Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS

[VioletZero]

As I've noted in another thread, there seems to be a split in the community on which direction Planetside 2 should be going in. Many threads seem to boil down to this question: Should it be more akin to an FPS or RTS? Planetside contains significant portions of both, but if the balance tipped one way or the other, which would you prefer?

FPS: People in the FPS camp believe that the enjoyment of individual players is paramount. The game wouldn't exist if players weren't having fun while playing. And the best way to accomplish that is to focus on the FPS aspects.

RTS: People in the RTS camp believe that, while the game is indeed an FPS, it should expand on its MMO aspect to provide a wide variety of tact and depth on a mass scale.

Which camp do you fall into, if any at all?

Note that these are not just extremes. Just asking that if you had to pick one or the other, which would you pick?

It's important to remember that both camps are right. While I personally believe that they should focus more on depth of tact, it is true that the game has to be fun for someone playing on the battlefield.

[alienmoose]

I want to hold your face down in a plate of spaghetti

[VioletZero]

By the way, although I personally fall into the RTS camp most of the time, there's no right answer here.

Neither of these are particularly "casual" or "hardcore." FPS camp players might want to make the gameplay more skill based so that when it comes down to 1 on 1 fights, the better player wins while an RTS camp player might say that it should come down to greater use of numbers.

[Xaine]

I see it like this.

If people wanted a standard FPS with Team Deathmatch, Search and Destroy and/or Conquest. They'd play Counter Strike, MW3 or Battlefield 3.

If people want a game like Planetside, then they'll play Planetside 2.

You're not going to be able to beat MW3/BF3 at their own game. By all means, give it all the nice FPS things that people love, but remember its Planetside 2 and not Call of Duty.

Tactics, thought and depth > Akimbo, Juggernauts and 14 year old children screaming down the comms.

[SKYeXile]

I want to hold your face down in a plate of spaghetti

I second that emotion.

[VioletZero]

I see it like this.

If people wanted a standard FPS with Team Deathmatch, Search and Destroy and/or Conquest. They'd play Counter Strike, MW3 or Battlefield 3.

If people want a game like Planetside, then they'll play Planetside 2.

You're not going to be able to beat MW3/BF3 at their own game. By all means, give it all the nice FPS things that people love, but remember its Planetside 2 and not Call of Duty.

Tactics, thought and depth > Akimbo, Juggernauts and 14 year old children screaming down the comms.

One could also argue that you're not going to beat Starcraft or any X4 title as an FPS so might as well focus on the FPS aspects.

[Xaine]

I want to hold your face down in a plate of spaghetti

Play nice kids. :(

[Xaine]

One could also argue that you're not going to beat Starcraft or any X4 title as an FPS so might as well focus on the FPS aspects.

Yes, but if you focus on the FPS side of things. This will become more like CoD, Battlefield, Counter Strike etc etc.

If you focus on tactics and teamwork, it will become more like Planetside 1.

This is coming from someone who plays MW3 every night by the way. I like deathmatch FPS games, i just don't want Planetside to be one of them.

[Ailos]

LOL WUT? RTS? Really?

I think I can understand where you would get the idea. I imagine the continental commander's map being very much like an RTS game in itself. But PlanetSide always has, always will, and always MUST BE an MMO FPS. Yeah, you may be managing your outfit and empire via an RTS-style interface, but at the end of the day, if you're going to want to get something done, you're going to have to get up off your ass and go shoot someone in the face. There can be no other way.

[VioletZero]

LOL WUT? RTS? Really?

I think I can understand where you would get the idea. I imagine the continental commander's map being very much like an RTS game in itself. But PlanetSide always has, always will, and always MUST BE an MMO FPS. Yeah, you may be managing your outfit and empire via an RTS-style interface, but at the end of the day, if you're going to want to get something done, you're going to have to get up off your ass and go shoot someone in the face. There can be no other way.

One could make an argument that it is genre defying.

[Ailos]

One could make an argument that it is genre defying.

You mean PS2 in its own genre? I think that argument is easier to make than calling PS2 an RTS game.

[VioletZero]

You mean PS2 in its own genre? I think that argument is easier to make than calling PS2 an RTS game.

We're not saying it is one genre or the other. People like me just think that the game would be better with more in depth tact.

[Ailos]

We're not saying it is one genre or the other. People like me just think that the game would be better with more in depth tact.

Lol you want actual zerg controls? Good luck with that.

[Vancha]

Ah dear. I really don't think RTS is the right word (or initialism) to describe what you mean.

I think she's talking more about the logistics of battle. Intelligence, recon, support, resources etc. Not just having commanders viewing the battle as if it were an RTS.

[VioletZero]

Lol you want actual zerg controls? Good luck with that.

If nothing else, if you are an outfit leader then your members will listen to you. Well, most of the time anyway. ;)

[Xaine]

You mean PS2 in its own genre? I think that argument is easier to make than calling PS2 an RTS game.

Agreed.

[Captain1nsaneo]

The zerg follows the outfits. Good inter-outfit coordination can lead to RTS like situations. I had a friend who would sit in the spawn and just be typing to a bunch of squad leaders in order to make our forces more effective. PS has a lot of RTS element potentially, it's up to the players to reach out and talk to the other units to get something done.

It's both. It can never not be both.

[WaryWizard]

Lol you want actual zerg controls? Good luck with that.

I think you may have misinterpreted the meaning of his idea, but I think he did not thoroughly explain his meaning either.

You wouldn't "control" the zerg, but instead have it easy to setup directives for outfit members, and if your high enough on a tree, set something for people in the area. Net really "control", but it is more of an suggested route they take. It would be up to the zerg whether or not they would want to follow these orders.

I see this as a vote on do you want the game focus even more on solo lone wolf style tactics, or do you want it to focus more on teamwork and strategy. Having it focused more on the solo soldier might make it more accessible to the newberts, but may detract from the outfit experience. Having it focused on teamwork and strategy will make it even more important to join up with an outfit early on, since solo style will be harder.

At least this is how I am interpreting it.:lol:

[HitbackTR]

I want to hold your face down in a plate of spaghetti

Only if we replace the spaghetti with venomous snakes and the sauce with violetzero's arterial blood.

[ThGlump]

In planetside your goal shouldnt be your k/d ratio, it should be about our team finishing empire goals. I guess that take me to "RTS" side, but FPS/RTS arent best chosen names for that.

[VioletZero]

In planetside your goal shouldnt be your k/d ratio, it should be about our team finishing empire goals. I guess that take me to "RTS" side, but FPS/RTS arent best chosen names for that.

I agree with that. But I needed identifiable names for each to prevent the thread title from being an eye sore.

[dai shan]

More RTS -- it's basically the biggest draw in comparison to BF3 / MW3.

As someone who didn't play ps1, I'm really excited and hopeful for the resource / territory control to have a very significant impact on gameplay -- and even more hopeful for some of the stuff they've talked about adding down the line eventually making it into the game -- like player built bases, structures, and etc.

[Raymac]

I see it like this.

If people wanted a standard FPS with Team Deathmatch, Search and Destroy and/or Conquest. They'd play Counter Strike, MW3 or Battlefield 3.

If people want a game like Planetside, then they'll play Planetside 2.

You're not going to be able to beat MW3/BF3 at their own game. By all means, give it all the nice FPS things that people love, but remember its Planetside 2 and not Call of Duty.

Tactics, thought and depth > Akimbo, Juggernauts and 14 year old children screaming down the comms.

No, no, no.

FPS games like COD, BF, and Halo all have scripted events to make it seem like you are part of a larger epic battle. In Planetside, you actually ARE part of a larger epic battle. That's the draw.

The sheer scale of Planetside lends itself to certain RTS elements, but it is and always should be an FPS first. Not every FPS game is Team Deathmatch. Objective based matches are not too dissimilar from Planetside apart from the scale. K/D really only matters in Team Deathmatches.

[Rbstr]

The whole premise of this thread is based on a false dichotomy of good FPS mechanics and meaningful persistence and scale. We can, and should have both. It's not an RTS, you're not sitting at an isometric view above little minions.
Strategy flows from the fact you can get other people, who are playing an FPS, just like you, to cooperate with you. FPS play I enjoy is decidedly NOT individual play.

Yeah Planetside wasn't a simple death match, but nor are any of the other FPS games I play. What is hacking a base, if not capturing the flag or king of the hill or planting a bomb or even an escort mission, in the case of LLUs, with different accoutrements?

You're a dude on the ground looking through the first person view. Everything starts and end at this. If the experience of being that dude sucks there's no point to any wildly impractical, neckbeard-theorycrafted, pre-beta strategy because no one's going to want to play as the soldier.

[VioletZero]

I was hoping to avoid this.

This thread is really about the decisions that come down to one or the other. Like Artillery. On one hand, you could have artillery and have greater tactical depth. On the other hand, it's not very fun for the people on the ground.

It's not about the extremes and you're right, it can and SHOULD include both.

[PoisonTaco]

I look at it as BF2/2142's commander mode on steroids.

[2coolforu]

The problem is RTS only works if you have a way of forcing people to actually follow the commands.

This can be fun for the commander but it might not be very fun for the people following the orders. Often it can take a long time of calm before any action is had in the execution of a strategy and there's nothing stopping an armchair general or someone woefully incompetent from being in command.

I mean I'd fucking love to be a Char Aznable leading the TR and make grand strategies but if you want to do that then form an outfit or get people to follow you. I don't think its particularly fair to give someone absolute control over all the separate players. Anyway it sounds like they are adding in a mission/reward system so players can get an xp bonus or whatnot from obeying commanders so that's the best compromise.

[Graywolves]

there's no purpose in having a game on a massive scale and allowing over 40 people to coordinate together if it's going to be focused on individual gameplay.

[Lonehunter]

I don't think Planetside fits either of those labels by themselves. It is in fact it's own genre. I've always said the game is more about tactics then any other, but that isn't fun unless the FPS portion of the game meets expectations.

[VioletZero]

I don't think Planetside fits either of those labels by themselves. It is in fact it's own genre. I've always said the game is more about tactics then any other, but that isn't fun unless the FPS portion of the game meets expectations.

And here I tried to make that fact as clear as possible in the original post.

:cry:

Oh well.

I agree with you. However, this just comes down to issues like Artillery where it is one or the other.

[Lonehunter]

And here I tried to make that fact as clear as possible in the original post.

You're asking a question that I don't want to pick a single answer for lol, I want an "All of the above". If it tipped to one direction more then another it wouldn't be Planetside, and therefor I probably wouldn't play

[ShockFC]

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

If anything, PS and PS2 was/will be a strategic FPS. If you ever, ever label either of these games as an RTS you have brain damage to the maximum.

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

If anything, PS and PS2 was/will be a strategic FPS. If you ever, ever label either of these games as an RTS you have brain damage to the maximum.

TO THE MAXIMUM!

http://www.ebcak.com/wp-content/gallery/extreme-bodybuilders/extreme_bodybuilder_02.jpg

[CutterJohn]

There should be, as there was in PS1, plenty of playstyles that cater to everyone. Roles for solo players(Generally AA was good for this, as was cloaking), roles for ad hoc groups(the main zergfest), and roles for people with strong teamwork(raids, gen holds, etc).

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

There should be, as there was in PS1, plenty of playstyles that cater to everyone. Roles for solo players(Generally AA was good for this, as was cloaking), roles for ad hoc groups(the main zergfest), and roles for people with strong teamwork(raids, gen holds, etc).



I agree, but they wanna make money. So they are gonna dumb this baby down to the lowest common denominator! Halo/BF3/MW - Planetside here we come!

Driver controls the main gun. Come on! :doh:

[ShockFC]

Shut it WRONGFELLA!

Is it weird that I'm going to miss you in command chat in PS2? I've grown accustomed to your face.

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

Shut it WRONGFELLA!

Is it weird that I'm going to miss you in command chat in PS2? I've grown accustomed to your face.

You're west coast with me aren't you dum dum? Or are you gonna wuss out and go red or blue. Traitor!

[CutterJohn]

I agree, but they wanna make money. So they are gonna dumb this baby down to the lowest common denominator! Halo/BF3/MW - Planetside here we come!

Driver controls the main gun. Come on! :doh:

Thats appeasing the masses, not dumbing down. Controlling the driver gun and driving at the same time takes more skill, not less.

[SKYeXile]

You're west coast with me aren't you dum dum? Or are you gonna wuss out and go red or blue. Traitor!

if you mean red and blue at the same time, then yes, otherwise no.

[VioletZero]

Thats appeasing the masses, not dumbing down. Controlling the driver gun and driving at the same time takes more skill, not less.

It takes more skill to communicate to your gunner/driver what to do than to just directly aim it.

[SKYeXile]

It takes more skill to communicate to your gunner/driver what to do than to just directly aim it.

I take it you never tried to gun and drive in Planetside?

[HitbackTR]

Longfella is still maximizing the fail I see!

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

Longfella is still maximizing the fail I see!



http://www.twc.edu/sites/default/files/u49/U%20Mad%20Bro.jpg

[Gortha]

RTS!? WTF? You know what Real Time Strategy Games are?

[Canaris]

and why can't we have both with a game this big?

[Hamma]

So.. did you mean to use the term RTS? I'm not so sure it fits what you are asking..

[Mastachief]

I want to hold your face down in a plate of spaghetti

^^ this

Violetzero, i encourage you to try Planetside first it will give you a better understand of what the veteran player have played and why we tend to think as we do.

Your poll option doesn't offer and option i would choose.

3rd option, MMO Persistant world FPS based on team work with tanks, planes and other such vehicles.

[NewSith]

...and so PSU started to turn into Official PlanetSide Forum...


Stop being dicks, gentlemen. I know it's all cool to be all high'n'mighty over the internet but I always liked this forum for being rather friendly and for constructive posts.

Hamma delete this thread please. Too much bile in one thread here.

EDIT Hell, people didn't even read the OP here...

[Figment]

PlanetSide has always been largely in the area "World of Command & Conquer" considering its setup is not like "World of Random Pew Pew". It's not random, it's strategic and in real time, but it's still a FPS none the less.

Why should there be a split? We use strategy and combined arms on large scale numbers and we do this from a predominantly FPS perspective. It's both and we, as a community, enjoy the elements that makes both unique.

So it's both. Where can I vote both in the poll options?

[dai shan]

...and so PSU started to turn into Official PlanetSide Forum...


Stop being dicks, gentlemen.



qft

a lot of people not being reasonable at all here -- it's just a thread for discussion, for christs sake

[Xaine]

No, no, no.

FPS games like COD, BF, and Halo all have scripted events to make it seem like you are part of a larger epic battle. In Planetside, you actually ARE part of a larger epic battle. That's the draw.

The sheer scale of Planetside lends itself to certain RTS elements, but it is and always should be an FPS first. Not every FPS game is Team Deathmatch. Objective based matches are not too dissimilar from Planetside apart from the scale. K/D really only matters in Team Deathmatches.

When i say i prefer the RTS side of it, i mean the back-hacking, gen holding, gal dropping, LLU running, mod stealing, ghost hacking etc etc that set Planetside apart from other FPS games.

I love the FPS parts of Planetside, i really do. But when someone says 'FPS features' i instantly go to CoD, Battlefield etc. Which to me, is arena FPS with people jumping round corners spraying akimbo weapons, bunnyhopping around like idiots. I want to keep Planetside as FAR away from that as i possibly can.

[ringring]

Ditto everyone above who commented on the fps/rts 'false' choice. Just make it Planetside for me.

However, anything to increase player tact who be good. :D

[Scrima]

It's an MMOFPS, not an MMORTS... you cannot compare this to a 1000 player Command and Conquer but you can compare it to a 1000 player Battlefield, just with a bigger world, more players, more tactics/strategy and hopefully less idiots.

[ThGlump]

Its just all confusion from wrongly naming chosen types that make ppl mad in this thread.

So little translation what it mean:
"FPS" - its all about killing and k/d, focus on solo players to have fun, ideal for kill whores.
"RTS" - focused on teamplay, using tactic has higher impact than your FPS skill

We all know ps is the second type (and hopefully PS2 too), but dont call planetside RTS :)

[VioletZero]

RTS!? WTF? You know what Real Time Strategy Games are?

Games about strategy in real time?

[Warborn]

Using the term RTS typically conjures up images of building bases and commanding units into battle. In that case I guess they could have some of those elements tied to leadership skills. I don't know what their plans are but that wouldn't be too far-fetched.

What I think you meant to ask is whether it should be a sort of "realistic" shooter like the early Ghost Recon games, or World War 2 Online, or ArmA, or whether it should be a more casual-player-friendly. Your terms here are really confusing people because even a hardcore FPS game is still an FPS game, and even a more casual FPS game (like Teamfortress 2) is still an FPS game.

It's also important to note that providing a game that is fun to play but also offers a lot of depth are not mutually exclusive properties. The games that are good are the ones that offer both, and it's what the PS2 developers will no doubt strive to achieve. I don't believe anyone here seriously thinks the game should sacrifice "fun to play" in favour of having more strategic depth. That's the kind of game EVE Online is, and it is a very, very niche title.

[Raymac]

Its just all confusion from wrongly naming chosen types that make ppl mad in this thread.

So little translation what it mean:
"FPS" - its all about killing and k/d, focus on solo players to have fun, ideal for kill whores.
"RTS" - focused on teamplay, using tactic has higher impact than your FPS skill

We all know ps is the second type (and hopefully PS2 too), but dont call planetside RTS :)

I think this is a good explanation of the misconception. (if there is one)

Yes, Planetside is very much a team based, objective based shooter where working together to accomplish a specific goal is more important than your k/d ratio.

However RTS is a whole different genre of game so it's not a great term to use. It's like saying Saving Private Ryan is a horror movie because it has some blood and gore.

[Warborn]

Its just all confusion from wrongly naming chosen types that make ppl mad in this thread.

So little translation what it mean:
"FPS" - its all about killing and k/d, focus on solo players to have fun, ideal for kill whores.
"RTS" - focused on teamplay, using tactic has higher impact than your FPS skill

We all know ps is the second type (and hopefully PS2 too), but dont call planetside RTS :)

Planetside 1 was either depending on your preference. Sometimes you'd do stuff with your outfit and have specific goals in mind, sometimes you'd just log on for 15 minutes and shoot some dudes for fun. Either way of playing is perfectly acceptable, and there's little doubt PS2 will function in a similar fashion.

[PrISM]

Planetside as a whole isn't about whether it should be a FPS, RTS, MMO or whatever. It also isn't about how players should play; they shouldn't play for K/D ratios, they should play for the tactics, they should play for the good of their empire or anything else like that. The beauty of Planetside is that you can play all of those things, none of those things or anything in between.

[Figment]

Just for the record, people who think all RTS genre is limited to games like Age of Empires, Starcraft, Ultimate Commander and C&C forget that even games like Europa Universalis III and most other games by Paradox Interactive fall into this category. They are far closer to board games like Risk, yet they are also Real Time Strategy because all players are active at the same time. The Total War series is turn based with RTS elements during battles. So is ETW turn based strategy or RTS, or is it simply both?

There's no need to limit the definition and why wouldn't there be such a thing as a MMORTSFPS? You select units to use in order to conquer bases and gather resources in PS. These are FAR from typical FPS elements and very typical RTS elements. It is both. End off. Don't be narrowminded to think it's only one and that they are two strictly seperately identifiable things.

In fact, you could even claim that PlanetSide is a RPG, because we got a leveling system and huge faction loyalty that transcends mere competition between players. So what if you'd call it a MMORTSFPSRPG? Would it be very far from the truth?


In many industries, they call such a thing where you can't quite name it a crossover. PlanetSide is a game genre crossover that takes a lot of elements out of many typical genres.

[Graywolves]

Planetside is more about your empire's accomplishment and finally taking that base.


K/D ratio is less important than the collective's success in conquering Auraxis.

[Warborn]

VioletZero made a mistake by using the terms RTS and FPS in his opening post. Do not dwell on these ideas, as they have nothing to do with the original question and are a pointless tangent as Planetside self-identifies as MMOFPS, not MMORPGFPSRTSBBCCNNBBW or whatever.

Planetside is more about your empire's accomplishment and finally taking that base.

It can be, but it can also be about just logging on to shoot people. Both styles of playing are equally valid and Planetside 2 will benefit quite a lot from having players who are unconcerned with the bigger picture and simply want to get stuck in.

[Shanesan]

This whole discussion is lacking in proper semantics.

Lets take the "FPS" genre and show what they try to do to make it look like "RTS".
In Battlefield Bad Company 2, they added background art - jets flying over, missile trails in the background, whatever. It made it look like you were a larger part of the battle. In reality, you're in an instanced world where those missiles will never hit their fake targets and those jets were going nowhere.

In Planetside, those jets flying over were your saving grace or your death bringer because they were operated by REAL people in a real situation. Sometimes, they were not random happenstances, but orders to a real person, a pilot, from another real person, a commander to help you out because your team, all real people, were pinned down, under fire from artillery - a real person, and that commander needed your squad in that tower 100 feet away, occupied by real people, because a Galaxy, piloted by a real person, was dropping units onto that tower's roof at that very moment - more real people. There are no NPCs to dispatch. There are no passive mobs. There are hardly any pre-built gunning positions. Air, ground and sea, the hostilities are everywhere, all with real people. Add coordination and group play, and this is already far beyond what you could call a FPS - there's too many variables and it needs organization.

This is where the RTS system becomes important. If you do not have basic ways to talk to other squads as a ranked commander, all you have is chaos and stupidity. People don't HAVE to take a commanders orders because there are so many other people who want to follow orders, and as most of us PS veterans know, actual orders usually = higher chance of success. If you don't have a proper RTS system in Planetside 2, all you have is a huge deathmatch with no real purpose, or you have people who don't know what they're doing and they will leave because there are no objectives or missions.

Commanders -- real people -- CREATE the objectives. They CREATE the missions. There's no better thing than dynamic "quests" created by people receiving information in the now, and where time is of the essence.

Without both pieces of the puzzle, Planetside 2 is simply a shitty shooter.

[WaryWizard]

Yes violet had used the wrong words. Editing or just delete and remaking this would help. I think it should be something more about what should the devs focus more on.

Lone-wolf style- should they make solo play style more interesting and easier to fight without team work than it currently is?

Wolf pack style- Should thy expand even more on what outfits, squads, platoons, etc are capable of doing organizing and commanding wise?


something like this instead of FPS or RTS would help convey the true meaning of the question.

[Graywolves]

Yes violet had used the wrong words. Editing or just delete and remaking this would help. I think it be something more about what should the devs focus more on.

Lone-wolf style- should they make solo play style more interesting and easier to fight without team work than it currently is?

Wolf pack style- Should thy expand even more on what outfits, squads, platoons, etc are capable of doing organizing and commanding wise?


something like this instead of FPS or RTS would help convey the true meaning of the question.

I am a Wolf Pack

[Espion]

Planetside is more about your empire's accomplishment and finally taking that base.


K/D ratio is less important than the collective's success in conquering Auraxis.


Some outfits took/held bases with high K/Ds

[Shanesan]

Some outfits took/held bases with high K/Ds

That's true, but most outfits took/held bases with good teamwork and a plan, which lead to those high K/Ds.

[Warborn]

The bottom line is that the game should support both teamwork/strategy-focused gameplay as well as people who want to just log on and get right into the action. Neither form of gameplay should come at the expense of the other, which is the impression this thread gives.

[VioletZero]

The bottom line is that the game should support both teamwork/strategy-focused gameplay as well as people who want to just log on and get right into the action. Neither form of gameplay should come at the expense of the other, which is the impression this thread gives.

That's a nice ideal although there are going to be decisions that come at the expense of one another.

Like the Nighttime thread I made was specifically because of the potential for depth of tact.

But you argued against it because you don't think it would be very fun to fight enemies that you can't see.

That kind of decision falls into the bounds of what this thread is talking about. Along with the Killcam discussion, the Artillery debate and the Ironsights debate.

[Warborn]

Yes, there are decisions where it's either/or, but adding strategy and depth to a game does not require it to be at the expense of accessibility and just overall fun for players. These are not mutually exclusive principles, and I'd assert that Planetside 1 is itself evidence of that.

A lot of the ideas that exist on these forums are examples of people wanting forms of gameplay which are not in the service of an enjoyable gameplay experience. These are ideas that have no spirit of compromise to them. You have to understand that most people who will play Planetside 2 are not going to be in it for some deep strategic experience. They will be just regular gamers looking for some cool game to shoot guys in, and Planetside 2 will try to be "it". These players do not appreciate your lofty ambitions of making Planetside 2 an ultra-realistic futuristic shooter. They just want a fun game.

As such, putting forward ideas which are not about making the game just plain ol' more enjoyable to play for people need to have a seriously good reason as to why, because otherwise you're stepping on the toes of the majority of future players for no good reason.

[Checowsky]

Tactics are tactics, the thought of 'how do I win' is the same, what you do is dependent on what you have at your disposal. Just because RTSs have had tanks, troops and aircraft doesn't make it akin to PS. You have to work as individuals or work around others, thats an FPS type mindset. Both, however, are coming from the same place, winning. I'd say PS is slightly unique but still falls more close to an FPS.


Also try watching a great CS: S team then watch some noob play Starcraft, see which is more tactical.

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

Planetside is more about your empire's accomplishment and finally taking that base.


K/D ratio is less important than the collective's success in conquering Auraxis.


This is a First person shooter. After that comes everything else.

[Warborn]

This is a First person shooter. After that comes everything else.

Yeah, well, y'know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[VioletZero]

This is a First person shooter. After that comes everything else.

Is it a first person shooter in a persistent world?

Or is it a strategy game where players play the individual units from a first person perspective?

Truthfully: It's both.

[Crator]

This is a First person shooter. After that comes everything else.

Oh, but it is so much more!

[Shade Millith]

Is it a first person shooter in a persistent world?

Or is it a strategy game where players play the individual units from a first person perspective?

Truthfully: It's both.

You know what I would LOVE to see?

Is outfit leaders get a RTS style view, in which they can do the whole "Select unit(s), move here" thing, exactly the same way an RTS works. Each player getting ordered gets a minimap icon/HUD icon showing where the commander wants them.

That would be kinda cool.

[MooK]

Why can't there be a third option? Both? That's what PlanetSide is all about.

[Sirisian]

Why can't there be a third option? Both? That's what PlanetSide is all about.
Seriously. But to be pedantic we can break down his explanations and find they mean very little and the distinctions he listed are not black and white.


FPS: People in the FPS camp believe that the enjoyment of individual players is paramount. The game wouldn't exist if players weren't having fun while playing. And the best way to accomplish that is to focus on the FPS aspects.
Summarized: If players by themselves are having fun then the game is fun for everyone. That is if we have player A and B and nothing bad that A does hurts player's B's experience and the converse is true then A and B both have fun.

Pretty basic, but this doesn't apply any constraints to A's fun. Do A and B have to be with a group to have this fun? Would being with a group require the system to be more fun than the solo experience?

The RTS explanation adds a constraint.
RTS: People in the RTS camp believe that, while the game is indeed an FPS, it should expand on its MMO aspect to provide a wide variety of tact and depth on a mass scale.
Summarized: While A and B can have fun by themselves they can also have fun with others in a group. This statement implies however that tactics can only be performed while in a group with others and implies that A and B would have a higher enjoyment with a group than by themselves.

An explanation of what these tactics are is left to the reader, but is assumed to mean focused fire and healing. However, in the FPS model that already exists as a choice and is commonly referred to as "zerg" tactics. That is uncoordinated symbiotic tactics that happen independent of a forced tactics system as assumed in the RTS explanation.

So what would the RTS tactic choices be that would be drastically different than the zerg choices? As an explanation healing happens within the zerg through natural compassion. Not allowing a medic to heal themselves would force cooperative teamwork. However, in a zerg environment it is already assumed players will heal others anyway as was seen in PS1. So the opposite in order to assume a purely individualistic FPS gameplay would be to assume that players can only heal themselves and do so for their own gain. This follows the FPS constraint of A doing no harm to B. However, applying that constraint to remove tactical healing of friendlies is an odd game design choice and fairly arbitrary.

So what would fall under this as an example. The most obvious is changing the time to kill (TTK) and treating it as a slider between FPS and the RTS definitions. Starting with a low TTK.
1) FPS: Player A benefits by killing enemies faster. Player B benefits from killing enemies faster. Does A's ability to kill enemies faster harm player B? Objectively friendly fire could mean A could team kill player B faster, but that is an edge case.
2) RTS: Player A is in group with C and E. They fight B with 3 scenarios comparing group vs solo tactics.
Scenario 1) B kills C and E by getting the upper hand using a grenade and quick reflexes. A kills B. E kills no one. Objectively B didn't use any team tactics but used solo tactics and A, C, and E didn't.
Scenario 2) A, C, and E work together and kill B. Tactics were used. B didn't use any successful solo tactics.
Scenario 3) Both use tactics and B kills C and A kills B. A, C, and E are rewarded with experience even though C died and E did nothing.

Then you have group vs group with similar scenarios and outcomes.

The opposite to this TTK is a high TTK.
1) FPS: Player A has no benefit against killing single players faster. B likewise. A's ability to kill enemies slower does not harm player B if both are playing by themselves.
2) RTS: Player A, C, and E fight player B. B does minimal damage to C and A, C, and E focus fire to kill B and are rewarded with experience. B is harmed by this as solo play would be discouraged.

This is the extreme spectrum so in the RTS model a group vs solo is more powerful as one would see in an RTS game.

However, A's and B's fun hinge on if A enjoys solo play or group play. So in a way all the poll is asking is if you like FPS solo player or RTS group play. An FPS solo player would prefer things like one-hit sniper rifles and grenades that kill multiple players taken to the extreme. An RTS group player would prefer snipers doing lower damage allowing them to heal their teammate and react. They would expect grenades to not instagib but allow players to react as a group and win against a single force or uncoordinated force.

I'd have to say RTS with the above definitions in that groups are greater than the whole. There's a catch though since you said "Note that these are not just extremes." so you're imaging an overlap that you fail to explain. What is overlapped between the two choices? Are group tactics only slightly better than solo tactics? You have the extreme left where solo players are just as good as a group and can go on killstreaks and the right where a solo player can't do anything by themselves. (Normally I refer to this as forced teamwork). The middle ground is where players benefit from skill and can kill 1 player for every 1 death. The solo player would not be rezzed. The group player would be rezzed effectively negating the impact of the solo player utilizing group tactics. But as mentioned the zerg works in mysterious ways and while players might assume they are by themselves suddenly they are rezzed. To assume that the FPS play style is possible without artificially placing constraints. such as you can only rez your squad mates, then it's impossible to picture a game that goes for the pure FPS player.

The middle ground promotes the 1 to 1 kill death that is present in PS1. That is the zerg with the most units are at an advantage even though the middle ground concept should say they aren't since rezzing in a group would offset the kill/death.

I guess if I had to choose then I'd say RTS. However, I want to say FPS in that if a solo player is given 100 choices of utilities then they could conceivably help the local group. Engineering for instance might place turrets for the kill while effectively helping a sniper from getting swarmed by infiltrators. That is an action that is fun for A (the engineer) is beneficial for B (the sniper) and goes beyond the clause of not doing harm. That is playing by yourself is fun, but your actions are inherently filling in the weakness of another player's class so they have fun.

That was actually one of the core ideas behind my fantasy implant (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37211) thread to foster group relationships with FPS focused abilities. That is you have something you can use for yourself but can also use to help others. Same idea was present in my squad remote artillery (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?p=586245) thread which focused on the FPS scenario of player A having fun while the group (squad in this case) could also benefit. It seems like the devs are already going for a nice middle ground. The tank is a prime example. FPS indicates that A (the driver) will have fun with the main cannon and the gunner will have fun with the secondary gun. In theory it's a good concept to put into a wide range of choices so that they don't all focus only on the FPS player but can be used for the group as well.

[DviddLeff]

Planetsides scale leads to strategy that few other FPS games can compare to.

That is its main selling point.

The FPS mechanics have to be right otherwise people will move on to smaller games that have better mechanics, as we have seen over the years when PS did not update itself to stay competitive.

[Tasorin]

You mean PS2 in its own genre?

Absolutely not.

What set PS aside from other MMOFPS style games both before it and after it is that it had the element of faction map control in a persistent world. There have been other MMO's out there which force a first person perspective in combat be it fantasy or shooter combat and had a persistent world. What they all lacked for the most part was the in depth element PS1 had in map control.

The other difference being is PS wasn't matched based other then being instanced by world. These two thing set it apart from every Tribes/Battlefield/Quake/CS style FPS out there.

The real sandbox MMO aspect be it FPS or RPG is what is the unique factor here.