About infantry combat!

[Astrok]

If i watch at the gameplay movies the infantry combat looks alot like games as COD or bf3 or whatever u want.I really hope it is because in ps1 i couldnt hit a damn thing hehe thats why i always flied or used vehicles in ps1

[DayOne]

Honestly not a bad thing IMO. BF3 has very good feel when shooting. I hope PS2 will feel as smooth and polished as something like BF3.

[Coreldan]

Same for me. I'd love if it had BF3 mechanics. Just about the best I've seen in any shooter ever. It's the other things that fall short with BF3, not the gunplay really.

I was mostly in support roles with Planetside too, cos playing from europe + already horrible netcode and the archaic gunplay just didnt make me feel much like shooting :D

[Bluecewe]

Honestly not a bad thing IMO. BF3 has very good feel when shooting. I hope PS2 will feel as smooth and polished as something like BF3.

Indeed.

While it's true that Battlefield 3 lacked in areas like scale of combined arms warfare and non-linear maps, the combat system feels very natural and intuitive. Although I enjoyed playing titles like 2142 back in the early days of Battlefield, the controls always seemed very clunky and non-natural.

[moosepoop]

i agree with you blue. the movement and animation in bf3 is really smooth and natural. taking this aspect is not a bad thing at all.

[SniperSteve]

I like the movement feel of Quake3. :)

[Atheosim]

I like the movement feel of Quake3. :)

I prefer Doom 2

[Sappy]

This thread makes me sad

[NCLynx]

Lets just hope they don't take the dust storms and smoke clouds the size of the entire map from BF3 (SmokeyField 3: Blinding Sunlight Boogaloo - Turbo Dust Edition)

Although I have faith in the dev team to not do that.

I like the movement feel of Quake3. :)

Me too.

[Zenben]

This thread makes me sad

Gotta be a hipster and hate something that's good just because it's popular?

[headcrab13]

Same for me. I'd love if it had BF3 mechanics. Just about the best I've seen in any shooter ever. It's the other things that fall short with BF3, not the gunplay really.

I couldn't agree more. It's awesome that the devs are updating Planetside's combat to modern day standards while maintaining the unique things that made Planetside incredible.

I think most Planetside players would agree that while the shooting mechanics were fun, there have been vast improvements to FPS games since 2003, and it makes sense to adapt to the new norm for PS2.

[DviddLeff]

I have always wished that PS had the same feel to combat as Battlefield - PS had a far too long TTK, perhaps not with HA, but with MA weapons it felt like you were tickling people. This problem was compounded when MA users faced off against HA, often having the HA user have time to turn around and kill the MA guy who opened fire with the muzzle in his spine.

PS is about battle scale and equality between new and old characters - everything else is secondary.

[RodenyC]

Meh don't want.If I wanted bf3 gameplay style I'd go play BF3

[Coreldan]

With that logic you should just play Planetside 1 then, it's not like you are gonna be happy with it, it's gonna be different anyways cos what was common/worked back in 2003 certainly isnt that now.

[Dreamcast]

Planetside 2 combat looks exactly like Killzone 2.


From TTK to how the combat just looks, it screams out Killzone 2.

[Sirisian]

I really hope it is because in ps1 i couldnt hit a damn thing
I don't understand this point. Could you explain that? I've played most of the COD games and BF games and I'm unsure what you mean.

This problem was compounded when MA users faced off against HA, often having the HA user have time to turn around and kill the MA guy who opened fire with the muzzle in his spine.
Most of the HA guns (except the TR one) were designed for close range. MA was more for medium range. Basically Planetside 1 took the concept of shotgun vs rifle and exaggerated the statistics for the weapons. Personally I like that design since it makes weapons good for their specific areas. You reward someone for using a shotgun in a hallway and hurt people for using a rifle which increases the complexity. The flipside is for people that prefer realism it looks awkward having the strengths and weaknesses exaggerated that far.

[Erendil]

Most of the HA guns (except the TR one) were designed for close range. MA was more for medium range. Basically Planetside 1 took the concept of shotgun vs rifle and exaggerated the statistics for the weapons. Personally I like that design since it makes weapons good for their specific areas. You reward someone for using a shotgun in a hallway and hurt people for using a rifle which increases the complexity. The flipside is for people that prefer realism it looks awkward having the strengths and weaknesses exaggerated that far.

I often despised PS1 combat for that very reason. Coming out on top in PS1 was usually more about which weapon you were carrying, not how good you actually were with the weapon in hand. So generally equipment > skill. Plus the limited weapon selection in each category meant that for any given situation most of the enemies you fought were all carrying the exact same weapon. Boooooooooring.....

Plus the vehicle dominance outside and cramped quarters inside meant that few weapon types had much use outside of HA or SA.

Thank god they've appeared to have fixed all that in PS2. :p

[RodenyC]

With that logic you should just play Planetside 1 then, it's not like you are gonna be happy with it, it's gonna be different anyways cos what was common/worked back in 2003 certainly isnt that now.

The thought has crossed my head alot.

[MacXXcaM]

I don't understand people who hate on the new infantry game mechanics. PS1's infantry movement was very common in those days. ADS wasn't widely used even in tactical realism games... Battlefield 1942 didn't have it, BF2 did, for example.
I remember Operation Flashpoint which was the 1st game I know of that used this. Call of Duty 1 was the second and I always loved it because it felt much more realistic and intuitive.

Since Planetside is a tactical/realism war shooter (keeping in mind it's scifi) it only makes sense to include game mechanics that are commonly used within the genre.
I'm not sure if I'd play PS2 very much if it would play exactly like PS1... I'm simply used to better standards now.

[raidyr]

Gotta be a hipster and hate something that's good just because it's popular?

Not liking mediocre games = hipster.

[CutterJohn]

I often despised PS1 combat for that very reason.

I did as well. I'd greatly prefer more generalist weapons, weighted towards a certain activity. Not extremely specialized weapons useless outside of its narrow role.

The classic example from most games would be sniper rifles, which tend to be heavily gimped in some fashion while firing from the hip. PS just had a monstrous CoF for it, other games get rid of the reticle altogether, or, in the most extreme, just make it do crap damage like in TF2 or Tribes Ascend.

Now, I don't mind reducing its effectiveness, but its still a gun, and still shoots a bullet, and this shouldn't be arbitrarily changed too much. 50% less damage, not 90%. A CoF like MA has, not a CoF that literally does make it hard to hit the broadside of a barn. An sniper should be an okish MA rifle with serious ammo issues when unscoped.

[Patek]

Planetside 2 combat looks exactly like Killzone 2.


From TTK to how the combat just looks, it screams out Killzone 2.

oh dude you make me wanna play KZ2 again!

sorry, so off topic lol

[Sirisian]

I often despised PS1 combat for that very reason. Coming out on top in PS1 was usually more about which weapon you were carrying, not how good you actually were with the weapon in hand. So generally equipment > skill.
I always felt there was a skill in choosing the right weapon for the job. Like using a shotgun in a base or a rifle depending on the size of the base. Simplifying all the weapons so they're similar seems kind of lazy. I did notice a lot of people like COD and BF which have generally similar weapons which works well in that game to make the game fair.
Plus the limited weapon selection in each category meant that for any given situation most of the enemies you fought were all carrying the exact same weapon. Boooooooooring.....
This was the bigger problem I believe. The only real close weapons were the dragon and sweeper and NC HA. Then you had medium with a few guns, but the pistols were completely useless.

[Xyntech]

I think Sirisian's point about PS1 exaggerating the differences in situational weapons is noteworthy. I personally don't like the idea of middle of the road weapons like MA rifles being completely invalidated by other weapons. I'd like to see rifles have a stronger chance against HA weapons and have a stronger chance against snipers, even if not being the ideal choice for either situation, while a sniper vs HA at close range would still be just as useless as HA vs sniper at long range.

As Erendil mentioned, PS2 already has the base layout design issues largely sorted out, so we are already guaranteed that more types of weapons and classes will find situations to be useful in, but I still am glad to see PS2's weapons seeming to be slightly more multi-purposed than in the first game.

I agree that you should be rewarded for thinking to take a shotgun into a close quarters fight, but I believe it should only be a small part of the outcome of a fight.

On the flip side, I'd like to see shotguns not be as useless at more medium ranges. Still very vulnerable to rifles, yet also able to make an enemy want to duck for cover or have to be quick to return fire.

A player should be rewarded for knowledge and planning in choosing their load out, but the net return should be across all of the multiple choices, like what other equipment am I bringing, or what grenades am I carrying, etc. This will be a lot more of a factor now that not everyone is able to bring a med app, engi tool and a REK. You should do slightly better in a firefight over someone who wasn't thinking and brought a rifle to a CQC fight, but where your load out and planning skills should really shine is across your entire load out and how it helps you and your empire from one spawning/equipment change to another.

[Traak]

Heavy Gear had the most realistic missile-swarm and smoke-trail physics.

[Zenben]

Not liking mediocre games = hipster.

The popularity of the Battlefield and Call of Duty series suggests something other than mediocrity. Personally, I love BF3. If it was persistent world, I wouldn't be as psyched about PS2 as I am.

[Gonefshn]

The popularity of the Battlefield and Call of Duty series suggests something other than mediocrity. Personally, I love BF3. If it was persistent world, I wouldn't be as psyched about PS2 as I am.

I love BF3 also, but part of what makes PS more interesting for a persistant world to me is the more defined factions. BF is just based in realism I cant get attached to the side I am fighting for as easily in a Reality based shooter.

Anyways, I loved Planetside 1, everything about it. But I have to agree, moving on to shooting mechanics more similar to BF3 just makes more sense for the game to flourish. I think modern shooting mechanics are more fluid and reasonable. In planetside there was no recoil or muzzle drift, to simulate that your gun just became progressively less accurate. In the future wouldn't the guns be more accurate? Something like the old PS system leaves a lot of the gunplay to chance, with the cone of fire increasing so dramatically and without recoil you are sometimes at the mercy of chance that your bullets would hit the target. Sure this encouraged firing in bursts but so does having recoil in a modern shooter.

I love iron sights but to me they have one problem I would like to see not carried over to planetside. In CoD for example being in your iron sights basically means your shooting a pinpoint accurate weapon, even at full auto.

I'd like to see iron sights for the more accurate, pinpoint aiming. but just because your in iron sights should not mean you can unload full auto without losing accuracy. Give the player in iron sights very reliable accuracy for the first 1-3 shots then let it deteriorate. My point is, whether your in iron sights or not, you should need to fire in controlled bursts to maintain accuracy.

[Graywolves]

I'm really hoping it's closer to KZ2 than BF3 or MW3.

[WorldOfForms]

Considering that rifles are obviously deadlier at short and long ranges now (not sure how I feel about short range, but I always wanted MA to be better at long range), the devs are going to need to adjust HA the same way.

Imagine PS1's Jackhammer up against PS2's rifles, combined with the more open base designs. The Jackhammer would be next to useless.

[ThirdCross]

I'm definitely glad to see rifles playing a larger role in ps2 than they did in ps1. That said HA should still be something to be feared in close quarters. Lower ttk means though that if you can get the drop on them you can take them down before they have a chance to retaliate.

I agree with most of you here, BF3's gunplay is excellent except for it's ridiculous bullet drop. I'm shooting a gun not a paintball marker, my bullets shouldn't be dropping after 50 feet :mad:

[Toppopia]

I'm definitely glad to see rifles playing a larger role in ps2 than they did in ps1. That said HA should still be something to be feared in close quarters. Lower ttk means though that if you can get the drop on them you can take them down before they have a chance to retaliate.

I agree with most of you here, BF3's gunplay is excellent except for it's ridiculous bullet drop. I'm shooting a gun not a paintball marker, my bullets shouldn't be dropping after 50 feet :mad:

If you were shooting a paintball gun then the bullets would curve as soon as they left the barrel and would take 10 shots just to get 1 hit. Those were bad times indead, could have 'killed' soo many people...

[Mr DeCastellac]

To be honest, I prefer PS1's gunplay to more modern FPS games, but I wouldn't mind terribly if it used the common methods, if that will sate the appetite of the masses :P

[Gonefshn]

I agree with most of you here, BF3's gunplay is excellent except for it's ridiculous bullet drop. I'm shooting a gun not a paintball marker, my bullets shouldn't be dropping after 50 feet :mad:

That's nowhere near what bullet drop is like in BF3.

The only time I EVER notice bullet drop in BF3 is while sniping and even then only at very long range.

I hope PS2 bullet physics are like BF3, bullet drop rules. especially in wide open maps.

[headcrab13]

I hope PS2 bullet physics are like BF3, bullet drop rules. especially in wide open maps.

Yeah, I'm kind of hoping drop is really only noticeable on sniper rifles and similar long-range weaponry.

If you go to the range with an M4 or AK-47, you're going to start to see a significant dropoff after 300-400 meters, but you also won't be hitting much of anything with precision. The way I see it, in PS2 the standard assault weapons should become useless at any range where bullet drop would be substantial.

I realize that we're dealing with futuristic weapons in PS2, of course, but at least some of them resemble their real-life counterparts closely enough to make that assumption.

[Marinealver]

I have always wished that PS had the same feel to combat as Battlefield - PS had a far too long TTK, perhaps not with HA, but with MA weapons it felt like you were tickling people. This problem was compounded when MA users faced off against HA, often having the HA user have time to turn around and kill the MA guy who opened fire with the muzzle in his spine.

PS is about battle scale and equality between new and old characters - everything else is secondary.

Yeah the gap betweer MA and HA was brutal and Stand was a laugh.
HA,Snipe,CE,AVwhere your best weapons for the TTK. SA was good for a defence with the spam but after the plasma nerf it was not that effective anymore. ALL OTHER WEAPONS ARE JUST A LAUGH.