Hey. I have been posting here for awhile. I decided to make a video to express some thoughts I had. tl;dw- Using rescources already in the game, we could tweak the cost of items and free ourselves from sidegrades. This forum post led me to make the video. I'd appreciate feedback on the idea, thanks.
Wait, what? My mind is shutting down reading that. Am I supposed to consider sidegrades a bad thing? General criticism of the video. Your target audience is Planetside veterans, they don't need Planetside explained to them. They don't need to be told how Nanites work. Going over stuff people already know is pretty boring, skip it. And your overall presentation is pretty boring itself. Very matter of factly, no personality, no enthusiasm or emotion, completely monotone, like you're reading from a script. That needs to be improved or you're better off sticking to text. Because you won't hook viewers like that.
You plainly do not understand game balance if you think the right direction is to change purchased weapons from sidegrades into upgrades.
I tried to like this, I really did. There's some decent underlying notions here; there's been plenty of bantering about the idea of making more tricked-out vehicles cost more resources to spawn, for example. But what's being proposed here is extremely overcomplicated.
While I generally disagree with everything in the video for various reasons, that inaccuracy was hard to watch, and was the one thing I focused on the most.
Yeah no thanks. Nobody wants to pay for using their items in a nanites per life or per seconds alive way and screw energy or cert consumption completely. As of how this would effect the game? The entire playerbase goes to CS:GO or COD full time. Also since you believe in no side grades your suggesting we make something brokenly OP and give it a passive cost, also no.
its comments like that which cause everyone to make bland kill montages and cut out their bad moments. personally i think its refreshing to see a PS2 video that isn't just a bunch of kills cherry picked from months of play and strung together.
I can't say I really truly like those either, at least not a rare few. But I don't want to spend all of my nanites on what I would normally get for free only to be instantly killed by a passing ESF and lose it all instantly. It punishes players that push an objective and rewards players that spawn camp and who avoid direct conflict as much as possible. I can see it now: 20 HAs with maxed out equipment camping a launch pad at a biolab while the attackers can seldom afford anything but the cheap and free. Besides, that horrible spam-fest was unlike anything I've ever seen before.
Question: Why would people Want to Paid More Certs to get something? No one buys the new guns as it is. Everyone as far as I know uses the default guns. Anything else people buy are upgrades or new turrets/rockets for their vehicles. Besides increased spawn times will slow down the game.
Thanks. I work at a call center so it's a bit too easy to kinda go flat. Ill work on that for next time. That's the criticism I wanted. And no, I don't personally consider sidegrades inherently bad. I just think the other mechanics are under utilized and could be spread around to add variety. Look at the equipment that already uses nanites. Having a grenade is better than not having a grenade. Equipping a grenade is an upgrade. I just don't see a reason to stop it there. Why not suit slots? Why not any slot?
Yeah, I am not very good. But I do what I can to have fun. I'm hoping a better mouse can aid in the accuracy department, but I know I am no MLG pro player. Could you elaborate on your thoughts? We already pay nanites per life for some equipment. Nobody seems to complain about the cost of medkits or C4. And implants work perfectly fine, in addition to involving a direct upgrade system with their tiers. I buy new guns. I bring new friends into the game and they buy new guns. You would pay more of one cost so that it would cost you less of other resources. Can you elaborate on what you think? I'm here to find out what you all think. Thanks. I suppose it is a bit complicated. Ill keep that in mind for my next video about firearm mechanics. Do you have any other thoughts?
I think all your idea will do is complicate the game to the point where the average player will be severely limited and it will stagnate gameplay.
I don't see the problem with sidegrades, as long as they are in the spirit of the faction(I'm looking at you, GD-7F). As far as spending nanites to have more effective weapons goes, I don't like the idea because it will make deaths more frustrating and farming even easier.
i like some of the general ideas having a more "powerfull" weapon but has some sort of drawback somewhere else is interesting i particularly like the one example of something making you slower as a drawback and something like this i wouldnt be opposed to like a really hard hitting very accurate anti air weapon but makes you super slow and makes you easy to snipe as a drawback.Stuff like this would bring some interesting scenarios into the game but and this is a big but balancing it would be a huge thing for the devs granted they could reuse systems already in the game the numerical values each one would have would require extensive testing. Also making sure the drawback is an appropriate drawback i personally would prefer things that hinder certain areas of your effectiveness for more effectiveness elsewhere say like a heavy weapon with a large magazine turning you into a snail for the trade off of sustained fire or an overclocked smg that has a faster TTK but has the drawback of reducing your shield because it needs the extra power something on thees lines granted thees wouldnt really be straight upgrades as the would be more drastic sidegrade weapons that would be extremely powerful for certain playstyles and squad composition but thees would have their own issues.(he who ambushes doesnt mind that hes a glass cannon). Lastly the cost of upgraded weapons in general i wouldn't be opposed to having blatantly better weapons butt having more than one resource for them to use up would be a bit too complicated and could likely be exploited simply having them use nanites would be a better option in my opinion for simplicity sake and having the 1 resource would still require them to be careful with how they use it. An example of how they this system would kind of play out - a max is the infantry resource costing unit to provide a powerful response to air ground or infantry as needed however lets say having a powerful rocket launcher for the heavy assault that's easily better but not quite as good as pulling a max but costs 225 nanites to spawn with and when you die you have to pay again just like with a max an easy example would be lets say a max is pulled with pounders to deal with close range armor and some infantry a heavy would be able to equip a weapon thats basically 1 of the maxes pounders but for half the price sure he doesnt have the durability of the max but he also has the diversity of the rest of his equipment so it kind of evens out.
A ~20%ish average small arms accuracy is not too bad for PlanetSide! Certainly better that what was shown in the video! (No offence!) I think a better mouse would probably help quite a lot. My mouse is fairly cheap too, and it doesn't really let me make small movements very well, so recoil control and high-powered optics are a little bit more difficult than they should be, methinks. Certainly. I think that such a system would punish high-risk players that push for an objective, and reward players that hang back in a relative safety. It would sort of become more important to not die than to get into the thick of it and try to defend/capture a point or base. I feel that it would add an unnecessary complexity to the game, and would become difficult for new players to utilize and compete against. And, depending on the way it were taken, one might need to spend all of their resources just to have what they do now, or that one player could have all of the best equipment. I also feel that such a system would heavily punish players that are not the best, and/or die frequently as even if they used the cheapest equipment there was, (that has a cost anyway), they would still be losing resources faster than they gain them, or at a rate that leaves them stranded with nothing but the most basic equipment. Another issue would be that if one were to go all out on a loadout and spend everything they had, they could lose everything they had if someone shot them in the back as they left the spawnroom. Then they would have nothing when they next spawned, and would probably die faster than usual, getting stuck in a loop for a while.
Yeah, this GE mouse is crap. I literally cannot move it less than ~25 pixels at a time in game. Also my .75 ADS speed matches my KDR. I bring shame upon my family. I like a lot of what you are saying. I get that you could spend all your resources and then get TKed, that does suck. It shines a light on why you don't pay to spawn c4 or nanite equipment currently, or rather it's not lost when you die, only when you use it. I want to stress that what I put forward was not intended to be all end all, I just wanted to provoke thought. Like someone showing you how you can mix two sodas at the fountain. It could open possibilities if done right, but don't mix Pepsi and orange juice. I get how losing all your resources would put you in a corner against whoever assails you, but the ideas could be set up so that cheap/free equipment spawns faster. Done right you could allow a lower population to outzerg a zerg because they spawn faster. Or at least even the fight a bit. Thanks for your thoughts
Yeah, cheap mice are quite bad for games like this. Too bad all of the good mice are so expensive! I understand what you mean. There certainly could be quite a few unique features that could really strengthen PS2's gameplay. I just think that it would be hard to implement them correctly. Happy to answer!
