This is just a design idea I was kicking around: How would you implement vehicle specialization in the open you-can-do-anything format of PS2? My answer: Introduce a cert item call "<Vehicle> Focus". When certed, reduces the resource cost of that vehicle/MAX. However, you can only have one active at a time; certing a new Focus removes the previous one. This means: -Players can still do everything, but cannot pull everything all the time -Players with a Focus can keep a higher uptime of their favorite vehicle -We can balance a player vs the masses' ability to pull vehicles. If MAX crashes, Sundie herds, etc are too powerful then we have separate levers for adjusting the cost of an entire platoon pulling something compared to a dedicated player who loves the platform. -Introduces a Cert sink, letting players trade certs for resources if they switch Focus often -Possibly makes DBC money, if you allow these to be purchased with DBC, or maybe membership gives you all Focus for free (remove resource gain bonus?). Speaking on, why can't we buy resource boosts with certs? Seems like that should be a thing. -Focus cert costs can be different. Transports like Gal and Sunderer should be cheap, while MBTs and MAX would cost more. Trading between support should be cheaper than trading between killing vehicles. -Players should start with one by default. Ideally they get to pick which, otherwise Sunderer? Not really arguing that this must be in the game, but might be interesting and be a fair way for DBC to make some money. Love it, or have something that you want to add to make it better? Let's discuss that. Hate it, or think it's not something that even needs solving? Let's discuss that.
PS1 had this system, where you could only specialize as a few infantry classes or a few vehicles, but not all at once. You could reset this specialization occasionally, but not frequently enough to have easy access to everything. The thing though is that PS1 was a paid subscription based-game, while PS2 is a F2P paid cosmetic based-game. By limiting access to certain vehicles or certain classes, this means that players may be less likely to purchase cosmetics or weapons for vehicles or classes they do not have regular access to. And less cosmetics purchased negatively impacts the revenue stream. For example, currently I spend almost no time on Flashes. Hence my Flash has very few Flash-specific cosmetics purchased for it. If there were other vehicles I had less access to, I would be less likely to spend money on those as well. That's the crux of the problem. Specialization in vehicles and infantry would be good for gameplay but bad for revenue. You have gameplay requirements running up against revenue requirements... and in the end those servers have got to be paid for, right?
On the flipside.. those things you do specialize into, one does spend a ton on cosmetics. For example my Harasser that I love to drive is tricked out. I've not tricked out other vehicles. Might do the ANT if I like the gameplay of it. With that said, I dunno about a 'Focus' system like the OP says. I just don't really see the need for it. I mean its interesting. But with how nanites come out so fast for vehicles. Its just not that noticeable. Even with a 50% cost we currently have from continents.
Well what it would do is encourage teamwork. Say for example that as an infantryman I have "specialized" in an G2G launcher but I lack an AA launcher. This means that I need to stick close to other players who have specialized in infantry or vehicle-based AA. Or if I specialized in AP tanks it might mean that I couldn't pull AA tanks. Again, that forces me into teamwork. That's a bit of a different system than what the OP was talking about, but it's closer to PS1. Those hard limits mean that if your side went all HA, then you might lose out on other things (like Medics and Engineers).
