Planetside 1 was ahead of its time

[culkid]

In my opinion, Planetside came out at a time when MMO gaming and having higher end PC's was nowhere near as popular as it is today. The ideas/features that planetside provided were original and fun to play. If Planetside 2 is anything like PS1, we will have an amazing game on our hands which can hopefully sustain large numbers. Nothing better than a huge battle on a Cyssor Bridge for 2 hours until Galaxies flew in to drop troops behind the enemy.

[Redshift]

bridge battles sucked

[Grimster]

Nah I really loved bridge battles most of the time.

Some of my most epic memories with my outfit are from bridge battles.

Nothing gets your adrenaline rushing like sitting in a Vanguard trying to cross a bridge that is heavily shelled by the enemy. :)

Well maybe hot dropping with your full outfit squad over a sieged enemy base that also was a rush. :)

[Logit]

bridge battles sucked

This.

[DviddLeff]

I loved Tore because of the bridges that surrounded it.

Of course, as a VS Magrider driver bridges just concentrated my targets and stopped them from flanking my squad.

But yeah, after WoW and the glut of MMOs that have followed many more people are willing to pay a subscription fee, and are bored of the same old RPG game mechanics.

[Raymac]

I loved Tore because of the bridges that surrounded it.

Of course, as a VS Magrider driver bridges just concentrated my targets and stopped them from flanking my squad.

But yeah, after WoW and the glut of MMOs that have followed many more people are willing to pay a subscription fee, and are bored of the same old RPG game mechanics.

I loved those fights too. I don't even know how much of this I spent between Tore and Laka, but it never really got old for me. I would usually fly a reaver, so there was enough room to flank the VS along the east and attack from that direction.

I also got pretty good at flying underneath that bridge to avoid those damn VS AA maxes.

Bridge battles were great just because they were a bottle neck. Thats about it. There were so few bottle necks on the maps that the bridges were just about all we had. I'm really looking forward to the new maps to see if there will be more "natural" bottle necks to fight over.

And yes, the original PS was way ahead of its time, so I'm excited to see what happens since I think the time is just right for it now.

[basti]

I loved Tore because of the bridges that surrounded it.



Tore?

FORTRESS LAKA!

edit: and about bridge battles.
I remember clearly my first one. I dont know where it was, it was literally within my first hour of the game. Think it was Hossin. but to the point: TR VS NC, LOTS LOTS LOTS of tank shells flying around, infantary behind cover fireing at each other, reavers and mossys flying low right between the two fronts, it was bloddy brilliant.

[DviddLeff]

Tore was my favourite; as VS we naturally seemed to take it due to the lattice structure before the reshuffle; and then the TR/NC struggled to take it from us due to the water. My Vindicators and I once defended Tore for 5 hours straight, with differing amounts of support from the VS until the enemy was forced to withdraw.

I loved pilots who flew under bridges; when I'm using it as cover for my mag column!

[Aractain]

Considering most people still had 56k and the devs (around the indurstry) thought that simple damage was enough of a mechanic for all playstyles (rather than control, support and execution the Three Intertwinded Roles of Everything) that only now is starting to change.

Yeah I would say its ahead of its time - it was good they tried but they failed at nearly everything they implemented. It was so close to being utterly astoundingly good and obviously worth playing but I wanted it to be so much more than a set of binary outcomes.


Maybe this time....

[Goku]

I got a chuckle out of all you VS saying you <3 bridge battles. I like bridge battles depending on the location. The Mukuru/Nzame/Leza tri bridge area is the best in my opinion. The bridges are short enough for prowlers and vans to actually shoot across, so it even the playing field a bit when it comes to dealing with VS. I don't really care for the Tore bridge as I have died countless times on there with my van. Though I will say I have nuked 4 or more BFRs coming over from Leza to Tore on that bridge numerous times with my OS. BEP can be found there :). I mostly remember nuking TR BFRs there though.

[Sirisian]

I got a chuckle out of all you VS saying you <3 bridge battles.
Vehicles are like fodder for us VS. I just pull out my lancer and destroy everything. All you hear is "vvvv pew" as like 10 lancers lock into a tank and destroy it in seconds. :lol:

Also regarding to the topic it was before its time because as mentioned 56k was prevalent. I actually tried to play this game when it came out using a 56k connection. Had to get DSL until it would run.

[Goku]

Yes I always find myself running from Lancers before Strikers. With a Striker you can somewhat avoid due to obstacles getting rid of the lock. Though with a Lancer you think you are in the clear then you start getting pelted and you are dead :cry:.

[BlazingSun]

The ideas/features that planetside provided were original and fun to play.

Fun? Yes. Original? Not so much. Both Battlefield 1942 and C&C Renegade came out before PS. Planetside wasn't that much different .. just bigger and with more players. On a side note: There are more poeple still playing Renegade than Planetside.

[Aractain]

Not to mention World War II Online which has a bigger scope than Planetside.

[BorisBlade]

Actually PS doesnt play at all like BF. Those games are more about instant death and quick play. Very little interactivity with various aspects of the game. No teamwork really needed other than everyone zerg the other team. Not much diversity, not much of many things. PS has alot more depth. It feels more strategic even from the point of the soldier in how you fight or what you fight with. BF, and esp CoD are just zerg in and hope you get the first shot, if you do you win if you dont they win (due to instant death with most any weapon), instantly respawn and zerg back at em again. Its the same as teh days of UT and quake just with modern weapons and better graphics.

Thats what i like about PS, its nothin like those games, at all. If it was just those games but with more players i wouldnt play it. And yeah WW2OL had a bigger scope but it fails at really producing it since it feels so empty 99% of the time, its executed so poorly. PS was the only game to actually execute the scale in a way so you could experience the massive fights regularly.

And yeah it was ahead of its time, the server structures werent able to do as much as we would have liked nor were players able to really play it as so many were still on 56k, not to mention the pc's were not able to handle it then either. That is no longer the case with everyone on broadband, much better server designs with more power and pc's of the day can handle that type of game much more easily.

[Vancha]

Fun? Yes. Original? Not so much. Both Battlefield 1942 and C&C Renegade came out before PS. Planetside wasn't that much different .. just bigger and with more players.

I can't say I ever played Renegade, but I imagine PS had far more of an RPG element to the characters, with the certification system and implants. Wiki says Renegade has bases, but I imagine Planetside's system beats Renegade's by a mile. Then you have all the support roles such as adv hack, CE, AMS', lodestars...

Granted, Planetside wasn't the first to have troops, vehicles and aircraft in the same instance, but I think it had plenty of originality to it besides.

[CutterJohn]

Actually PS doesnt play at all like BF. Those games are more about instant death and quick play. Very little interactivity with various aspects of the game. No teamwork really needed other than everyone zerg the other team. Not much diversity, not much of many things. PS has alot more depth. It feels more strategic even from the point of the soldier in how you fight or what you fight with. BF, and esp CoD are just zerg in and hope you get the first shot, if you do you win if you dont they win (due to instant death with most any weapon), instantly respawn and zerg back at em again. Its the same as teh days of UT and quake just with modern weapons and better graphics.

If you think BF didn't need a squad, you're doing it wrong. Oh, sure, kills were easier, so if you got the drop on some people, you could take them out solo. Maybe. But not reliably.

What PS had was a far more glaring rock/paper/scissors dynamic. AV weapons were AV weapons only, of only nominal use vs infantry or air. Infantry weapons were very strictly divided into range groups by punishing cones of fire and damage degradation.

Oh, and quite often, PS respawn times are shorter than BF. Unless you've been dying a lot. Zerg back at them? Base battles were nothing but zergs.

[DviddLeff]

BF ismore infantry battles with the odd vehicle to spice things up.

PS in my eyes needs to be more like BF with respect to weapon effectiveness; TTK especially.

[CutterJohn]

BF ismore infantry battles with the odd vehicle to spice things up.

PS in my eyes needs to be more like BF with respect to weapon effectiveness; TTK especially.

Would need easier/faster healing and rezzing though. BF could get away with the big maps with short ttks because of the medics ease of rezzing and ease of healing(either the bf2 complete heal packs or the BC2 heal aura kits. Heal aura is better imo). And definitely more space to operate in, with more cover to utilize.

On the whole I agree though. BF is pretty much my ideal of infantry combat.

[Raymac]

BF ismore infantry battles with the odd vehicle to spice things up.

PS in my eyes needs to be more like BF with respect to weapon effectiveness; TTK especially.

I think I see what you are saying, but I think the TTK in PS1 is just right. In 1 on 1 it takes a couple seconds, if a few people are focus firing on you...well you are dead faster than you can say "oh crap".

I don't know how well PS would play if 1 person could take you down as quickly as it currently takes 3 people to do it. I could see it now:
spawn -> run -> BAM killed in 2 bullets -> respawn -> run -> BAM killed in 2 bullets -> rage quit.

I like having that little bit of time to find cover. If I'm out in the open, the current TTK will take me out just fine, if we increase that, the 1 on 1 kills will happen too quickly which will make 2 on 1 and above basically be insta-kills. Instant death will cause many keyboards to be thrown against walls.

[Vancha]

Agreed. If the TTK was any shorter, most battles would come down to who saw who first.

[Goku]

I think I see what you are saying, but I think the TTK in PS1 is just right. In 1 on 1 it takes a couple seconds, if a few people are focus firing on you...well you are dead faster than you can say "oh crap".

I don't know how well PS would play if 1 person could take you down as quickly as it currently takes 3 people to do it. I could see it now:
spawn -> run -> BAM killed in 2 bullets -> respawn -> run -> BAM killed in 2 bullets -> rage quit.

I like having that little bit of time to find cover. If I'm out in the open, the current TTK will take me out just fine, if we increase that, the 1 on 1 kills will happen too quickly which will make 2 on 1 and above basically be insta-kills. Instant death will cause many keyboards to be thrown against walls.

Could not of said it better myself.

[DviddLeff]

What annoys me is the difference between the infantry weapons; if you have the wrong weapon you are simply screwed especially up close where you should be able to have a chance with even pistols; HA shouldn't be the only weapon to carry within 10 meters.

It should give you an advantage yes, but since the rexo buff low damage per shot weapons have been severely gimped compared to HA.

[CutterJohn]

I don't know how well PS would play if 1 person could take you down as quickly as it currently takes 3 people to do it. I could see it now:
spawn -> run -> BAM killed in 2 bullets -> respawn -> run -> BAM killed in 2 bullets -> rage quit.

PS would play horribly if that happened, because of those crappy base designs that are a never ending series of choke points that get focused on. Rather like the death traps that were the titans in BF2142 I should think.

No, PS weapons feel entirely too anemic.


And as I said, BF compensates for the increased lethality with the more powerful rez and healing capabilities.

[BorisBlade]

BF ismore infantry battles with the odd vehicle to spice things up.

PS in my eyes needs to be more like BF with respect to weapon effectiveness; TTK especially.

Hell no. If PS turns into that god awful instant death crap i'm done with it. Much more interesting when you can get hit by a shot or two and then take cover and react or adjust to the fight. Playing CoD type games where the second you see you are gettin hit you are already dead, is boring without having that back and forth. Infantry fights are just about who sees who first. Those kind of fights are beyond frustrating when you get hit first and too lame and easy when you attack first. Plus PS has fixed location spawn points with often sizable times to get back into battle. If im just gonna die instantly then spend a bunch of time gettin back just to die instantly to most often things i never see til im dead then thats not gonna be fun in the least.

Plus with those boring insant deaths you have very little room to balance weapons. If everything kills ya near instantly its gonna be a rather boring assortment of weapons to play with. You just remove one of the major ways to tweak weapons for uniqueness, not a good idea.

The longer TTK's are one of the best parts of PS. It allows for strategy, and tactics that you just dont get with most FPS's. Its like with MMO's where those with the super fast paced pvp just cause more frustration while those with longer times where strategy and tactics can come in are much more fun. And those longer fights usually end up with a broader audience, those who are super twitch atleast feel like they can do ok. Maybe not great, but since they arent dieing instantly they arent constantly frustrated and will in turn play more. Somethin i hear from many of the female players and even those male friends who dont usually play FPS's because of their too high twitch factors, PS slows it down enough for them to enjoy while still keeping the pace up enough to be fun.

[CutterJohn]

It allows for strategy, and tactics that you just dont get with most FPS's.

Please describe these tactics and strategies. I am curious. The only thing I see it doing is being less punishing for running in the open. I concede this is necessary in PS due to the extreme lack of anything resembling cover on its wide open candylands.

Whats the ttk, i wonder, for a suppressor or punisher, or any MA for that matter, vs a rexo/pshield/medpack using/health benefit grunt? 5+ seconds? A grunt with that setup and HA will rarely lose to a scrub in agile and suppressor.