Would you sub/unsub if resource boosts were removed from membership?

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

  1. SteelMantis

    With the resource change coming let's talk about one of the only real pay to win parts of the game, resource boosts in general and the member resource boost in particular.

    I hate pay to win and so also hate the current system of giving people who pay increased access to more force multipliers in the form of infantry consumables, Maxes and vehicles. An increased access that a free player can not get no matter how well they play which puts it in a much worse category of pay to win then weapons and scopes.

    I would love to see both the member resource increase and resource boosts removed with the resource revamp.

    I think it would be a very good thing for new player retention as well as PS2's and SOE's reputation in the gaming world but how would it effect your plans to sub or unsub?

    I am not currently subbed (and never have been) and plan to reach BR100 then take stock of how the P2W side of the game is before deciding to sub or not. But I am pretty much out of hats and camos I want and do want to support a non-P2W PS2. If the resource boosts were gone I would sub immediately.

    I'm not a non-subscription member because of a shortage of cash, I'm not subbed because I don't feel the need to buy an unfair advantage over students and people from less wealthy countries.
  2. PurpleBeefer

    i opted for a month of sub , mainly cause i enjoyed the game and i am rather new still so the cert flow was better. i havent really paid much attention to the resources until recently since i have dumped more certs into MBT and Sundie. i dont plan on unsubbing unless my play time serverly takes a dive. other than that its what most say about subs, its pay2skip not so p2w. but we shall see how the resource revamp plays into it. if its super drastic like "WOAH 5 LIBS IN 10 MINUTES" then its severe and favors the subbers due to the boost.
  3. Regpuppy

    I personally wouldn't, but membership would definitely need something to replace it that doesn't merely assist in getting more certs. In fact, I'd argue that it needs one regardless of what they do with resource boosts. What that is exactly, I don't know.

    But I definitely want it gone, once they add the new resource system.
  4. Phyr

    I've never had a resource boost, and my air and tank resources are maxed 90% of the time. Infantry is maxed when I forget to stock up.
  5. Daemeon

    Hey guys! I got a brilliant idea!

    Lets remove one of the only reasons to subscribe to an otherwise free to play game! Surely it won't affect our revenue stream!

    I really hope you never get to be in control of any company *I* work for... I'd be out of work.
    • Up x 3
  6. Mekeji

    I will never sub to this game either way. The only game I would ever sub to would be if Monster Hunter Frontier came to America. Even then that is only because I have an unhealthy obsession with Monster Hunter.

    Spend money on a hat on the other hand I might. However I have decided I won't unless SOE comes to their senses and add a top hat.
  7. zombielores

    Daemon is 100% right, it is the reason why most subs sub cause they are less restricted by certain measures, xp boost isn't that great neither is the 500 SC or 10% off or the que placement and it will affect revenue a lot if you remove it.
  8. Mekeji

    I think the big concern is if using vehicles will even be viable for non-subs.

    If subs are able to pull a tank every time theirs is destroyed but non-subs have to wait a while then you run into a situation where the game is legitimately pay to win. Where as before subs and non-subs alike had timers to wait for.

    Depending on resource costs of certain things it may or may not be an issue.

    If I remember the PTS patch notes correctly resource gain is a flat 60 a minute. So say tanks remain 450 resource points. That is 7.5 minutes to get those back. Personally I think if you can't keep your tank alive 10 minutes you probably are being a bit reckless and all the boost would do is allow you to be reckless.

    That is how I see it working. However when it comes to thinking the worst imagine med packs cost being raised to 120. That is 2 minutes for a single med pack which many HA in the heat of battle go through quickly. I see the cost of a med pack staying 75 though and since you can still stock up on them it won't be a big deal.

    One good thing will be a reduction in the amount on C4 farming since according to the notes the amount of spare stock you can have is being reduced.
    • Up x 1
  9. xboxerdude

    I like playing reckless , the boost helps with that
  10. Jeslis


    Again, Pay to Win is when people who DO NOT PAY, can't get access to the same things the people who DO PAY get.

    People who don't pay can still pull tanks.
    People who DO pay can pull tanks more often then others who don't pay.

    This is free to play. Welcome.
    If you would like to pull your tank more often, feel free to subscribe.
    • Up x 3
  11. Blackinvictus

    Help me to understand. So in your opinion, this game exists solely to cater to those that put not a single damn dime into it.

    Great business model you would have there.
  12. Plague Rat

    I'd be kind of annoyed if I lost the boost, but I doubt I'd unsub over it. But I really don't think the differences would be significant enough to consider 'pay to win.'

    Firstly, does anyone know if the resource reservation is still going into effect for persistent assets?

    I remember when they were first talking about this system they said that when you pulled a vehicle you wouldn't be able to re-acquire the nanites used in the vehicle's construction. So if nanites were capped at 600, if you pulled a 450 cost vehicle your pool would be reduced to 150, and would not fill beyond that point until the vehicle was destroyed.

    That would mean you'd have to wait to get another 300 resources to pull another. In this situation the difference between a max level member and a free-to-player getting their next vehicle would only be a single minute. Though keep in mind that this is an extreme situation since I don't know the new asset costs. It's likely costs will be reduced, so at worst it'll be a minute's difference. Not sure if this is still the intention or if it's a system they decided to hold off on.

    But even still, it's kind of the same for consumables because you won't be able to buy and store a reserve anymore any time you get extra resources. You won't be able to buy more than you can carry, so you're essentially paying on a per use basis. This in particular kills a lot of the benefit to having the resource boost, using the extra to create a stockpile. Throw in the new single resource system and you're looking at a situation where all purchases are made in the moment for the moment.

    Take C4 for example:
    If they both members and non were to use a single brick, it would take both players the same two minute-long resource cycles to recoup the expense (assuming current live cost) and if they were both to use two bricks, once again the difference between the two is only a single minute-long resource cycle.

    Considering this, in this new system a resource boost won't do much more than give a member a bit easier of a time transitioning between gameplay styles. It's significance only become an issue with where everyone is getting a constant and static resource income regardless of territory or holdings, but that is only temporary until they get base power worked in. When resource income once again becomes more dynamic and varied, I can't imagine it would be any different from the current live system.

    Anyway just my thoughts on the subject.

    Single resource pool, and lack of consumable stockpile, and possible nanite reservations from persistent assets will likely be enough to minimize any disparities caused by member resource boosts during this temporary phase of the resource revamp.
  13. Regpuppy

    Don't forget the 50% resource boost that can stack on top of that membership bonus. 60 resource gain vs a potential 120 resource gain is nothing to gawk at, especially if pricing is done in such a way. Is it an absolutely absurd advantage? Maybe not in the grand scheme of things. But it's one that we could do to live without.
  14. Gheeta

    No i wouldn't unsub. Membership shouldn't have a resource boost, i think we agreed on this long time ago.. Why the **** is it still a thing even after the resource update?....
  15. Kanil

    How the hell is that not pay to win, exactly?

    You can argue that it doesn't significantly impact the game (it doesn't) and helps sell memberships (it does) but I don't see how you can conclude that less tanks somehow isn't worse than more tanks.
  16. TheKhopesh

    I don't really see it as a balance issue.
    This is a game where balance is based entirely off 1v1 capabilities.

    After all, this isn't some death match with exactly equal forces opposing each other.
    There are no 12 vs 12 matches, no smaller maps for private parties, it's all just whoever shows up.

    It really doesn't make much difference if you get resources faster unless it's a 1v1 battle.
    And even then, bullets n' rockets are free, and they kill just as well as tank mines, C-4, or AI proximity explosives.
    • Up x 3
  17. Rhumald

    We're not paying to "win" we're paying to support the development of the game. Pulling my tank a minute or two before a non subscribed memeber could doesn't = me winning.

    People that have subscribed are a constant source of income for SoE, it's a little way to say thank you to those players that support them - and it's not expensive either.

    a non subscribed individual could purchase more 'benifits' per month than a subscribed member gets (assuming expenditure meets a subscription cost), they've gotta give the subscribers a reason to subscribe, something tangible.

    I would welcome feedback on some alternate benefit, if you believe the minor resource boost is seriously ruining the game for you, the people supporting the development of this game need to have a reason, after all, they're supporting your fun.
    • Up x 4
  18. ironeddie

    It wouldn't stop me from subbing. The resource gain isn't my main reason for subbing. But since it's part of membership then it's part of the cost I pay so if they took it out I would feel I was suddenly getting less for my money. So they would need to replace it with something.
  19. TheKhopesh

    So if you're an Auraxium level donor, you'll be getting the standard 60 nanites per minute, with an added 50% nanites each deposit.
    50% resources was exactly what I was promised when I subscribed.

    We're still getting our money's worth.
  20. Jeslis

    I didn't conclude that less tanks isn't worse then more tanks. IT IS.
    I concluded that its not pay to win.
    I'm paying to grind less. The definition of free to play and its accompanying memberships.

    I'm not paying for super god weapon.
    I'm not paying for a tank with 3x as much health as yours, which you can't get unless you also pay.
    I'm paying to be able to pull the same tank you can, with the same upgrades you can have, slightly more often (33% more often, yes, 33%, not 50%. Let me know if you need me to prove the math on this to you [no condescension intended, its annoying math] )

Share This Page