of a problem?

    Correction: A lot of the people who have no idea about what constitutes as P2W here: "Dude what the hell people can bypass the resource system entirely what the heck!? This is unfair and promotes winning through wallets!"

    People who have knowledge about the construction system and have a bit more knowledge about P2W: "People what the hell people won't be able to bypass the resource system, they can speed up construction and would need to pay like 20 dollars for half a fortress. There's practically no way you can get enough advantage through paying even if you have 100.000 dollars to sink into the game due to the construction limitations".

    RadarX after a question about what happens if you die before placing your expensively bought building piece: "Don't worry, that money will be refunded if you did not get a chance to actually use it, which is well and fair for the customer base".

    Don't be so shortsighted.
    • Up x 4
  4. AxiomInsanity87

    Even if the construction was p2w, you can't zerg people with a gun turret and players are limited anyway.

    Unless i can push a button for an "i win bunker"
  5. WTSherman

    The whole reason I don't like this change is I'm looking ahead: if the resource system be bypassed, then it can never be developed into anything that has meaning or depth. This is severely curtailing our options for future development.

    The building blocks that the construction system introduces could potentially lay the foundation for a grand unified resource system, one where everything from tanks to turrets, from rockets to respawns, has a cost and a value. A living, dynamic economy that is woven throughout the battlefield and pulls the strings of war from the background.

    But it cannot grow into that if it has to operate within the restrictions of being buyable with cash. If you can pay to bypass the core resource, then the only way to keep it from becoming pay to win will be to cut it off at the knees and keep the construction system as a small, compartmentalized, irrelevant gimmick.
    • Up x 4
  6. Moridin6

    personally i really really hope people drop cash on it left and right

    costing NC and TR scum money?, well you just count me right the F in ;)
    • Up x 1
  7. Demigan

    It can grow, why shouldn't it? Why should it be a direct way to bypass the resource system?
    A unified economy does not have to mean player's personal resource economy needs to be directly hooked up with it. The resources aren't buyable with cash, only the setpieces are. The personal economy would basically be an IOU system, where the resources you "have" are just the resources you are entitled to when you get to a base. So if you buy something, regardless of it using your personal resources or money, the unified/global resources need to be present. So every single rocket, tank, turret and respawn would still be completely build upon the resource system without money being able to circumvent it, only the amount you are "entitled" to can be circumvented by paying money.
    Of course, the construction system would still be "bought resources", but that could be tied in as well couldn't it? Rather than it appearing out of nowhere, paying money for the setpieces detracts resources from somewhere else. The previous base, the warpgate or something similar. If the resources in the designated base are too low, it will draw from another base etc. This means that even when paying money to accelerate building a fortress you still use resources from that global economy, and have to manage that.

    Before it's misunderstood, the personal resources wouldn't be based on "we have this much available and we divide it equally", because that would give problems with respawns if everyone spend their resources and wouldn't be able to respawn. The personal resource system could still be based upon a timer, with possible additions like in the old days where destruction of property could get you an increased resource gain. For instance, you get 10% of the total resource cost for everything you destroy, and the assist % for everything you help destroy (to help incentivize players to keep shooting a target rather than try to killsteal). Infantry wouldn't cost much, only the respawn value, but vehicles, turrets etc would cost more. You could hang some statistics on that, encouraging people to hunt for the most enemy resources destroyed rather than going for the most kills.

    I think that you are a bit too negative about it. This is just one solution, I think that with time we can easily come up with multiple solutions that easily tie in the monetary system into the global economy without breaking a stride. Just designating it as "special ops privilages" or something that would be too costly for every soldier on the field to use but possible for a select few soldiers (IE paying one's) would solve most plotholes.
    Also, considering the cost and the return it wouldn't be a terrible problem. They buy tanks with money when they ran out of resources? That's not buying power because we have an imbalanced game to start with. Often the attackers have half a dozen tanks while the defenders don't have any, add another money-bought tank of a player that obviously wasn't as careful to that and nothing much has changed. As long as the only thing you buy is a shortened personal time to get something it does not matter in PS2. If the building itself was accelerated you might have a point, but otherwise there is nothing much to be gained but personal fun by accelerating the pace at which you can spawn stuff.
  8. Foxirus

    Just because you don't see the rendered player doesn't mean you can't be killed by them. Ever hacked someone out of a turret only to be killed by an invisible person who appears 1-2 seconds after you're dead? Thats effectively what can happen.
  9. Demigan

    What you are describing is the latency system at work. You only see the player after the exact latency time for that person has expired.

    Of course it's a problem if one player sees you but that player doesn't render to you, but that's just as much possible with as without the construction system. Seeing that nowadays a 3-way fight with 96+ on each side is fully possible without too much problems I doubt that this will be a problem any time soon.
    In fact, I think I heard somewhere that every single building in the game has the same effect. Every setpiece, every crate and every building leeches another player that can be rendered. They did find a way that duplicates did not add to that anymore so that 6 of the same building still counted as one with only the processing power for loading the polygons being extra or something like that, but still the end result would be that inside an AMP station with it's many unique setpieces you would already see similar problems as with the construction system fortresses.

    Are AMP stations a big problem right now? I don't think so, I don't see a lot of complaints about it. So I think that even with extensive fortresses, the amount of rendering issue's this will give will be more than manageable.
    As a reminder, anyone seen the stress-test video? They spawned easily a hundred of the things without problem, only when they started spawning them by the hundreds more, everything clipping together and the ground from Quartz Ridge to Indar Excavation completely filled with constructibles, only then did it become a problem. People won't be building random walls and fortress pieces, and you are limited with how many you can place anyway, so I don't think it will be a problem anywhere.
    • Up x 1
  10. Foxirus

    I am not gonna lie. I am fully expecting to see dick shapes built using walls and structures... Do you really have that much faith people won't build randomly? Good luck getting Pugside2 to build efficiently.
  11. Demigan

    I think the dick builders will want one thing above all: That people see it and react. So you'll find these at the frontlines, not in the middle of nowhere. And even if someone is going to keep up a single dick fortress in the middle of nowhere... Why not? In the middle of nowhere it does take some server resources, but on the whole it would require a lot of these special people to cause problems for the server.

    You know, as surprising as it sounds a dick shaped fortress might actually have some stragetic merit. We'll see that after it's been tried by players. And who knows? Maybe shooting someone elses dick to pieces is incredibly therapeutic... At least this is one dick joke that you can obliterate if you don't enjoy it.
    • Up x 1
  12. Moridin6

    frankly ill be disappointed if i dont see some dicks/creative stuff lol

    • Up x 2
  13. FieldMarshall

    Im going to assume they already thought of this problem when balancing the construction system. (If not, then wtf)
    With that in mind, im not going to bother judging it until i have seen how everything performs on live for a few weeks.

    So if everything is balanced then i really hope people spend money on it.
    More money means they can/could pay to hire more devs/programmers. Which means faster balancing and faster/more content.
    • Up x 1
  14. Demigan

    It's not going to be a problem. In fact, paying customers would be more likely to offer a challenge that players enjoy with a more complete fortress to assault and turn to dust than a crushing defeat because they bought a fortress 300+m out from any base. Also you aren't buying direct power with it, at least not direct power that's going to change the metagame too much. It can be useful to limit the amount of resources you lose building things, but it's far from necessary. Bringing two more ANT's with resources would probably solve most of your building problems anyway. You still can't beat the build-time requirement, you still can't beat the construction limit for each building piece.

    So even if the developers didn't think about it, it's going to be fine.
    In fact I think this might be the best buying feature you could wish for. This isn't just paying to get a feature or power for yourself, it's paying to get a feature for everyone. Everyone can man that wall, those turrets or benefit from the modules you make. Everyone can enjoy assaulting those walls, enjoy infiltrating it and blowing it up. It's unlikely to be the pivotal reason why they won or lost anything (considering that same power could have been brought there with Cortium anyway), and everyone can build the same stuff with resources (and boy if I got paid the amount of money per hour for building one solid fortress, I would be rich!)
    • Up x 1
  15. Moridin6

    i bet some New outfits pop up with construction orientated name, and maybe theyll be about paying for it or maybe not. id join one of their squads if i saw it in the list and help out maybe people doing that will be enough to get some real bases built, maybe not..

    im always a fan of the game getting money, and this doesnt seem very pay to win as it still would take a force of wallet wielders to get anything done. im betting more on a Few will pay but most will just try for ole fashioned teamwork
    • Up x 1
  16. Foxirus


    I am awaiting the day to hear this over comms.
    • Up x 2
  17. ArcKnight

    DBC will allow you to add skins, decals and ribbons on your construction stuff...... thats the only thing that I would consider as non-game-breaking way to spend real money on construction