Grenades cost resources, which is a good thing - Page 2

aceshigh · 2012-06-21, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by super pretendo

So, the answer is make rockets cost resources? Seems alright to me

I think the answer is a partial yes. Both grenades and rockets cost resources but only when they are used. Think of all of the wasted resources from people going heavy assault but never encountering a vehicle but having to pay for those rockets they never equiped much less never used.

Bags · 2012-06-21, 01:56 PM

Machine guns are too spammable, they should cost resources too.

AzK · 2012-06-21, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by super pretendo

So, resources are a big part of the game, yet you want nothing game-changing to cost resources? Sorry, "I want to spam anti-vehicle cannons" is not a valid argument.

There is a reason the things you mentioned cost resources; They have a huge impact on gameplay. Thus they make resources matter.

wat? Buying upgrades/mods for weapons and vehicles cost resources, and buying vehicles every single time does too, and maybe, even maxes, they didn't decide on that yet.

I'd say that's a pretty HUGE part of the game already, without having the need to make every single shot/nade used cost resources, that would be ridiculous.

feuerdog · 2012-06-21, 01:58 PM

Ability or Need of use is not really a factor of resource management.

You are paying for the potential of the item.
Once its purchased it's up to the player to utilize that item to its potential.

This permits resources to be wasted,....introducing a deeper economic aspect to the warfare.

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-06-21, 02:01 PM

It's probably more a gold sink than it is a balancing tool, but I guess it just depends how it's implemented.

Dougnifico · 2012-06-21, 02:03 PM

Rockets should cost resources imo. Nothing too much, but to keep the spam down and to make resources more valuable. Lets say a tank costs 300 alloys (number came from thin air) plus costs of upgrades, so make a rocket cost like 20 catalysts. You can still have them often, but if all you do is fire them constantly, you're gonna run dry.

Bags · 2012-06-21, 02:05 PM

I'm amazed we haven't seen rocket spam become a problem in E3, and we're not in beta, and people are already whining about rocket spam.

I think I saw maybe one softy kill via rpg in E3.

AzK · 2012-06-21, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

Machine guns are too spammable, they should cost resources too.

Heh you joke, but people like the op lead exactly to that kind of shit.

The way i see it, people asking to balance the game through costs when it should be done by tweaking damage values and other things, is simply insane.

To the people asking to have it so you pay in order to use certain type of ammo/tools/whatever: before you know it you'll have those things purchasable with station cash OR station cash buying the resource needed to buy them, which is basically the same. At that point i'd rather pay a monthly/premium sub that gives me things for free as on ps1, and then i would shower you with grenades and rockets. and you wouldn't be able to fight back unless you pay.

Terrible idea.

Dougnifico · 2012-06-21, 02:08 PM

Not complaining, launching a preemptive strike. lol

super pretendo · 2012-06-21, 02:12 PM

What's with these smug kids trying to act morally superior because they don't understand that resources need to be valuable? If you just refuse to use rational thought, please exit the thread.

Rockets are different from machine guns because you don't need direct hits with them, and you can hurt many people at the same time, and just saturate an entire area with them without needing to think twice about it. And then you just die or re-arm and come back and do the same thing. That isn't fun.

AzK · 2012-06-21, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by super pretendo

What's with these smug kids trying to act morally superior because they don't understand that resources need to be valuable? If you just refuse to use rational thought, please exit the thread.

That person telling about machine guns was obviously joking but THAT is were your line of thinking leads. You may not think that machineguns take 0 skill cause they spray alot of bullets, but someone else might and he may ask for their shots to cost resources just as you're doing for nades and rockets. While for that person instead, rockets may be perfectly fine and skill based since they're slow moving projectiles and take more skill to get direct hits with. It's all subjective. Balance needs to be achieved through weapons/gadgets/tools damage values etc tuning, not resource costs. Doing it by resource costs is the cheap and dumb way to do it, because it only leads to what i mentioned in the above reply. Which btw was way more than rational.

Telling people who don't agree with you to leave the thread you made on a DISCUSSION board is something a kid would do, just saying.

super pretendo · 2012-06-21, 02:17 PM

Well if I make a point like "resources need to be valuable and players should always benefit from having more, and we need to somehow prevent explosive spam without making explosives silly underpowered" then address it rationally.

super pretendo · 2012-06-21, 02:22 PM

You don't need a grenade to mindlessly zerg though, I don't see why we can't have both

Dougnifico · 2012-06-21, 02:25 PM

A player shouldn't be punished for zerging. A lot of players will zerg and keep pops healthy. You should be rewarded for team play (like a one time XP bonus for taking a squad objective, maybe a little larger than the mission system. Haven't thought it through.) Grenade and rocket spamming just happen to be a major issue in other FPS games. People shouldn't be able to throw grenades without care and you should be encouraged to save rockets for vehicles. A small resource cost does this effectively.

Bags · 2012-06-21, 02:26 PM

If HA weapons need to cost resources, Reviving, repairing, building turrets, jet packing, cloaking, and maxes need to cost resources (though maxes might, they've said).