Natural Selection 2 PC Gamer GOTY Nominee
Josh86
Join Date: 2010-12-06 Member: 75513Members
Join Date: 2010-12-06 Member: 75513Members
Comments
I like our odds.
I like our odds.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How potent a microscope do I need to find the imperceptible line between having to make money as a company, and not being unfairly called "pay2win"?
<!--coloro:orange--><span style="color:orange"><!--/coloro--><sup>** Image deleted ** That was way out of line - please refrain from posting antisemitic content on this forum. - Angelusz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--></sup>
Has anyone ever sat down with you and explained the difference between "opinions" and "facts"? I feel like this is one situation that could benefit from knowing the difference between those two words. For example, it is an <i>opinion</i> that you need multiple unlocks to make them powerful (or fun), because it is a <i>fact</i> the default vehicle weapons are all around performers that excel in no particular category, while unlocked vehicle weapons are designed for a specific purpose, and are not very effective outside of that purpose. The default tank cannon will kill infantry faster than the AP cannon, even if someone paid money for the AP cannon. Additionally, time to unlock varies on a number of things. Skilled players, even using no boosts, can pick up forty or more certs an hour in high population battles at a biolab (four kills and two revives every 3 minutes if my memory serves, they tend to tweak this frequently), while a new player enjoying the sights in an ESF may earn zero certs for an hour of play.
I make no contest that PS2 is incomparably shallow against NS2. But to deride PS2 as unplayable because they have placed some of the gear out of immediate reach in an attempt to turn a profit is foolhardy to say the very least.
Hahahahahahaha, I think you also need to be taught the difference.
I have nothing against planetside 2, I just found this to be utterly hilarious.
Is this false? They're not good at anything because they have to do everything, but they're better than a weapon performing outside of its role. HEAT is worse than normal against armor, the Zephyr is worse against attacking ESFs than the default quad (unless you're just plain lucky and connect a Zephyr shell with the ESF). Just like AP is better than normal against armor, and the skyguard is better than the normal lightning cannon against aircraft.
What about them? How they lock you into an attack vector that renders you highly vulnerable to other ESFs and MANPADS/SPAAG/Whatever dual burster MAX's fall under? Or how they can be difficult to aim because the game might not show you infantry more than 350 meters away? (The engine has been known to stop rendering things it thinks are "too far" in order to save performance. They can still shoot and see you though, because aircraft are always shown.) Or how even after spending 100+ certs on ammo, they still require you to seek replenishment after five or six runs?
They're powerful if you maximize their strengths. If you can manage 20 certs an hour average, you're there in 40ish hours, depending on how many the game awards while you're logged off.
being purposefully ignorant isn't helping. the point is you can buy rocket pods before anyone has dual bursters or any of the f2p content leveled to be competitive. right off the bat. rocket pods are a straight upgrade. that's like saying you can't have weapon/armor upgrades or onos until you pay $10 or play the game for 2 weeks. the people who paid $10 are going to be rocking it up with w3/a3 and onos for 2 weeks while no one else can compete. that's the definition of p2w.
I'm being a little argumentative. I feel a little irritated though, because you can buy rocket pods, but you can ALSO buy your second burster, your skyguard, or the a2a pods. The burster and skyguard are cheaper than the rocketpods. They're not a straight upgrade. They require you to dump your afterburner pods (hope you don't need to make a quick getaway), and they aren't magical, you can't use them without exposing yourself to, at the VERY least, single burster MAXs, which are unlocked by default for all characters. That's more like saying "You can pay $10 for a permanent Onos discount to 15 pres", not "Pay up or you don't get to use Onos at all."
The definition of p2w would be SmedlyPods, which you can ONLY buy for real money, lock onto ground targets, and do 1000 damage each. If you want to know what a real p2w game looks like and you don't speak korean, go check in with the good folks at MechWarrior: Online, who will treat you like cannon fodder unless you spend money.
Edit: Strike my last, baiting isn't helpful. PS2 is a different game than NS2, meant to be played by different people at a different pace. I'm not sure NS2 is polished enough to be considered a better shooter, considering only one team does the shooting and that's been known to be a little wonky at times. We can all agree on one thing though.
They're both doing better than poor Tribes.
It may not be. Doesn't matter. You can't prove it isn't. Therefore not fact.
Ascend is still a way more polished game, easily worthy of shooter of the year. PS2 is godawful COD in space, and NS2 could be great if the devs would patch the hell out of it.
I can't prove that the default weapons aren't better than unlocked weapons in <i>some</i> situations? Like those situations that the unlocked weapon isn't designed for?
The only games NS2 is in competition with are PS2, Tribes, and Hawken. I think we have PS2 beat by a landslide as I mentioned. We probably stand a shot at beating Tribes; they do what they do well, but I feel like NS2 accomplishes a lot more things. If you don't like skiing or camping flags, there's not a lot to do in Tribes. I don't know much about Hawken, but it seems pretty new to the game to be taking home awards.
If our healthy mod scene is factored in, I feel we could really come away on top from this. Combat and Sanity are two great projects (in progress) that are almost completely different games when compared to NS2. Plus, we're the only non-F2P on the list. This may all come down to how the reviewers feel about microtransactions.
Yeah.... Forums XD
Tribes: Ascend is also pretty awesome. Almost as good as Tribes 2. Certainly more polished than both NS2 and PS2, but the grind for weapons/items is equally frustrating as PS2. Which is one of the reasons I don't play it anymore. That, the meak vehicles, and tiny maps have put me off.
Hawken? Why nominate a game that's not even released yet?
I think NS2 has a fair chance of winning.
On a side note, if ME3 wins anything I will rage.
Hawken isn't even released so I don't know why it's a candidate. I've played it and it's really nothing that special. It's fun but it's just an FPS in a mech suit, don't expect Mechwarrior.
Tribes: Ascend is slightly pay2win but still one of the best games to come out this year. The unlock grind isn't bad if you pay 10-20 bucks for VIP and it's not like Planetside where something is useless because you don't have the necessary unlock. It's getting some long overdue love from the devs, probably because HiRez is attempting to fix their horrible reputation. Either way I still love this game.
Natural Selection 2 is, surprisingly, the only non-F2P game on the list. $25 and you're done with full mod support, UWE definitely has the best possible business model for customers. It still has balance issues but nothing that just stops the game from being fun. Unfortunately, from what I've read, it seems like most of the people that quit did so because of performance issues.
IMO Tribes or NS2 should win. I'f be fine with either winning as long as garbage like PS2 doesn't win. And LOL at the game of the year list... 2012 was a slow year wasn't it?