How to respond to GU11 - Page 3

DviddLeff · 2013-06-23, 02:02 AM

The only thing I can see people complaining about with GU11 is the resources, as everything else (bar a minority crashing) is an improvement.

The resource system was broken - people could plain and simple pull whatever vehicle or MAX they wanted at any time. The resource system is meant to be a limiting factor to using these powerful units however it was not fulfilling this purpose. As a result we saw tank zergs and MAX crashes on a far too regular basis with the only vehicle that was being restricted was the ESF in the hands of an inexperienced or unlucky pilot (which with GU11s AA balancing would no longer be a factor).

By changing the resource costs fights will become more balanced. I for one have been calling for resources to be more restricted to achieve just this as it will in the long run be good for the game. Now resources actually matter to some extent and leaders may even decide on their next targets based around resources.

If you really want to be able to pull a tank whenever you want to go play BF. Oh, but don't you have to deal with smacktards grabbing it first or TKing you if you do get into it?

Falcon_br · 2013-06-23, 02:11 AM

Dude, everyone knows that Sony is just testing us to see if the resource booster will start selling or not.
Or maybe they are preparing the game for new resource implants.
In both ways, the only thing they are thinking about is more profit! Like all companies in the world.

KesTro · 2013-06-23, 02:38 AM

Hell the update is fine, I just wish I could play it. something they did has PhysX dumping its load on my CPU and I'm crashing. I don't even have Nvidia. :| I'm sure I would love the game if I could actually play this update. Never had a crashing problem until their maintenace on the 18th, GU11 only made it worse.

That being said, better throw more money at it and get the mega-bundles so SOE will view me as an even bigger whale keeping them afloat.

omega four · 2013-06-23, 08:07 AM

I've been told that an SOE insider has claimed that SOE has directed the PS2 developers to focus on releasing new stuff for gamers to buy (for money) and not non-profit things like game optimization and the like.

While this is hearsay, I would not be surprised if it's true. All the for-profit banks and companies that I've worked for in the past have always prioritized for-profit activities first at the expense of all else.

Originally Posted by HiroshiChugi

I hope the FPS optimization issue is finally fixed because at this point, I'm more comfortable and happy playing on the shitty-ass servers on APB: Reloaded than Planetside 2... If that doesn't say something, I don't know what is. I'm playing on a 2011 laptop and am getting BETTER FPS on APB: R than Planetside 2! What the hell SOE?!?!?

omega four · 2013-06-23, 08:11 AM

I disagree.

The resource system was NOT broken. Each vehicle and MAX unit had timers which would also limit what could be pulled at any given time. Many long-time players who enjoyed using certain vehicles (e.g. I love to fly ESFs) certed their timers to the maximum so that they COULD pull the vehicles as often as possible.

The changes in PS2 were a slap in the face in my opinion to those long-time players who spent certs to enjoy doing what they loved the most, be it flying ESFs or driving tanks or fielding MAXs. For a game that prided itself on allowing gamers to "do whatever they wanted", PS2 has fallen a long way from that lofty goal.

However, I won't gripe or badmouth the PS2 developers or PS2, as they're entitled to make money any way they can. But I will vote with my wallet and my limited playing time by no longer spending either on PS2 if I so choose.

If I were running PS2 and SOE, I'd have done things differently. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

The only thing I can see people complaining about with GU11 is the resources, as everything else (bar a minority crashing) is an improvement.

The resource system was broken - people could plain and simple pull whatever vehicle or MAX they wanted at any time. The resource system is meant to be a limiting factor to using these powerful units however it was not fulfilling this purpose. As a result we saw tank zergs and MAX crashes on a far too regular basis with the only vehicle that was being restricted was the ESF in the hands of an inexperienced or unlucky pilot (which with GU11s AA balancing would no longer be a factor).

By changing the resource costs fights will become more balanced. I for one have been calling for resources to be more restricted to achieve just this as it will in the long run be good for the game. Now resources actually matter to some extent and leaders may even decide on their next targets based around resources.

If you really want to be able to pull a tank whenever you want to go play BF. Oh, but don't you have to deal with smacktards grabbing it first or TKing you if you do get into it?

MrMak · 2013-06-23, 08:26 AM

So pulliung tank after tank after tank after tank is fine and not a balance issue at all and resources should have remained pointles.....ok

omega four · 2013-06-23, 08:34 AM

Agreed. SOE is farming all the PS2 gamers even if most don't see it for what it is.

Another SOE farming tactic is to put an overpowered item (e.g. weapon) on sale and after they've sold as many units as possible, nerf it to oblivion.

Originally Posted by Falcon_br

Dude, everyone knows that Sony is just testing us to see if the resource booster will start selling or not.
Or maybe they are preparing the game for new resource implants.
In both ways, the only thing they are thinking about is more profit! Like all companies in the world.

typhaon · 2013-06-23, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

Agreed. SOE is farming all the PS2 gamers even if most don't see it for what it is.

Another SOE farming tactic is to put an overpowered item (e.g. weapon) on sale and after they've sold as many units as possible, nerf it to oblivion.

I want to believe that's not the case...

I wonder if there are business models that show that after a certain amount of time - there's really little benefit to putting more resources into a game and the best course of action is to just farm it for $$$ as hard as possible, before it goes limp.

The fact that we are even talking about this, does tell us something.

omega four · 2013-06-23, 08:47 AM

The greater balance issue is one of population (where one faction has 50% of all forces on the server for example), not one of vehicle usage.

SOE had the original claim of letting PS2 players do what they want, when they wanted. If SOE wants to go back on its agreement, then PS2 players are free to find other games to play.

Originally Posted by MrMak

So pulliung tank after tank after tank after tank is fine and not a balance issue at all and resources should have remained pointles.....ok

omega four · 2013-06-23, 08:52 AM

All major and established companies (SOE included) have whole teams assigned to determine the optimal time to stop allocating resources to a project (e.g. PS2) and reallocating resources to another, more profitable project or endeavor.

In the banks and companies I worked for, those departments/teams were called Corporate Planning and Financial Planning & Analysis (FP&A).

It really is a science now when it comes to determining how a corporation can best use its cash/resources, all with an eye towards providing maximum value for the company's shareholders and NOT necessarily a company's customers (e.g. PS2 gamers).

I don't think PS2 has reached that point yet. However, when games like BF4 and Titanfall siphon away a majority of PS2 gamers late 2013/early 2014 (myself included if not before then), then we very well could see SOE pull the plug on PS2 had allocate the barest of resources to keep PS2 alive as a shell of its former self.

Originally Posted by typhaon

I want to believe that's not the case...

I wonder if there are business models that show that after a certain amount of time - there's really little benefit to putting more resources into a game and the best course of action is to just farm it for $$$ as hard as possible, before it goes limp.

The fact that we are even talking about this, does tell us something.

HiroshiChugi · 2013-06-23, 09:09 AM

So I guess no one wants to answer my FPS question?

omega four · 2013-06-23, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by HiroshiChugi

So I guess no one wants to answer my FPS question?

I did. I answered it here:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...3&postcount=34

MrMak · 2013-06-23, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

Agreed. SOE is farming all the PS2 gamers even if most don't see it for what it is.

Another SOE farming tactic is to put an overpowered item (e.g. weapon) on sale and after they've sold as many units as possible, nerf it to oblivion.

I Think you have issues with detecting sarcasm........

Id rather have expensive but powerfull tanks rather than Toys made of paper marche (or Raditz) that can be pulled on a whim but are not realy practical.

Its partialy becosue of their avlaiability that tanks got nerfed (directly and indirectly) to the ground in the past. People just kept complaining about being swarmed by a platoon of thanks, each of which can one shot them. Same with aircraft.

Not saying that the higher ups at SOE are benevolent and only want whats best not lookign at profits, but in thel ong run, you cant give peopel too much freedom becouse they start abusing int and ruin the experiance for everyone. Take the HEX system. The freedom it provides makes it impssible to makes italmost progress without haveing overwhelming numbers becouse the moment you leave a base one guy on a flash wil luse one of the avaliable connections that oyu cant remove and start caping it back uring the game into a whackamole.

Let people pull vehicles too often, you gat swarmed with them. You kill a tank and he is back within 2 or 3 minutes depending on how far the nearest base is.

On a side note. You must realy learn to use the edit button isntead of making several postsone after the other. Makes your conspiracy rants a little bit more bearable to read.

omega four · 2013-06-23, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by MrMak

I Think you have issues in detecting sarcasm......

Don't you know? Sarcasm and the internet don't really go well together.

You might consider using words like "LOL" to indicated that you're really sarcastic about something.

Also, I'm used to working with and spending most of my time with mature adults usually who are not sarcastic and say what they mean, not teenagers and the like.

MrMak · 2013-06-23, 10:03 AM

Id say the "....ok" part and the the fact that the 2 concepts are ridicoulus were dead giveways.