New nanite system means members are buying power

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Kalivix, Aug 9, 2014.

  1. Goretzu

    Getting the whole game would be worth it (i.e. like a subscription game when you're basically paying a subscription), getting a P2W advantage is perhaps good in-game, but I'm not convinced it's value for money or ethical.
    • Up x 1
  2. Wecomeinpeace

    Completely missing the point and acting like a ****; That has to be one of the dumbest replies i have seen on here in a while.
  3. Nurath

    I didn't. I was quite happy with PS2 just before the patch.
  4. Jalek

    You would prefer paywalls, like only members can use Hossin? There're plenty of games like that.
  5. Moz

    Paying member since my Alpha Squad purchase, and IMHO this change gives the players that pay an advantage over players that dont, in that they can pull more tank or MAXs or air or spam their nades harder.

    This, simply, should not be IMHO.

    If the general mentality of the game keeps seeing these changes (sly way to make it more benificial for paying players) I will cancel my own sub as i dont support ANY P2W game and never will.

    P2W kills the whole ethos of gaming and should be stamped out of PC gaming all together! Its almost as damaging to gaming as EA.... ALMOST!
    • Up x 2
  6. Jalek

    You know there are also resource boosts which probably stack. With continent control some costs are already halved, but I still haven't seen anyone complaining about being out of resources in-game, just the forums.
    I think F2P is the true problem with gaming, there used to be free games, but the few that would exist also run cash shops now.
  7. hostilechild

    I have membership and constantly at 750 even chain pulling whatever. At the same time my son doesn't have membership and he too can pull whatever he wants whenever, never really out of resources. You only have to live for a couple minutes, hell it usually takes that long just to get into the fight with a vehicle or to die as a MAX. Only way i found to deplete resources was grenade bandolier and spam revive grenades over and over at towers. And still 3-4 minutes later back to full (go get a drink). Way better/worse depending on view point than before patch. Especially if you are the underpopped faction with no territory.

    Will see how it goes as they tweak things.
  8. Goretzu

    No, but if you're paying a subscription in PS2 (which is basically exactly what "membership" is) then you should have full access to the game like you did in PS1. i.e. all weapons and vehicles availible (but not upgrades - they still have to be bought as is) and you'd lose access to them (unless you specifically bought them) if you stopped membership/subscription (although you'd retain upgrades if you bought them or renewed membership).

    With the current system you're basically paying a subscription AND still not having full access to the game which is baffling. o_O

    As someone else mentioned there should also be 3 classes of PS2 player I think.

    1). Pure F2P.
    2). "Good customer F2P" - i.e. someone that doesn't have membership, but has spend a significant amount on the game.
    3). Membership/subscription.

    With perks as you go from 1 to 3.
  9. Gambitual

    Can we get a count? This is like the 10th thread in the past week about the resource revamp being P2W.

    As a quick aside, I am F2P right now. I don't have a problem with any aspect of this game being P2W. I know the devs need money and that paying players should get some sort of advantage. But advantage doesn't automagically mean they are 'winning.' I have never been low on resources to the point where my fresh infantry spawn couldn't use a grenade.

    I implore anyone who thinks it is P2W to read my responses in other threads. I really don't feel like linking to stuff I already said and I also don't feel like repeating it.

    However, here are a few things to consider. Resource timers were a restriction, but that doesn't stop the fact that money got you more resources in the old system. As far as timers go, you could pay for XP boosts which would get you more certs which means you could lower your timer faster. Again, I go into greater length in other threads about this supposed problem.

    Lastly, this is such a minor thing. Whether it is hard, factual P2W or not, stop complaining on the forums, especially considering the many threads we have on the subject, and either quit or get back in the fight.
    • Up x 1
  10. Crator

    So more resources then someone else means "Win"? You can only win with resources (or have an huge advantage over someone else with them) and can only obtain them with money?
    You're misusing the term pay-to-win.... Oh well... To each his own I guess....
  11. UberBonisseur

    What if I'm a paying player, but use the Microtransaction model instead of the Subscription ?

    What if I'm deliberately not subscribing because I believe it's unfair to promote a P2W system ?

    Why are people defending the very incarnation of P2W in PS2 (be stronger as long as you throw cash)
    • Up x 1
  12. acksbox

    This isn't what casual means, nor are either of these goals implied by one's subscription status.

    Being free to play doesn't mean you cannot pull your weight, and being a subscriber doesn't mean you are necessarily there when your side could use you.

    Not that these have anything to do with subscription status either, but I'm usually a lonewolf (and was when even I was sinking a fair bit of cash money into the game), and I quite frequently contribute quite tangibly to the success of my faction in taking and holding terrain. It's not terribly difficult, even as a lone player, outside of any squad, to see where there are gaps in an attack or defense, and apply one's self effectively to filling them. Friendly sunderer just went down? I have a well upgraded one I can place. Too many enemy sunderers in the area? I can probably take a few out, by myself, and often do. Not enough AA? I have two bursters with extended mags and I know how to lead a target (and with NAR 5, I do not need a pocket engineer). A lot of people dying at the point? My medic has revive grenades and a grenade bandoleer. Enemies just need to die, well, playing cautiously may be a definite contributor to my 7.2 KDR, but I can still keep up a ~4.0 rushing headlong into combat as Heavy Assault, if need be.

    I can read a map, and I can often place myself where I am most useful before most squad leaders realize what's going on.

    I don't farm and the ~50k certs I've spent came slowly, unaugmented by subscriptions or boosts, so I have a lot of time and experience with almost everything I've got. I don't lonewolf to tail zergs and rack up certs I no longer need, I lonewolf because I feel I am more flexible and effective this way, not to mention being able to actually hear the enemy over incessant and often useless chatter I typically encounter with voice enabled in-game, or in an outfit TS3 server.

    I would prefer that the only things one could buy with fiat currency or station cash were cosmetic items, so everyone was on precisely the same footing.

    I would personally be more inclined to subscribe if this were the case. Now, due to recent trends I find far more damaging than pay-to-win, I probably wouldn't subscribe regardless (introduction of the lattice system, changes to base/reactor setup, and the new resource system have all moved the game in exactly the opposite direction of what I find enjoyable), but I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel the advantages to be had by subscribing were a turn off.

    Resources can certainly be a contributor to success. It's not common in the current system, but it was more relevant in the past, and is likely to be relevant again soon as the adjust the rate/costs further.

    I'm not misusing the term. The idea that pay-to-win must mean you insert money and win with no further investment is obviously and blatantly an overly narrow use of the term.

    Any system that provides any tangible mechanical/gameplay advantage based on how much money one has invested into the game rightly falls under "pay-to-win".

    I've purchased quite a few weapons with Station Cash, and I'd be lying through my teeth if I said they didn't give me a tangible advantage. Afterall, I didn't buy them to auraxium them, I bought them to fill a niche that involved killing people and destroying enemy assets.
  13. DFDelta

    Would be worth complaining about, if you were able to run out of nanites in the first place.

    The only time I have ever managed to even get close was on my secondary F2P account, when I was playing medic with revive nades and a bandoleer and I kept spam-throwing them for rezzes because I was too busy applying dakka to NC faces to bother with the handheld tool. And even that took me 15 or so minutes to run out.

    Also I do think that this system is actually less P2W then the old one.
    Old system as a member you could (almost) always pull everything as well, at least if you were not on a continent with something like 15% terrain owned for your faction. Plus the existence of the very expensive timer cert lines, which favored the players who had certs to spare for things that bring no immediate benefit (which is basically subscribers and the top maybe 10% of F2P players.).
  14. _itg

    The one thing I don't get is how people flipped out when SOE tested that nanite refill purchase item because "OMG P2W!!!1!", then the exact same people are defending this permanent 50% resource boost. For the record, neither of this things particularly bothers me, but I think the resource boost is far more P2W than that resource refill item.

    On a side note, it's not like the whole system of purchasable weapons isn't fundamentally P2W in the first place. An ESF with rockets or missiles is objectively stronger than one without them. Tanks are stuck with HEAT by default, which seem strictly worse than either AP or HE, depending on what you want to do. a MAX can't be effective in any of its three roles with just the default weapons, since you're otherwise forced to create awkward mixes.

    This is to say nothing of weapon attachments, which are often straight upgrades over the basic weapon, or camo, which can give you a small advantage but can never be earned for free in any amount of time (obviously I'm talking about the camos designed to actually camouflage you).
  15. nubery

    No, I didn't. OP is crying P2W and wants the convenience that paying players are getting, but without paying.

    If the tanks subbed players pulled were stronger than f2p tanks, he'd have an arguement. They aren't. The tanks subs and f2p pull are the same except frequency. That's the nature of a f2p game that is not p2w.

    Cash for convenience, convenience to keep the game running.
  16. DQCraze

    They specifically advertises free 2 play your way. I'm always bewildered by the lack of understanding on the economic side of this game by people. Micro transactions are here to stay. You have no idea what's coming and it isn't pretty. You think it's bad in this game? Go play in Asia. They are blatant about pay to win. It will be here soon enough. You can buy guns that are more powerful then regular stuff.
  17. FateJH

    I wrote it before in this thread, and I don't know if you answered, but you never explained what it meant to "get the whole game." Actually, I believe you did assemble some answer that left me confused and I requested a second confirmation. What does it mean to "get the whole game" and how does one player not "get the whole game," either at all or when in comparisond to another player?
  18. Rift23

    If F2P players are self-entitled, members think their pocket change is the only thing keeping the game going.

    So someone who pays $15 a month for three months is more lucrative than someone who pays $50 in a three month period?
  19. Goretzu

    Subs help with long-term stability, I think it is only fair that they have perks (but probably not P2W ones).

    In a normal subscription game you have access to everything, all content (except more recently some cosmetic or vanity items and expansions - in games that still do them), you may have to level to access it, but there is no hidden or extra cost.

    In PS1 you had access to the whole game with a subscription, in PS2 you don't (even though membership is a subscription effectively), you just have access to boosts of varying kinds.

    Although my biggest issue with SOE membership isn't that, it is having to leave an open card to get all the benefits (which is just plain daft online).
  20. TheBlindFreak

    Lol, non-paying players are much better off on this system than the old one. The only one was BS for everyone.

    Not to mention that this is only a transition period to the end resource system.

Share This Page