News: New TotalBiscuit Video on IMPLANTS - Page 15

scroogh · 2012-08-09, 10:15 PM

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

Otleaz · 2012-08-09, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by scroogh

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

If someone cannot play enough to upkeep these upgrades, they are forced to either buy a booster or be flatout weaker than everyone else.

This would just be speculation, but I feel that there is evidence enough once you consider that if it was easy enough to upkeep these implants(using just the passive resource gains for example), there would be 0 reason to have lower tiered and cheaper versions of each implant.

scroogh · 2012-08-09, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

If someone cannot play enough to upkeep these upgrades, they are forced to either buy a booster or be flatout weaker than everyone else.

This would just be speculation, but I feel that there is evidence enough once you consider that if it was easy enough to upkeep these implants(using just the passive resource gains for example), there would be 0 reason to have lower tiered and cheaper versions of each implant.

If this game were a strict 6vs6 or 12v12 the power of one player would actually mean something, but the numbers are increased exponentially so one player having an advantage over another isn't that big of a deal because there's atleast dozens of players at both of those 2 players back and the boost will more than likely not be "felt" by anyone but the person that is using it. Which is the important part.

Now if you had an entire outfit of guys that all had implants vs another outfit that didn't it would become noticeable. but things rarely workout that way.

I'm sure everything will FEEL fine for everyone after they get major balance issues tweaked. Which is really all that matters. I know there are all the hard core guys that will disagree. but this game is being designed to attract everyone, including hard core players. So I don't care.

exLupo · 2012-08-09, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by scroogh

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

Originally Posted by Otleaz

If someone cannot play enough to upkeep these upgrades, they are forced to either buy a booster or be flatout weaker than everyone else.

As far as I know "pay 2 win" is used only when grinding is not an option. I can't recall a time when that designation has been used except when players are forced to pay or be weaker. If grinding is an option, paying is not required so you can still "win" without paying.

How well the cash vs grind is balanced is up to dev but just because someone "cannot play enough" that doesn't mean the game locks non-paying players out of the best gear, skills or content.

Otleaz · 2012-08-10, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by exLupo

As far as I know "pay 2 win" is used only when grinding is not an option. I can't recall a time when that designation has been used except when players are forced to pay or be weaker. If grinding is an option, paying is not required so you can still "win" without paying.

How well the cash vs grind is balanced is up to dev but just because someone "cannot play enough" that doesn't mean the game locks non-paying players out of the best gear, skills or content.

So, if it was so expensive that it is impossible to upkeep without either getting boosters or playing 15-16 hours a day, it still wouldn't be pay2win? This is the exact same scenario, only it affects many more people. Is it alright if it is only the minority getting screwed?

Don't get so caught up on definitions. Regardless of what pay2win is, with a rental system like this you will have people who have to choose between being weaker or paying money.

Originally Posted by scroogh

If this game were a strict 6vs6 or 12v12 the power of one player would actually mean something, but the numbers are increased exponentially so one player having an advantage over another isn't that big of a deal because there's atleast dozens of players at both of those 2 players back and the boost will more than likely not be "felt" by anyone but the person that is using it. Which is the important part.

Now if you had an entire outfit of guys that all had implants vs another outfit that didn't it would become noticeable. but things rarely workout that way.

I'm sure everything will FEEL fine for everyone after they get major balance issues tweaked. Which is really all that matters. I know there are all the hard core guys that will disagree. but this game is being designed to attract everyone, including hard core players. So I don't care.

This isn't a RTS. The vast majority of the gameplay we have seen consists of one person shooting another person. Even if is a group of 3 shooting at another group of 3, in the end those groups are all made up of individuals, and they should be treated as such.

Flaropri · 2012-08-10, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If imbalance were actually a concern, then power imbalance from grinding out levels or gear would come under the same scrutiny, yet most F2P games maintain grind to win facets.

Yes and no. LoL requires you to grind out IP and Levels in order to fully access Summoner Spells and Runes, but it also has a clear cap, and beyond that is side-grades/options. A level 30 Summoner will usually wipe the floor with a level 1 Summoner and not just because of experience with the game, but also because of Spells and Runes. However, LoL also usually avoids putting 1s against 30s, via the hidden ladder system on normal games.

Tribes: Ascend looks similar, though I haven't played it nearly as much, where you can reach the plateau of power with a given class, but you'll need to grind more to have equal power with the other classes. Match-making is less prevalent in this game however, and that does cause problems.

SMNC has a lot of problems with match-making that discourage players, though part of that has to do with lack of players (and thus self-fulfilling), and it also falls into the same category of business style as those above (from what I can tell, have played that less than Tribes).

All three of these games are entirely or nearly entirely PvP based games.

F2P MMORPGs do tend to be grind to win, but they are also primarily PvE, and, well, most MMORPGs are "grind to win" regardless of business model. It's part of how that system works. Planetside also has this, and quite frankly, I don't think it was to its credit given the nature of the game, but the gap between a new player and an old one is still something that can be overcome.

Yes, you can eventually overcome that disparity, but that helps then, not now. Right now you just know that that guy beat you because of insurmountable gameplay elements that you have no method of overcoming.

Uh... I question the use of insurmountable here. I mean, the player has access to the tools necessary to surmount those elements inherently. It also depends on the actual balance, and how much stats play a role vs. skill (or dumb luck).

More importantly, there is a difference between Play 2 Win and Pay 2 Win.

Among other things:

A) Method of payment. Not everyone has access to the ability to pay for SC. This means that those people are UNABLE to access SC only features.

B) One rewards time, effort, and skill within the game itself ( or at least the first two), the other does not.

You're trying to equate a persistent growth system independent of money flow to P2W, and it just doesn't work that way.

I maintain that the outrage is purely because people don't want to have to pay money. They want 100% of the fun for free. They don't actually care about the imbalance.

And I maintain that ascribing motivations to people, even when at least some of them state their reasons, is just being an ass. To say that I and others don't care about imbalance in spite of our own statements and without proof is not just ignoring the argument but needlessly going towards an ad hominem (which doesn't help your own argument).

I mean, I could say "The whole reason you're in favor of it is because you want to just spend money to stomp newbs!" or "You just want to make yourself feel better and that you feel you should be entitled to be stronger than others because you are willing to spend money!"

Neither of those are, as far as I can tell, accurate, nor do they support my own position. It's just stupid.

Here's what I think it comes down to:

You're view, as I understand it based on your posts:
"People should have to pay in order to have as much fun as paying players."

My view:
"People shouldn't have to pay in order for the game to be balanced for them."

I don't think these need to be incompatible.

I want the game to be balanced, and for PayPlayers to have access to more fun things. Fun things, in my view include: time condensing, the ability to ReCert to try out new things easily without having to grind all over again, server transfers to make sure they're with their friends/in the environment they prefer, possibly faction changes for the same reason, and the loads of fun and entertaining cosmetic items on offer.

FreePlayers wouldn't have access to those things. If they want to switch factions they'll have to do it the hard way, and they'll never get the awesome Gundam(-inspired) horns for their MAX or the dashboard Hula Girl for their Sunderer. They won't get Pink Headlights on their Prowler either.

I also think that players = content and content = fun. Even IF the negative view of P2W is only because people don't want to pay, because they are "entitled" or whatever, it still exists. Just because for some people it might be the "wrong" reason doesn't mean it will go away if it is ignored. Nor does it mean that everyone that's against it is doing so purely for that "incorrect" reason.

Personally, I'd rather have more players (more content), and spend my money on things that don't distort game-balance and are pure fun for me (and in the case of cosmetics, possibly fun for others as well). I don't think that's unreasonable.

SIDE NOTES (EDIT): Regarding WoW PvP, it's place as an e-sport has much diminished in comparison to others. It's still there, but it's doing well primarily because it's subsidized. Also, as far as competetive play goes, it is even. The top teams will have gotten the gear necessary to compete long ago, and mostly the ungeared teams just look at it as a grind until they have that season's gear and can "really compete." Battlegrounds are doing better, but people don't take them seriously except for Team BGs, which has the same process as Arena... it's a grind till you get the right gear.

I personally do NOT enjoy beating someone because of superior gear. The idea of paying to win doesn't seem like fun to me from either side of the payer or the freer. I know some people enjoy it, or don't mind it, and more power to them I guess, it's just not something that I would find attractive.

exLupo · 2012-08-10, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

So, if it was so expensive that it is impossible to upkeep without either getting boosters or playing 15-16 hours a day, it still wouldn't be pay2win? This is the exact same scenario, only it affects many more people. Is it alright if it is only the minority getting screwed?

Don't get so caught up on definitions. Regardless of what pay2win is, with a rental system like this you will have people who have to choose between being weaker or paying money.

While your example is hyperbolic, yes, that is still not pay2win. Definitions are extremely important, especially in situations like then when people are using emotionally charged words and present arguments pinned around those words. If we don't agree on what we're talking about, we can't ever get anywhere.

From my understanding, you believe it is poor design for anyone to be able to pay for anything, regardless of whether or not that thing can be obtained by any other means. If that is correct, it's not p2w that you dislike but the entirety of being able to pay for anything at all. One is a subset of the other. This is why definitions are important, so you can make your points clear from the start.

---

There are some games I've played that I don't have to pay for and readily acknowledge that are just as asymmetrical as pure P2W. I had a brief obsession with Thirst of Night, a pretty terrible web based city strategy game. This is a simplification; players could unlock most stuff by spending time in game but there were tech tree upgrade limits that you could unlock by buying a level cap expander -or- by getting one via a once-a-day slot machine that has an exceptionally small chance of dropping the item. The design was clearly in favor of pay players and to play that you have to accept it. Paying players were the target audience and the rest of us were essentially content and context around and with which the real users played.

I don't see PS2 going this way at all. All players will be equally valid, none will have to accept that they're filler. Looking at what's been said, low-to-mid time players should be able to keep lv2 implants slotted. Vacant-to-low time players will have to live with lv1. Add a resource implant and bump up your implant availability by one rank. Lv3 is for pay players and poopsockers. The overall balance, especially when the massive numbers of players are considered, will be stable. A lot of the "unfairness" discussions revolve around 1v1 but if there's anything the PS community love to harp on it's objective based gameplay over duels and kda. It'll all wash out in the end.

sgtbjack · 2012-08-10, 01:22 AM

Cool video. Not pay to win, sorry to disagree with those trying make that argument. I don't think people should start the game and get all the perks available right at the get go. That would mean there would be absolutely no progression. I'll play an hour or two tops when I can, and I'm sure like most fps games(like call of duty, bf and the like) that the people with all the perks will not be too much of a big deal for me to handle with skill.

I like this setup, it seems pretty damn good.

Sunrock · 2012-08-10, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by scroogh

Can I get a summary of why exactly adding this would be pay to win? I'm just not seeing it I guess.

Pay2win for me is any item you can buy for real money in the game that gives at least 0.0001% advantage over some one that did not buy that item. This apply to exp boosts as well.

PS: I don't think its p2w if its an item you can buy with a currency you have earned by playing the game.

Otleaz · 2012-08-10, 03:30 AM

Originally Posted by exLupo

While your example is hyperbolic

I disagree completely. The amount of time used is completely irrelevant in this example. The focus is the ratio between the amount of time you are able to play and the amount of time it takes to rent these upgrades.

The only difference is that is affects more people.

Originally Posted by exLupo

, yes, that is still not pay2win.

Okay, what would you call the current subject then? I would like to remind you that we are talking about it being literally impossible for certain people to be able to afford these direct stat boosts without either paying money, or giving up on their daily responsibilities.

Originally Posted by exLupo

Definitions are extremely important, especially in situations like then when people are using emotionally charged words and present arguments pinned around those words. If we don't agree on what we're talking about, we can't ever get anywhere.

I personally believe that people should rely more on context and not be so literal, but what you are saying is fair enough. I will try and be more descriptive from now on.

Originally Posted by exLupo

From my understanding, you believe it is poor design for anyone to be able to pay for anything, regardless of whether or not that thing can be obtained by any other means. If that is correct, it's not p2w that you dislike but the entirety of being able to pay for anything at all. One is a subset of the other. This is why definitions are important, so you can make your points clear from the start.

No, I feel I have been pretty clear that my main concern is that grinding isn't an option for a lot of people. At least in this situation, where they need to earn back the amount they paid so they can buy it again the next day.

Originally Posted by exLupo

There are some games I've played that I don't have to pay for and readily acknowledge that are just as asymmetrical as pure P2W. I had a brief obsession with Thirst of Night, a pretty terrible web based city strategy game. This is a simplification; players could unlock most stuff by spending time in game but there were tech tree upgrade limits that you could unlock by buying a level cap expander -or- by getting one via a once-a-day slot machine that has an exceptionally small chance of dropping the item. The design was clearly in favor of pay players and to play that you have to accept it. Paying players were the target audience and the rest of us were essentially content and context around and with which the real users played.

I don't see PS2 going this way at all. All players will be equally valid, none will have to accept that they're filler. Looking at what's been said, low-to-mid time players should be able to keep lv2 implants slotted. Vacant-to-low time players will have to live with lv1. Add a resource implant and bump up your implant availability by one rank. Lv3 is for pay players and poopsockers. The overall balance, especially when the massive numbers of players are considered, will be stable. A lot of the "unfairness" discussions revolve around 1v1 but if there's anything the PS community love to harp on it's objective based gameplay over duels and kda. It'll all wash out in the end.

You can't approach this game like a city building sim. There are real living people on the other end of your bullets, expecting to have a fair chance at taking you down. If you try and tell them that they are cattle for the alpha-race paying players, they will leave. Also, I don't know about you, but surviving only because I have better stats, or killing people only because I have better stats leaves me wanting to play a different game.

You also can't approach this game like an RTS. When it is 100vs100, you can't treat them as a single entitity. A group of 100 implies that there are 100 individuals. You can't tell someone that it is okay that he is weak just because there is a guy on the other side who is also weak... Who would accept that?

You know, the thing I am most upset about with this entire ordeal is just how completely unnecessary this rental system really is. We have seen quite plainly that it is possible to be successful without infuriating rental systems with games like Tribes and League of Legends.

While you may feel it is acceptable, you must agree that it is on a different level compared to all of the other things they have talked about, right?

Originally Posted by sgtbjack

Cool video. Not pay to win, sorry to disagree with those trying make that argument. I don't think people should start the game and get all the perks available right at the get go. That would mean there would be absolutely no progression. I'll play an hour or two tops when I can, and I'm sure like most fps games(like call of duty, bf and the like) that the people with all the perks will not be too much of a big deal for me to handle with skill.

I like this setup, it seems pretty damn good.

Progression doesn't need to be upgrades. Upgrades, for the most part, don't even belong in a PvP game. The majority of the progression in Planetside 2 will be sidegrades. The great thing about side grades is that you can unlock them while using a loadout that is already on par with everyone else.

exLupo · 2012-08-10, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

No, I feel I have been pretty clear that my main concern is that grinding isn't an option for a lot of people. At least in this situation, where they need to earn back the amount they paid so they can buy it again the next day.

If even one person can grind enough during the day to buy lv3 implants then the game is not pay2win. Now, that doesn't mean it's balanced well and it's really easy to exploit those situations. Devs can say "This isn't pay2win" while laughing as players feel required to spend. However, feeling required and being required are not the same thing.

There are a lot of absolute statements being made like "Person A is 1% better than Person B so, therefore, the game is unbalanced" to justify arguments alongside fuzzier "Person A chose to play more so is 1% better than Person B." ideas.

The situation can be summed up fairly easily with some spitball uglymath.
Resource = Potential Power
Money = 100%
Time = 100%
Time + Money = 100%

It can also be muddled like so.
Money.5 + Time.1 = 60%
Time.5 + Money.1 = 60%
or
Player A has lots of free time and no money. Timex.9 = 90%
Player B has no time and little money. Time.1 + Money.3 = 40%

As the potentials for time rich players and money rich players are the same, you can't buy victory in an absolute sense. And when one player cannot do enough of either, they fall behind. It's up to dev to make sure how far behind they fall isn't enough for them to quit playing.

---

And yea, I do agree that this seems kinda left field. However I think I know why it happened.
It might have gone something... like this.

Dev A: Planetside 1 had implants, lets do that again.
Dev B: Man, we need more money sinks.
Dev C: Can you pass me the vodka?
Dev A+B: Dude, don't drink at work.
Intern 12: Wait... A and B, why don't you guys mix your two ideas?!
Smed: You're hired!
And history was made.

Otleaz · 2012-08-10, 05:00 AM

I thought we moved past the pay2win definition thing already.

Disregarding that, if a resource sink is the only reason, then we will have nothing to worry about. I'm only going by memory here, but I am pretty sure that each faction has two nearby Auraxium facilities. If owning two Auraxium facilities gives you ~600 Auraxium passively over 24 hours, they will have a proper resource sink in place.

Unfortunately, the presence of weaker but cheaper implants leaves me unconvinced.

Scotsh · 2012-08-10, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

You know, the thing I am most upset about with this entire ordeal is just how completely unnecessary this rental system really is. We have seen quite plainly that it is possible to be successful without infuriating rental systems with games like Tribes and League of Legends.

I generally agree with most of your postings on that subject, but not this.
While this system has the potential of enabling players with money or a lot of time to get an advantage we simply dont know this yet. It all comes down to how these things are balanced out.

In my opinion this system serves primarily as a mechanic to balance infantry players versus vehicle players.

I will speculate a bit now to make my point clear.
Just imagine for a moment that enough resources to equip 3 infantry boosters can be earned in 1hour of playing. If you manage this nicely you will always have those boosters, but you wont be able to buy a lot of vehicles (and you got the vehicle cooldowns). If you are a player preferring vehicle combat you may want vehicle boosters instead. As these boosters are cheaper and you got no cooldwns you will be able to use way more vehicles than an infantry player, but if you are out of the vehicle he will have an advantage over you.

It really boils down to how big the value of these boosters is (time usable vs. time needed to aquire). This is currently unknown, as it will be balanced heavily in beta.

We should all cool down and wait and see how this system plays out when we all get our hands on the beta and how it develops. Then we can really have a discussion

Otleaz · 2012-08-10, 05:15 AM

Yeah, I didn't really think that through when I wrote it. Once you put it that way I can definitely see the gameplay value of a rental system like this, moving past even what you said.

Of course, they have to handle it correctly or it is all for naught.

exLupo · 2012-08-10, 05:50 AM

With the price of the L3 implants, I'm actually wondering if they're intended to -not- be used all the time. Ops night? Feeling outnumbered? L3. Regular play? L1/2.