Test Patch Notes 7/8

Discussion in 'Test Server: Announcements' started by d_carey, Jul 8, 2014.

  1. Astriania

    I hope phase 2 is high up in the queue. But this is a good change overall, even if balancing could be a bit painful. It was dumb that someone could pull a lib, an ESF, a tank and a lightning one after the other and then come C4 you. High value items should be restricted and they just aren't under the old system.

    The only problem I see is that there's really no benefit to holding territory now, and no reason to cut enemies off. Pulling stuff in a cut off territory, or in enemy territory (from a sundy or hacked terminal), should cost more.
  2. NCDaniel

    Max is going to be one expensive purchase.
  3. Rtwpygbzstpqacihfd


    What? Getting plane, tank, infantry is not considered spam you muppet, it's what we want - players to use all the features of the game so it's varied.
  4. Rtwpygbzstpqacihfd

    No offence mate, but your ideas suck. We want to shoot things and blow up vehicles not 'gather resources'.
  5. Rtwpygbzstpqacihfd

    Sorry but this is the worst change SOE could have possibly made. There was nothing wrong with the system as it is right now. This is one feature not needed.
    • Up x 1
  6. vsae

    I cant see how you're not going to chain use tank aircraft infantry, unless if you just pull them in order to suicide.
    60 nanites in a minute equals 300 in 5 minutes which currently gives you about 150 maximum ( 70-90 average) for every category.
    In essence its 450 different resources vs 300 same resources, so it forces a bit of specialization with the added benefit of no timer.

    You will still be able to play all the things and chain pull them, except if you die 30 seconds after spawning. Its just you will no longer be able to hoard resources needed for infantry and air while tanking, which result in massive careless spam of vehicles and maxes.
  7. ZenitHMaster

    After this phase one of the resource revamp, my scouter reads my certs are:

  8. ZenitHMaster

    That's no glitch, the cloak that regenerates when you stop walking, disables your primary
  9. Czuuk

    Not talking about instant action. Talking about redeploying halfway across the map to go to defend a base without using any resources to get there.

    Logically don't see why it shouldn't cost nanites to redeploy. Our bodies are being rebuilt by nanites. But meh. I'm only fantasizing. I know the free to play games cater to the short attention span crowd.
  10. DatVanuMan

    You misunderstood my post. What I was saying is that Instant Action gets you to the fights. However, it doesn't always get you to the good ones, let alone any fights at all. We do rebuild our bodies with nanites, but must a whole logistic side be added to the game that may ruin the experience of many players? How does free redeploying affect you?
  11. Redford

    My main concern is resource multipliers (via station upgrades) could be a serious problem. Let me explain. Currently, the plan is to make it so you can starve an enemy out. Option one is forcing them to deploy so much equipment that they run out of unified resources (which is hard with the current system, it's possibly to end up with so much income it's literally almost impossible to spend it even without a resource multiplier). Option two which is TBR is to cut off resource flow to a base by cutting out power ALA PS1. This is immune to multipliers. There will be NO resource benefit to a cut base which means there is nothing to multiply. Station benefits, however, will greatly influence option one.

    This may be as the current situation with antiair equipment or MAX guns, the fact that everyone doesn't start with it is intended as a form of balance. I think this may still potentially sap the legitimacy of the new system however. Also, there is the thought of Intended or Professional play. It is clearly intended that for professional level play all guns should be unlocked. However, with the recent addition of implants and now resources based on a sliding scale of usability based on how much money you pay Sony, how much is the intended value for the baseline? Is in the default amount, or somewhat higher then that? This is something that will need to be considered if you ever want PS2 to be a real legitimate Esport.

    I really want resources to be important. I want fewer C4 faeries and less rocket spam. I want ground armor to be a legitimate means to an end, rather then being countered by something that you can spam for zero resources. We shall see if these systems help fix these issues.
  12. dirtYbird

    If you want to clamp down on people playing a style different to what you envision then could we please at least have the ability to be able to move vehicles and MAX's from continent to continent and/or the ability to get a refund on those Nanite credits when a continent locks you out or you want to change continents.
    What a waste of resources I am making in trying to defend a lockout when I know I will not be able to use that vehicle or MAX on the new continent. And if I pulled them late in the fight I will have to sit around the new warp gate for 8mins while I recover the spent Nanites.

    This new system in its current form looks like its going to be so restrictive on playing the game how you would like or are accustom to.
    gg PS4.
  13. Juno

    While the idea looks good on paper, I am not sure how I feel about it after messing with it a bit. I am still hoping to see the Sunderer transport thing, and it would nice to see it boost players incomes whenever a successful delivery is made.

    Giving a steady 60 Nanites to everyone sounds fair... But, giving members more while removing timers seems a bit unfair.
    • Up x 1
  14. Predator01cz

    This is exactly how I see it.
    Either I'm missing something crucial or perhaps there will be a super magical continuation to this (soon - e.g. 4-5 years)
    But to me this seems like extreme dumbing down of the game and completely wiping any traces of metagame.

    I'm not QQing because I'd be hurt, I pull libs like crazy and I will only benefit from this. But I really really don't like this.
    As many people said now, there's absolutely no point in holding territories other than capping a continent.

    I was hoping for a more complex resource system. There's many good suggestions on this forum and youtube alike, plenty of them really deepen the meta in PS2.

    What we wanted (and mostly already have):
    - 3 independent resources
    - resource income dependent on owned and connected facilities
    - income dependent on current location
    - empire resources stockpile
    - more complex distribution of resources to connected bases from WG
    - more complex distribution at current base depending on amount of players and current base's resources reserves

    But no... what devs give us:
    -unified resource
    -steady income independent of territory and current location
    -pack of diapers
    -a babysitter

    This better not be coming live anytime soon
  15. _itg


    Serious question--do you really think having resource income dependent on owned facilities adds any strategy to the game? I mean, the strategy is: get more territory. Is the game much deeper because you can say, "let's attack the base that give us slightly more air resources instead of the one that gives us slightly more armor resources"?

    I also fail to see the problem that there will be no point in holding territories. I mean, there's no point in any of this if you don't enjoy the fights. As it is, nothing you do has a lasting impact on the world.

    The current system absolutely sucks for the losing faction. It's clearly designed to make sure the loser keeps losing, which is fun for no one. And it reinforces the power of a population advantage, in particular, since the resource advantage is multiplied by that population advantage.

    I'll agree that consolidating the resources into one pool dumbs down the game a little, though.
  16. Pootisman

    WAAAAAAT

    This sounds like dumbing down the game to me.

    [IMG]

    So all territory will be worthless after the ressource revamp? People will stay in the same CERT farms forever (biolabs, towers). Why capture new territory when it doesnt give any benefits?
    • Up x 1
  17. Pootisman

    They need to put that in the first post, the patch notes alone are really confusing. It sounds like they are about to f*ck up the game with some dumbed down, COD player friendly system.
    • Up x 1
  18. ZephyrBurst

    They've already said that in the next iteration of this, that bases would have their own power which supply resources; that they'd also need to be powered by the ANT (well a Sunderer module) if the base is under heavy load. This is just the first step of the resource revamp. I do hope the next phase comes quick though.
    • Up x 1
  19. Czuuk

    No, I got your point. You're just debating something that I am not. I don't care about instant action.

    What I care about is the ability of multiple platoons to redeploy halfway across the map with ten seconds of downtime and no resource cost so they can ROFLstomp a carefully orchestrated combined arms assault of one platoon that took 10 or 15 minutes to organize.
  20. DatVanuMan

    That doesn't have to be the case. The leader can just say,"Instead of deploying to the Sunderers at Indar Excavation Site, get some vehicles from Quartz! Let's go people, the TR armored column will arrive any moment now! Instead of making redeploy bad (By nerfing it or changing it into a very complex system), just make convoy participation much more rewarding:)
    • Up x 1