Lets talk about the ressource system. Right now, its borderline Pay to Win

[AThreatToYou]

I opt for removal of resource boosts.

[Chaff]

.
It's a game. It does occur in the "real world". The real World revolves around the all mighty dollar. And yes, PS2 is very much borderline P2W. However, I see it more as P2D. You can die in Maxes & vehicles more often. Big whoop.

Come up with an answer to how Sony can have a good game, but still be able to SELL enough "stuff" (perks/benefts) to generate the necessary money to make it worth their while.

FTP ?

C'mon ..... IT IS NOT FREE TO CREATE OR SUPPORT THIS GAME. They have a need & a right to generate revenue.

F2p can do EVERYTHING a Sub-Player can do. As currently constructed, they can't pull vehicles (or Maxes) quite as frequently as those who pay ? Well, boo hoo hoo hooo hoo.

I see a game-changing benefit hidden in the changes. They may be intentionally pushing the game more to Infantry-Driven warfare. THAT could well do wonders for the infamous "Metagame" debate. I have to see how the game plays the next few weeks. I don't know the number of Paying Subs vs 100% F2P players.

I've heard & read page after page of complaints of how it's too damn easy to spam from one vehicle class to the next. Well, that will slow down to some extent .... FOR EVERYONE. The Premium Sub crowd will pull more often than the F2P guy, but they too will see a decrease in how often they can pull Max, Air, or land vehicles.

It's fair. It's reality. If it bothers you, PAY. You can't have everything you want in life. Want more ? Pay for it, or work harder in-game to get it. It's fair.

People may either be too frugal with their money, flat-out cheap, or truly can't afford to pay an extra $10-to-$20 per month.

Those that PAY ..... "EARN" SOMETHING FOR THIER MONEY. Not only is it the way the World works. It's the way this game survives. They're willing to pay for some perks or benefits. If you're NOT .... you have no right to cry.

Pull your head out people. PS2 is not a philanthropic undertaking. This is a game - not Welfare.

.... to imply Premium Subs affects the Metagame is ludicrous.

I don't think they're worth the money. The Preferential treatment to get onto Continents is nice. Other than that, they don't give enough benefits to make it worth my money. I can afford to pay a Premium Sub. When mine runs out - I will NOT renew it .... unless they IMPROVE the benefits it gives. I prefer to play infantry anyway.

Sony has to consider how many people will PAY for any level of Subscription. They have no alternative but to give the customers enough to keep new Subs coming online ..... while also retaining as many paying Sub customers as they can.

Cut Sub Benefits ? You are severing the hand that feeds the masses their F2P game.

Classic Catch-22. Money talks. Bullshit walks.
.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Chaff

.... to imply Premium Subs affects the Metagame is ludicrous..

I had something typed up in the other P2W thread but decided to not post it. Mainly because, premium subs can affect the over-all "win" condition for an empire. So I don't think it's ludicrous to think that it can't affect it. Just depends on how many players are paying and how many aren't, per empire. There's probably a healthy mix of both though. And I agree with everything else you said.

The definition of pay-to-win is something that free players cannot obtain in the game that would help them "win". Most here are using the thing that free players cannot obtain to mean: The speed at which you can obtain resources to pull vehicles and obtain consumables. Does that "speed to obtain" equal pay-to-win? Perhaps..... Is it fair for SOE to charge for that? I think so. Are the resource cost values in-line with cost for a sub or single-boosters? Perhaps....

[Chaff]

Originally Posted by Crator

I had something typed up in the other P2W thread but decided to not post it. Mainly because, premium subs can affect the over-all "win" condition for an empire. So I don't think it's ludicrous to think that it can't affect it. Just depends on how many players are paying and how many aren't, per empire. There's probably a healthy mix of both though. And I agree with everything else you said.

The definition of pay-to-win is something that free players cannot obtain in the game that would help them "win". Most here are using the thing that free players cannot obtain to mean: The speed at which you can obtain resources to pull vehicles and obtain consumables. Does that "speed to obtain" equal pay-to-win? Perhaps..... Is it fair for SOE to charge for that? I think so. Are the resource cost values in-line with cost for a sub or single-boosters? Perhaps....

Thank you for your civility. I hear y' on the debate over what mindset is "ludicrous"......

I have my Account - which is Premium Auraxis (until it runs out). I help my wife with hers. Currently, she is 100% F2P mode. I play her Characters quite often to help her Cert-Up her character(s).

I miss the front-of-the-line priority of My Auraxium Sub.

I like the idea of Passive Cert Gain. However, I have to Log In EVERY DAY to get them. I take a two week business trip and I LOSE ALL MY PASSIVE CERTS cuz I'm not logging in from the road ? BS. I PAY FOR THEM. I should not have to log in daily to get them. It's enough for me to decide not to renew my Sub when it runs out.

I have Zero issues with my wifes F2P account. I get what I want when I want it. I NEVER had to wait for anything. She has little or nothing invested in shortening her ability to respawn any of her vehicles. .... was always able to grab a Flash .... get to Point-B quickly ..... and HAVE ALL HER OTHER VEHICLES AVAILABLE.

Now ? I'll have to see how much it affects my game play on her account.

I prefer Infantry anyway. If I am noticebly hindered by lack of vehicles ... it means more of us F2P guys will now simply help FILL MBTs, GALS, and SUNDYs ..... and IMHO .... that is a BONUS for the Metagame.
.

[Dreamcast]

I know some people in my thread were saying Resources = Convenience....No is not.



Certs = Convenience...Certs give you access to sidegrades(or just slight advantages) and options(to spend ur resources on like Medical kits,Mines,etc).

Cert XP bonus is not really buying power.


Resource = More of Certain POWERFUL THINGS THAT ARN'T SIDEGRADES!!!

For Example Medical kits,instakill proxy mines, etc.....That isn't a sidegrade that straight up benefits players


Another Example Tanks/Planes/etc.....That isn't a sidegrade that straight up benefits players .


Resources = Power....is not a sidegrade, their is no down side to having resources to buy anything you want.

Is Pay 2 Win to have a resource advantage over Free players.



Think about it the whole game right now revolves around Resources, we are fighting for 10% resource discounts lol.


Bottom Line Resources boost should be gone...Keep XP boost because that really is convenience.

If SOE Wants to make Resources meaningful than make it for all players.This will require everybody to make choices on how we use our resources and not have some guy who pays have the option to get all powerful things when ever he wants.

[VaderDSL]

I don't have any numbers, but it'd be cool to have supply lines.

So a vehicle/aircraft will cost say 100 resources base (just one example, number not important).

At the warpgate it will be 75% reduced cost, so 25 resources.

At each step out of the lattice the cost reduction decreases, until at some point it is at 0% say 5 points out on the lattice (maybe make it so that the first big base in the lattice from the warpgate is at 0% resource modifier.

After this, any further steps out into the lattice you go the cost increases, until basically when you are pulling vehicles/aircraft from near the enemies WG you are at say 200% or more increase to costs due to distance from your warpgate.

This way you can revert the costs, but make it so that people being pushed back have vastly reduced costs while the attackers have to pay more, it would be balanced as the more territory = more resources but greater costs compared to less territory = less resources but reduced costs.

The stick a few controllable resource nodes around the place which would allow you to disrupt resource flow/links and would give more options for continent defenders, if you could hack a few control points to disrupt resource gain it would starve the attackers, they would have to re-secure in order to continue to gain resources up lattice of that control node.

This way attackers and defenders are balanced vehicle/aircraft wise, maybe apply it to infantry resources as well?

[Ertwin]

Originally Posted by VaderDSL

I don't have any numbers, but it'd be cool to have supply lines.

So a vehicle/aircraft will cost say 100 resources base (just one example, number not important).

At the warpgate it will be 75% reduced cost, so 25 resources.

At each step out of the lattice the cost reduction decreases, until at some point it is at 0% say 5 points out on the lattice (maybe make it so that the first big base in the lattice from the warpgate is at 0% resource modifier.

After this, any further steps out into the lattice you go the cost increases, until basically when you are pulling vehicles/aircraft from near the enemies WG you are at say 200% or more increase to costs due to distance from your warpgate.

This way you can revert the costs, but make it so that people being pushed back have vastly reduced costs while the attackers have to pay more, it would be balanced as the more territory = more resources but greater costs compared to less territory = less resources but reduced costs.

The stick a few controllable resource nodes around the place which would allow you to disrupt resource flow/links and would give more options for continent defenders, if you could hack a few control points to disrupt resource gain it would starve the attackers, they would have to re-secure in order to continue to gain resources up lattice of that control node.

This way attackers and defenders are balanced vehicle/aircraft wise, maybe apply it to infantry resources as well?

I really like this idea. It would even balance out the resource boosts. Everyone can always go back a few bases in order to get cheaper vehicles. Those with high resource income would be more likely to just grab from the front lines anyway, thereby spending more. The more frugal would take a bit longer getting to the front lines, but would still be able to pull vehicles more often.

[Oty]

Originally Posted by VaderDSL

I don't have any numbers, but it'd be cool to have supply lines.

So a vehicle/aircraft will cost say 100 resources base (just one example, number not important).

At the warpgate it will be 75% reduced cost, so 25 resources.

At each step out of the lattice the cost reduction decreases, until at some point it is at 0% say 5 points out on the lattice (maybe make it so that the first big base in the lattice from the warpgate is at 0% resource modifier.

After this, any further steps out into the lattice you go the cost increases, until basically when you are pulling vehicles/aircraft from near the enemies WG you are at say 200% or more increase to costs due to distance from your warpgate.

This way you can revert the costs, but make it so that people being pushed back have vastly reduced costs while the attackers have to pay more, it would be balanced as the more territory = more resources but greater costs compared to less territory = less resources but reduced costs.

The stick a few controllable resource nodes around the place which would allow you to disrupt resource flow/links and would give more options for continent defenders, if you could hack a few control points to disrupt resource gain it would starve the attackers, they would have to re-secure in order to continue to gain resources up lattice of that control node.

This way attackers and defenders are balanced vehicle/aircraft wise, maybe apply it to infantry resources as well?

I also like this idea a lot! Post it somewhere where more can see it, in this thread it will probably be forgotten. I think it deserves to be discussed as its own topic for a solution to this!

[Dragonskin]

Meh, I don't think Planetside 2 is true Pay 2 Win and I still don't. That said, I didn't buy premium for resources gains. It was a means to get queue priority now that queues matter. It was a nice bonus that I get 48 certs a day just for logging in when I don't alwayd have time to play long due to real life and all that.

So yea, as a premium member I would be ok with losing resource gain completely if it made more players happy and feel less screwed by P2W.

I would still get my certs, queue priority and membership sales on fluff items. That is really all that we need in my opinion to make membership worth the investment.

[VaderDSL]

Ditto, if people really feel aggrieved that premium members are getting a game breaking advantage over F2P players, I'd happily give up resource bonus as well, it wouldn't bother me. If I pull a tank and it gets insta gibbed then hey ho, I'll just wait for a bit, probably go AV and kill some enemy tanks myself.

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by Chaff

People may either be too frugal with their money, flat-out cheap, or truly can't afford to pay an extra $10-to-$20 per month.

Those that PAY ..... "EARN" SOMETHING FOR THIER MONEY. Not only is it the way the World works. It's the way this game survives. They're willing to pay for some perks or benefits. If you're NOT .... you have no right to cry.

if the game was really fun and had good design and layout, i would gladly pay. but i don´t see anything worth a subscription. the f2p model literally killed the art style, the balance and the depth of planetside.
but i am not going to pay for a game when i never had a single gamesession that was real fun. i keep coming back to try again or check if the game has developed enough, but for every good change i see at least 2 negative changes.
i even bought a high end gaming rig, only for ps2 and backed the developement by buying sc before launch. but now i regret all of this.

[Assist]

Originally Posted by basti

B. we get rid of ressource boosts, means everyone, regardless of how much money he spends, gets the same amount of ressources.

That would be a good temporary fix. The problem is the resource system sucks and has needed to be overhauled since they got rid of Auraxium.

[Lucidius]

"Squad Resource Boost"

Looks like the F2Pers are screwed

[AThreatToYou]

Originally Posted by Lucidius

"Squad Resource Boost"

Looks like the F2Pers are screwed

It's not even that. I drop money on this game but I don't subscribe.

[Chaff]

^
....tend to agree. Mongoose has hit the nail right on the head. Please read, digest, and absord his succint wisdom. The Reality is SUBs pay to make it "free" for those who choose NOT to pay.

I'm fine with eliminating Resource gains if the F2P folks seem to think it's P2W. Part of me thinks this (Paid Subs) is simply the reality of the World. And there really is no "winning" anything in this game. It's a frickin' GAME. Cry babies should NOT be pandered to.

I'd prefer they increase TTK about 20%. See how that helps gamelay.

I think F2P folks need to lighten up. Sony needs to generate income to keep this game running. The Catch-22 reality of this fact is unavoidable.

I have no issues playing my wifes F2P account. I play both ends of the Account spectrum. The P2W debate is much ado about nothing.
.