Opinions on the Class System

[Ragotag]

Thought to resurrect this topic since there seems to be a lot of discussion over the class system in many other threads and there is more information out today than when similar past threads were started and posted to in 2011. Although we all may have a certain opinion and feeling on this topic in terms of game design, it's the "why" that is of interest. Vote and offer us a "why".

[Ragotag]

I am for the class system:


From the developer perspective, it prevents OP kits that would otherwise make 80%-90% of the equipment options unused by the player base.
Combined with the CERT system, it allows for a deeper level of specialization.
It reinforces the use of combined arms tactics and a mix of combat roles, which IMO, makes for more coordinated team-based gameplay which is one of the things PlanetSide is known for.

[Synapses]

The class system is just better because:

It will keep people constantly changing what they play.

It prevents everyone and there mother having armor repair, medic, ext like in PS1... which I wasent a big fan of because everyone could just run away and heal themselves.

I think it will allow them to make each class more unique then others...

[CutterJohn]

Its a tradeoff. In general, it will make the battles and weapon loadouts more varied, and keep some of the worst excesses in check. But it will also kill some niche roles that some players enjoyed. I tend to prefer the classes though. They look to be decently freeform.

[Synapses]

I think my ONLY fear with this class system is like in BF3 where EVERYONE and there mother plays engineer because they can repair vehicles and have rockets while also being good in infantry combat. It bugs me.

I personally play assault, but I hate getting in a vehicle to find that i'm instantly being locked by every person on the ground. Its frustrating and the reason I quit BF3.

So as long as they prevent the ability for everyone in a certain class to have uber abilitys compared to others I am more then happy. Please dont give one class more dominant abilitys then others. If your going to give a class the ability to shoot down vehicles/air while also repairing things, DO NOT allow them to be a viable option in infantry combat.

PLEASE from the bottom of my heart!

[Ragotag]

I think my ONLY fear with this class system is like in BF3...

I don't fear it so much. Play BF3 long enough, and you'll find certain roles are dominant on certain maps in certain game modes. You'll also figure out tactics to counter certain kit selections (for your BF3 - MBT example, the Javelin misses at least 50% of the time and smoke will break all locks on you). You'll likely see similar happening in PS2; certain terrain will cater to a select sub-set of play styles which will then drive certain class kit selections. In example, terrain favoring aircraft will likely see an influx of AA equipped armor and infantry.

On top of that, the transitions between combined arms to infantry-only should make that single role mentality only useful for part of the battle, not the entire battle. Successful Outfits will have to learn to change things up in real-time since the dynamics of any battle are likely to shift and change. But I agree, having one OP class is pointless and I am confident that the Dev's won't let that happen.

[ThGlump]

Classes have flaws too. True in ps1 since they added too much certs ppl were able to learn most of certs. But in ps2 they will learn them all. Yes they cant use them at once, but you can always pull tank, AV or sniper as you will learn them all. Just visit nearest terminal.
In ps1 you had to make some compromises (before they ruined it with br25+), now you are true one man army.

[Lonehunter]

When everyone has access to everything you really have to lower their effect in combat because it's being balanced with everything else in the game. But with specialties like classes they can let those specific class abilities/perks be more powerful. Because they know they won't be combining them with the other class's powerful abilities.

So I am definitely for the classes, as long as we don't earn class specific XP. I don't want to spend a year playing Cloaker and when I switch to MAX I feel like I'm forced to start over.

[Grimster]

I think the class system will work fine. It could have been a lot worse. :)

[Ragotag]

Classes have flaws too. True in ps1 since they added too much certs ppl were able to learn most of certs. But in ps2 they will learn them all. Yes they cant use them at once, but you can always pull tank, AV or sniper as you will learn them all. Just visit nearest terminal.
In ps1 you had to make some compromises (before they ruined it with br25+), now you are true one man army.

If terminals are scattered every 10m, then you could have a very good point. I don't think this will happen though, meaning that you either have to retreat from the field of battle to find a terminal to re-class/kit, or you have to die and re-class/kit during a respawn and then return to the battle. IMO, I prefer this (re-class/kit system) to a handful of pre-configured OP kits that everyone would otherwise use.

[EVILPIG]

Don't make polls if your poll options are bias. Simply ask which, not offer judgement of them in the question.

[Raymac]

I think PS1 showed us that the open-ended system is flawed. It sounds good on paper, but it fails over time. Every game raises their level cap over time, and so it is inevitable to run into the same problem we see in PS1 now. Everyone runs around carrying everything they need to face any opponent. There is little to no variety. The class system will ensure that variety.

I was skeptical of it at first, but after I thought about it, I think it's an improvement on the old idea.

[MrBloodworth]

There was variety, before they gave everyone extra certs.

[Ragotag]

Don't make polls if your poll options are bias. Simply ask which, not offer judgement of them in the question.

IMO, don't think it's biased at all. Aside from the fact that being biased/unbiased in not the topic here, how about explaining why the poll is biased and how the poll question/options could have been phrased to be un-biased?

[texico]

I prefer free form because:

- It feels more personal, you can embody your avatar more by having your own niche combinations of equipment and trade-off quirks.

- From a tactical viewpoint you get more diverse gameplay.

- It's not that people should be able to do EVERYTHING, but they should at least be able to do MULTIPLE things of their own choosing. It's not unbalanced to carry a machine gun for long range and a shotgun for short, because you don't have an AV, Med apps or Rep apps. It's only unbalanced if somebody can do all these things at once (like PS1)

- You don't have to carry around equipment you don't like or don't have the skill to use. In a class system, your favourite machine gun could be paired with a pistol you really hate or can't use well. It'd be such a waste.

other reasons.

[EVILPIG]

IMO, don't think it's biased at all. Aside from the fact that being biased/unbiased in not the topic here, how about explaining why the poll is biased and how the poll question/options could have been phrased to be un-biased?

The wording. "Open-ended" and "limited", which may be factual, sound positive and negative. You certainly could have discussed your opinion of them in the body of the post, but I would have limited it to simply "PS1" or "PS2" and of course the option to not take a side.

I speak in a direct fashion. I wasn't bashing you, just stating my opinion of how it is presented.

[Ragotag]

The wording. "Open-ended" and "limited", which may be factual, sound positive and negative. You certainly could have discussed your opinion of them in the body of the post, but I would have limited it to simply "PS1" or "PS2" and of course the option to not take a side.

I speak in a direct fashion. I wasn't bashing you, just stating my opinion of how it is presented.

No problem at all; was why I asked. Thanks for the response.

[EVILPIG]

I prefer free form because:

- It feels more personal, you can embody your avatar more by having your own niche combinations of equipment and trade-off quirks.

- From a tactical viewpoint you get more diverse gameplay.

- It's not that people should be able to do EVERYTHING, but they should at least be able to do MULTIPLE things of their own choosing. It's not unbalanced to carry a machine gun for long range and a shotgun for short, because you don't have an AV, Med apps or Rep apps. It's only unbalanced if somebody can do all these things at once (like PS1)

- You don't have to carry around equipment you don't like or don't have the skill to use. In a class system, your favourite machine gun could be paired with a pistol you really hate or can't use well. It'd be such a waste.

other reasons.

Balance issues aside, which is the real purpose of the new system, would you buy in if you got the lore answer? In these military structures, soldiers are issued equipment based on their role and the mission. Your job is to follow the rules.

[texico]

When everyone has access to everything you really have to lower their effect in combat because it's being balanced with everything else in the game. But with specialties like classes they can let those specific class abilities/perks be more powerful. Because they know they won't be combining them with the other class's powerful abilities.

So I am definitely for the classes, as long as we don't earn class specific XP. I don't want to spend a year playing Cloaker and when I switch to MAX I feel like I'm forced to start over.


That's not necessarily true. A, you can only use one gun at a time anyway, you can't simultaneously engage a ground troop and a vehicle because you've combined AV and a rifle. And B, remember, it easily doesn't have to be everything, just multiple things.

The effect on game play in terms of the power of weapons of somebody attacking a troop with a rifle, then switching to AV and attacking a tank isn't going to be much different from somebody attacking infantry, respawning relatively fast with AV equipment and attacking a tank.

[Pozidriv]

G'day everyone! First time poster (extremely longtime lurker). Personally im in the middle, the freeform certing and inventory has it's charm but it tends to make "cookie cutter" ways on how to assemble your char.

Ofcourse there will be "cookie cutter" specs in the class iteration of certs, but it does mix it up since you can't get a heal tool and rep tool with REXO for example.

Currently im leaning a tad towards the class aproach, since i think it will let some abilities / weapons be alot more powerfull / usefull since they are more limited.

[DayOne]

Why not have classes of stuff that you can put into your free form inventory? It gives the balancing joy that is classes but the freedom for lots of ammo, lots of health kits, lots of grenades or a sensible mix!

[Dir]

I prefer free form because:

- It feels more personal, you can embody your avatar more by having your own niche combinations of equipment and trade-off quirks.

- From a tactical viewpoint you get more diverse gameplay.

- It's not that people should be able to do EVERYTHING, but they should at least be able to do MULTIPLE things of their own choosing. It's not unbalanced to carry a machine gun for long range and a shotgun for short, because you don't have an AV, Med apps or Rep apps. It's only unbalanced if somebody can do all these things at once (like PS1)

- You don't have to carry around equipment you don't like or don't have the skill to use. In a class system, your favourite machine gun could be paired with a pistol you really hate or can't use well. It'd be such a waste.

other reasons.

Would be interested in hearing your other reasons. Personally I stopped listening to my mother's advice on what I should wear or whether I should pack my rain coat or umbrella when I was...six? I sorted out what to bring with me in PS1 with completely custom load-outs including utilizing the trunk space in vehicles. It's what keeps me playing PS1 today. Here I see six preselected moods. I can already feel myself getting bored looking at this all too familiar class system borrowed from other similar games which are mentioned all too often in the latest video. It really wouldn't surprise me to find out that they had separate BF3, MW3, HALO and BF2142 machines setup so they have something to reference in house on how to make the perfect video game. Don't they know we're itching for PS2 because we got bored with all those games? During the video focusing on classes I actually found myself fast forwarding through it because it really didn't have anything new we haven't already seen in these similar games. This is someone's idea of "what works" and it seems to be written in stone...copied from another stone.

Personally I would be willing to trade off all the perks of these six classes to take advantage of a seventh class...call it old school class. Carry anything that suits your mood minus the advantages of “staying on the rails”. This is Planetside in name only...honestly the spawn screen looked so much like a cross between 2142 and BF3 that it's got me more worried than I already was. I mean this is some scary shit...can you see yourself playing these six classes 8 years from now? I'm perfectly capable of creating my own class thank you...PS1 did come with per-constructed load-outs and you had the option of sticking to them...but I've yet to meet a person in those 8 years that didn't start from scratch to suit the style of the individual that they are. PS1 respected players...if anything as a veteran I find this class system insulting and disrespectful.

Dir