Do planetside players have legit concerns or do they just hate to evolve?

[Dreamcast]

I love Planetside, is a top 3 game for me personally.

I do get concern when I hear about some stuff like kill cams since I don't want Planetside to be too much like some games out right now.

Still I have noticed that every little idea gets full of criticism...Maybe these people have points but it seems like the jump to conclusions way too fast....I mean way too fast.


It appears to me that people love the original Planetside so much that they don't want it to evolve at all...They rather have all the flaws the original planetside had in order for it to not change....It seems like these people just want updated graphics as Planetside 2.

I guess I could see why people don't want it to evolve much since it is probably the only MMOFPS they ever played(it is for me)...So this game is very special...but come on people, it has to evolve...Planetside 1 was no way near perfect but still is one of the best damn games I ever played.


I could be wrong but this is just my observation reading the forum. In my opinion people need to see the flaws planetside 1 had and be happy it is evolving...When something looks wrong don't jump to conclusions and say is gonna break the game since you havn't played it.

I remember how people were saying classes were a horrible idea...Now everybody seems to have accept it so I guess in the end you will accept the game and stop complaining so much.

[Vash02]

There wouldn't be much point of having a 'Planetside 2 Discussion' forum if every response to a new development is "I'll have to wait for beta!" Yawn.

[NCLynx]

And the flaws PS1 players wish to keep are? Not trying to be a jackass, just looking for some clarification.

[Dreamcast]

There wouldn't be much point of having a 'Planetside 2 Discussion' forum if every response to a new development is "I'll have to wait for beta!" Yawn.

Like I said I understand but some people jump to conclusions and act like anything is gonna break the game.

[Stardouser]

People always use this defense whenever others reject certain features. It's invalid, of course, there are going to be hundreds of changes to the game. People are accepting the major changes such as aim down sight mechanic, but other things just don't make sense. There are relatively few things being crusaded against.

[NCLynx]

Like I said I understand but some people jump to conclusions and act like anything is gonna break the game.

You gotta keep in mind, there are some people here (and elsewhere) who will do nothing but jump to conclusions until the game is out.

[Dreamcast]

And the flaws PS1 players wish to keep are? Not trying to be a jackass, just looking for some clarification.

No classes...Was a big flaw...and I remember people crying when classes were introduced.


The reason classes were a big flaw was because almost anybody could be a medic...this ruined Sniper battles since somebody will get shot and heal themselves and repair their armors.


That was a joke...and I remember people in this forum being upset about this.

[Atheosim]

No classes...Was a big flaw...and I remember people crying when classes were introduced.


The reason classes were a big flaw was because almost anybody could be a medic...this ruined Sniper battles since somebody will get shot and heal themselves and repair their armors.


That was a joke...and I remember people in this forum being upset about this.

So just because it's different it's good then. Because there can be and were many debates on this, and there was never consensus.

[EVILPIG]

I believe that the opinions of "vets" (whatever that is supposed to be) is valuable, as they will ask to keep things more "related" to the original, but they tend to knee-jerk to proposals that are not simply what they are traditionally used to. What bothers me is that I see a lot of "I hate that" followed by "I never played such and such in the original". You should just offer some opinion on some of the potentials, good or bad, but keep an open mind to how the game must evolve.

It is the Planetside theme that we love, but it is not Planetside.

[Dreamcast]

So just because it's different it's good then. Because there can be and were many debates on this, and there was never consensus.

huh? no is good because classes make the game more balanced, thats why.


I would like an inventory system tho.

[Mechzz]

We can't go back through time to capture that special feeling we got from playing PS1 first time around. But by god, what I've seen so far has excited me more for a video game than anything I've seen in the last 8 years.

The new PS won't be perfect, but it will still be the best. And it will be planetside.

[Raymac]

We can't go back through time to capture that special feeling we got from playing PS1 first time around. But by god, what I've seen so far has excited me more for a video game than anything I've seen in the last 8 years.

The new PS won't be perfect, but it will still be the best. And it will be planetside.

Well said.

There is no way to please everyone, but I've never been this excited for anything, be it a movie, a book, an album, a concert, a video game...anything.

[Vancha]

The answer is a bit of both.

[Graywolves]

There all always people who see the sky is falling.


It's not limited to vets. Lots of people have legitimate concerns, for some people it just doesn't feel like it some things fit(still a legitimate concern).



The community (vet or not) is passionate. It's important to remember that even if some people say the sky is falling they know fully well they are going to be here at launch.





In closing, I'm pretty bored of the "Vets don't know/FNGs don't know" w.e.

Planetside 2, new game, sequel, blah blah blah, beta, we aint played yet, inb4lock

[TheGodCanine]

Changes can be good and Planetside 2 made many good changes but also a few bad ones.

I can tell you,the word ''evolve'',and ''l2adapt'' annoys the hell out of me since I've been hearing that after seeing the disaster known as BF3.

[Kurtz]

Its a forum, jumping to conclusions is SOP.

Check out the Colts.com forums.

2 months ago they wanted to burn the stadium down for cutting peyton manning.

Now all they can talk about is Andrew Luck.

People for the most part do not like change.

[Hamma]

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

[Mastachief]

Hamma makes an excellent point.

My thoughts are that veteran players of planetside want planetside2 not callofbattleside2. Hence any change toward enabling the facebook generation to dumb down "Our" game will of course bring a strong reaction, quite rightly in most cases.

To snipe at your classes thing; classes to me is just more crap made to force a set amount of play styles so as to not confuse the console kiddies and BF/COD people. The current planetside system was fine and provided you had half a brain you configured your own "classes" these were/are known as favorites. The "Classes are there to speed up the time to fight" is a crap excuse that holds less water than a sieve.

Part of this thread maybe in response to the jumppads seen in TB footage, personally i like them and i welcome their edition. To me these pads bring a little quake/UT to the party...... you know proper FPS games.

[Atheosim]

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

Much agreed. For instance, I thought that having to spend 30 seconds to run from base wall to to the air pad at a tech plant was highly immersive.

[Neurotoxin]

I'm a veteran, I loved PS1 for what it was, and if they made "PlanetSide Next" on this engine as a side project I'd likely play the hell out of it.

But I understood then that PS1 was done the way it was done because of the technological limitations of the time. A few non-modifiable bases and towers that could be plopped down anywhere, no hitboxes, limited air physics and physics in general, and the lattice system to funnel players towards bases.

Bases are now designed with modular components, and are build to fit logically with the terrain in the area, as well as being much larger than PS1 bases. Hitboxes on players and vehicles puts a higher emphasis on good aim and strategy. Air and ground vehicles have full physics. With 2000 players per server, funneling everyone down to a few base SOI bubbles isn't necessary, and instead we have the more open hex system.

I understand that some things will be streamlined and simplified, but I'm fine with that. The inventory will be replaced with class tools / restrictions, however they actually open the doors for things we never had before (like sniper infiltators and C4 for all). But if I was asked whether I want an inventory or sidegrades, I'd go with sidegrades any day, even 9 years ago.

[Sifer2]

I don't think people would complain about class based gameplay so much if inventory management an customization was better. Right now it seems too copy/pasta from Battlefield. Your got your preset loadout of gun and its attachments an whatever item your class is supposed to have like smoke grenade for light assault, and that's it. That's way too dumbed down to me.

So yeah i'm fine with only Medics being able to heal. But I want lots of customization on my damn loadout. Let me decide how much ammo I want. Or if I want to carry a medpack instead of a grenade. Throw me a bone here.


Anyway you can't knock on fans for wanting the game to stay the way they enjoyed it. That's why they are fans. They like it as it is. When you change stuff your always risking annoying them. SOE is just walking the fine line here of how much they can get away with changing to try to draw in Battlefield/CoD players without upsetting the fans so much they lose interest.

[kaffis]

It's very simple. My concerns are legit. Others' aren't.

:lol:

[Figment]

Being a major critic, some things:

Dreamcast, you're acting like a fanboy yourself while accusing others with a strawman. Before you protest, let me explain.



Does every PS vet complain about all changes? No.
Does every change mean a change for the better? No.
Does everyone perceive the same things as flaws? No.
Does something that works (to some at least) have to be changed? No.


Is someone that thinks changes are by default an evolution and improvement on "flaws" a fanboy? Yes.

Why? Because the definition of fanboy is clinging on to something as perfect. You Dreamcast, think of PS2 as perfect.


I like some of what I see, I dislike some other stuff. I'm weary of some more stuff and in many cases hope my concerns are unfounded and that my critique helps to make sure it is unfounded.


By assuming some things for fact (in some cases, they may be off), you can paint for instance a scenario that you don't want to occur. A dev team working in alpha can check the scenario, check the assumptions, see if it's true or not and then choose to do something about it, or leave it as intended or leave it for further testing.

You can also not critique anything, but an artist who never receives critique will never create something approaching perfection unless incredibly lucky.

If PS2 is an artpiece, then I'm an art critic trying to help the artist to improve. That is not fanboyism. Fanboyism would not allow any changes to be made, fanboyism is not pointing out that certain features or balances or gameplay mechanics in the previous game were better. Fanboyism would be saying that pretty much everything was better.

Especially "revolutionary" stuff (overhauls) and stuff that has the potential for major impact on gameplay should fall under major scrutiny and put up for critique since they have not been tested in a PS MMOFPS situation.


For instance, things I like? Cover over base walls. Excellent improvement. THAT is also an example of an actual evolution.

The class system feels like it diminishes the sandbox freedom, even if you get 'more' choices within a class. The point is you're being restricted from combinations. In itself not a big change, as suits were already "classes", but they had different, less outspoken restrictions: volume.

What I like less is the diminished driver-gunner relation and potential oversights regarding large numbers of people.

What I saw from the base capture stuff TotalBiscuit showed for instance, is that it (at this point) suggests approximately 20 people can 'instantly' capture a base if it's unoccupied, by accessing all the capture points at the same time. You would think there'd be some sort of response time starting AFTER the hack has become known, not before the hack.

Of course, we don't know if this mechanic is true for every control point, or just a certain amount of them.

What I also don't like, is that PS seems to become a little bit more generic in gameplay by loaning features from other games. Often features that aren't the most well liked features from those games. Things like killcams showing who killed you (even if that's still subject to change). It's good that we get to discuss those things.

Personally, I'd be more concerned if everything people would say would be "Oh that's nice/awesome/great/glorious!" or "let's wait with critique till they've refined it and worked on it so long, that it cost shitloads of money to create and to the extend a change would influence everything else so they'd be hesitant to change or spend more resources on it".

[JPalmer]

Sometimes it's like people who get mad when the band they like that has ten fans puts their music on a commercial and thousands of new people now like that bands music.
I literally want a bullet for all those people.

[Xyntech]

I think the fan base tends to be cautious of new things, and I think in general that's a good thing.

Jumping to conclusions or blowing things out of proportion is occasionally a problem, but for the most part I think it's pretty balanced. Planetside was special, and the fans just want to make sure the sequel is also special.

Some players will never be happy with anything other than an exact remake of the first game, but I think they are the vast minority. The rest of the fans I expect will be pleased with the new game, even if some players are annoyed by a lot of the changes.

I only get concerned when players show an apparent disinterest in even giving some of the changes a chance. Obviously we don't want to just sit around and say "wait for beta" for everything, but there is a difference between a player who thinks something will be bad yet is willing to give it a try, and a player who claims to know it will be bad any thinks less of anyone who disagrees with them.

We just can't know some of this shit for sure, but there is still value in discussing what we do know of it. There is value in the fact that some good ideas often spring up during these discussions. There is value in using these topics to help us prepare ourselves, to figure out what will be most important to test during beta. There is value in just passing the time, building comradery while we wait to get our hands on the game.

I believe the devs generally have reasonable justifications for the changes they make. They have seemed pretty competent in my opinion, so I give them quite a bit of the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to believe otherwise. That being said, they will undoubtedly make some mistakes, and we will have to make sure those get fixed during beta.

In the meanwhile, I think the community is fine. As long as we all keep some perspective that we don't know as much as the devs do. We just have to have a little caveat in the back of our minds, that while debating about what we currently know is good, most of the really important debates will come when we have legitimate beta experience under our belts.

[Baneblade]

PlanetSide, the game where you can run your team mate over with a tank because they said something retarded in range of you.

[Dreamcast]

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

But Planetside 1 was never complicated in the first place...It was quite simple to be honest.

I do agree that some ideas like kill cams which actually been around since Planetside came out but r used alot today could be annoying....But I disagree with the whole dumb down angle you are saying.


Planetside 1 was never complicated....I think this is a misconception Planetside Vets need to stop spreading around

[Dreamcast]

Hamma makes an excellent point.

My thoughts are that veteran players of planetside want planetside2 not callofbattleside2. Hence any change toward enabling the facebook generation to dumb down "Our" game will of course bring a strong reaction, quite rightly in most cases.

To snipe at your classes thing; classes to me is just more crap made to force a set amount of play styles so as to not confuse the console kiddies and BF/COD people. The current planetside system was fine and provided you had half a brain you configured your own "classes" these were/are known as favorites. The "Classes are there to speed up the time to fight" is a crap excuse that holds less water than a sieve.

Part of this thread maybe in response to the jumppads seen in TB footage, personally i like them and i welcome their edition. To me these pads bring a little quake/UT to the party...... you know proper FPS games.

I hate the elitistism in this board that doesn't make sense at all.

First of all Planetside was simple...It was never complicated...Any "facebook generation" person could play it.

BTW WTF are u talking about? the "facebook" generation was alive when Planetside was out and played games.


2nd of all the no classes leads to no balance..It has nothing to do with confusing people...I played Planetside at 12 years old, shit was simple as hell to play.

The reason they put classes is to make the game balance...So a Sniper wouldn't be also a medic like in PS1 and heal himself each time he got shot so he wouldn't die....Smart reason IMO, people will just use Over powered combos like that and specialized medics wouldn't be needed.


BTW Quake and Unreal tournament were simple as hell...You could say dumbdown which is why they require lots of fast twitch skill...So make it up ur mind, what do u want complicated shit or dumbdown FPS like quake and unreal?

[Dreamcast]

Being a major critic, some things:

Dreamcast, you're acting like a fanboy yourself while accusing others with a strawman. Before you protest, let me explain.



Does every PS vet complain about all changes? No.
Does every change mean a change for the better? No.
Does everyone perceive the same things as flaws? No.
Does something that works (to some at least) have to be changed? No.


Is someone that thinks changes are by default an evolution and improvement on "flaws" a fanboy? Yes.

Why? Because the definition of fanboy is clinging on to something as perfect. You Dreamcast, think of PS2 as perfect.


I like some of what I see, I dislike some other stuff. I'm weary of some more stuff and in many cases hope my concerns are unfounded and that my critique helps to make sure it is unfounded.


By assuming some things for fact (in some cases, they may be off), you can paint for instance a scenario that you don't want to occur. A dev team working in alpha can check the scenario, check the assumptions, see if it's true or not and then choose to do something about it, or leave it as intended or leave it for further testing.

You can also not critique anything, but an artist who never receives critique will never create something approaching perfection unless incredibly lucky.

If PS2 is an artpiece, then I'm an art critic trying to help the artist to improve. That is not fanboyism. Fanboyism would not allow any changes to be made, fanboyism is not pointing out that certain features or balances or gameplay mechanics in the previous game were better. Fanboyism would be saying that pretty much everything was better.

Especially "revolutionary" stuff (overhauls) and stuff that has the potential for major impact on gameplay should fall under major scrutiny and put up for critique since they have not been tested in a PS MMOFPS situation.


For instance, things I like? Cover over base walls. Excellent improvement. THAT is also an example of an actual evolution.

The class system feels like it diminishes the sandbox freedom, even if you get 'more' choices within a class. The point is you're being restricted from combinations. In itself not a big change, as suits were already "classes", but they had different, less outspoken restrictions: volume.

What I like less is the diminished driver-gunner relation and potential oversights regarding large numbers of people.

What I saw from the base capture stuff TotalBiscuit showed for instance, is that it (at this point) suggests approximately 20 people can 'instantly' capture a base if it's unoccupied, by accessing all the capture points at the same time. You would think there'd be some sort of response time starting AFTER the hack has become known, not before the hack.

Of course, we don't know if this mechanic is true for every control point, or just a certain amount of them.

What I also don't like, is that PS seems to become a little bit more generic in gameplay by loaning features from other games. Often features that aren't the most well liked features from those games. Things like killcams showing who killed you (even if that's still subject to change). It's good that we get to discuss those things.

Personally, I'd be more concerned if everything people would say would be "Oh that's nice/awesome/great/glorious!" or "let's wait with critique till they've refined it and worked on it so long, that it cost shitloads of money to create and to the extend a change would influence everything else so they'd be hesitant to change or spend more resources on it".

I never said the game was perfect or every change they did was an improvement.

I do think the changes could be considered evolving the game for the best or worst.

As for the flaws...I do think classes are an improvement...That I do agree.


The class system was broken...It allow people to be OP like I said..It made Sniper battles boring since somebody could just heal themselves when somebody shot them... As for the freedom, well like I said I like the inventory system is still in place that gaves u freedom.....but OP and ruin the game because of "freedom" of choosing whatever OP setups people want is wrong.


and I never called people fanboys Im just saying they overexagerate and some people want Planetside 1 with all is flaws but with better graphics.

[Brusi]

I think that the PS forum community is still large enough for there to never be a unanimous agreement on anything. I think labelling the entire community as backward or contrary is pretty stupid.

[Atheosim]

I think that the PS forum community is still large enough for there to never be a unanimous agreement on anything. I think labelling the entire community as backward or contrary is pretty stupid.

Yeah, I honestly think it's plainly comedic that anybody would accuse the entirety of the present PS community as being anti-change bittervets. Plain old humor.

[Bags]

Are classes really an evolution of planetside 1's cert system?

[Retrograde]

I do have concerns about PS2. Serious concerns. Planetside (for a brief moment) was the best game I ever played by far. To this day, some aspects have never been duplicated by any game in any genre.

My concern stems from the fact that, to me, SOE never "got" what was great about the game. They systematically removed the amazing stuff and kept the things that were painfully bad. It wasn't like I simply disagreed with their decisions. It was like SOE and I were playing totally different games.

I think many of the common threads focus on a few areas of concern that seem to crop up in different ways. Here's my .02. These are what I thought made PS great, and what people get upset about in most threads.

1. Sacrifice - the core of PS was that you had to make trade offs.
Your choices had real strengths and weaknesses. You gave something up to fly, for example.

2. Teamwork - You really needed a team to succeed. Everyone had a distinct role to play. You needed other players and they needed you. See point #1.

3. Flexibility - You had a blank canvas to build your own experience. You made the game fit you, not the other way around. This is why people are concerned about classes and pre-defined play.

4. Contrast - People liked their empire because of the differences, not in spite of them. This caused SOE pain because people cried foul. SOE grossly overreacted to every issue without fail. The team seems to have a good bead on this, but we have to see in beta.

5. Strategy - In most FPS games, there's no real "tactics" layer. It's always painfully obvious how the designer wants you to play the map. SOE ignored the strategy element completely, like it did not even exist. It's all about having tools (and perks) to get larger groups to work together.

Anyhow, other than a few areas, I think the current team has a good bead on the concerns. Now we just need to relax until beta and see what happens.

[EVILoHOMER]

If we've learnt anything from the past of the MMO genre is that you shouldn't always listen to what the forums are saying. SWG was ruined a long time before The NGE/CU thanx to forum whiners, the same goes for WoW and EQ etc. The trick is to filter through the noise and to look at what the stats are telling you. I mean I loved SWTORs class balance at launch, it was so amazingly balance apart from a few things like Sage/Sorcs having one too many CCs and Warriors not having a CC at low level. Oh look all the forum whiners moaning about their class balance because they suck at PVP and just don't want to learn how to play properly. That's backed up when you see actual good players owning with the same class they're saying is under powered lol.

SOE needs to take Planetside 2 in the direction they feel will please the most people but still staying true to what made Planetside so great. If that involves having kill cams because every other modern FPS has them, then so be it. If it involves having jump pads so we can have these amazing base designs instead of the boring broken ones from the original game, then great. If involves having a traditional class based structure instead of a skill based one, then great. The cert system from Planetside was flawed, it wasn't what made the game great and class systems like WoW had so much more diversity than SWGs skill system ever did.

I just want SOE to have a good mix of players in beta, not just dedicating it to Planetside fans because they will ruin the game and try to make it a game for some small niche. Planetside was great back in the day but has any one tried to play it recently? It's just really bad and dated lol.

[EVILoHOMER]

I will have to add while it is great having group based mechanics and allowing people to work as a team, you cannot base Planetside 2 around that. The fact is most people will be playing solo, you need to make the game playable for people who just like to go it alone. If you make it too much where teamwork wins, then people will be put off from the game. There is nothing worse than losing because your team sucks, even though you're a great player. So you need to be able to win even if your team is losing, which is why the game needs personal goals as well as the overall team ones.

That is why achievements and perks have become such a major part of the modern day FPS.

[Snipefrag]

For me personally i don't see this as a problem, good solid debate will make this game better. There have been many things which have come out into the community, the devs have listened to what we have had to say and changed the game for the better. There will always be people screaming at the periphery about certain things that THEY want to stay the same, but its not about satisfying them. Its about making a game that can appeal to as many of us as possible.. And personally I think they are doing that very, very well.

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

I think there is too much time being wasted on making the Rook and Knight look really really cool when the strategy of Chess is what makes people wanna play it overall.

Right now after I watched Total Biskts video I think to myself Wow! That's awesome, it's not really Planetside, but it's awesome! But then I think, maybe what it's missing is US! The Planetside community. That's what makes it the game it is.

Few points.

Graphics look amazing. Thing is, the graphics aren't what core planetside players care about. It's game play. I think anything that attacks the mechanics of PS1 -which has proven to work and be fun - Is going to make people go crazy. Although having such amazing looking graphics will make the game 1000X better, it's usually the people who complain about graphics as to why a game sucks, are the ones we are all ok with leaving anyway.

The new things like Jetpacks and demo packs are cool But I just read 8 years of people complaining about flying MAXS... now the smallest quickest guy flies instead?!?!?!?

They are making maps that supports thousands of players at once. This generation of players switch games ever 3-6 months. Then it'll be back to me beating ZeroEnigma up to cap a base for 2 hours. An empty map surrounding us. a HUUUUUUGE empty map.


Don't get me wrong. I think it looks great. I am excited to play it. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are 2 kinds of players in Planetside. Chess and Checkers players. The checkers player will come in, enjoy it for a few, rant and rave how cool it is until the next new Mass effect or Halo or Gears of war comes along and then they will be gone. oooh Shiney! The Chess player will come in, learn the game, learn new ways to win. Learn every move and piece. Then when when it comes to the fights, they will manipulate the game like no one will be ready for. U think U MAD now BRO. Just wait.

The problem is, when the checkers player comes back once the shine is off of the new HALO, the Chess player is waiting. And they will scare off the casual gamer from ever wanting to come back with a checkmate that cannot be stopped.

There is no right answer here.

Touching on what evilpig said. I disagree. The players want more than just the Planetside Theme. Putting a Vanu Symbol on a guy with a gun doesn't make it Planetside.

To the OP. Stop getting all worked up over some people's opinions that happen to disagree with yours. This is a forum. That's what it's for. Debate and deliberation. To weigh out all aspects of what's current and can be changed.

Right now I'm excited for Planetside 2. I think Higby and Tray are doing a great job and they seem to care about preserving the Planetside world. I just hope they leave Planetside 1 on if it bombs. :rolleyes:

[ringring]

The thrust of the OP is frankly silly.

For anyone ps2 innovation there will be some 'vets' who say 'cool', some who say 'seriously uncool' and some who are in the 'don't mind' camp.

For another innovation the same camps will exist but with a different distribution.

Allow people to have opinions please.

[Satexios]

They are making maps that supports thousands of players at once. This generation of players switch games ever 3-6 months. Then it'll be back to me beating ZeroEnigma up to cap a base for 2 hours. An empty map surrounding us. a HUUUUUUGE empty map.

I disagree with this entire statement because of a few things:
1) PS1 had barriers, required subscription kept the population low because MMO or MMOFPS weren't that known or popular yet.
2) Creditcard requirement, Americans have them Europeans avoid them and have other payment options. Which was the second barrier. Also the people who wanted to play didn't get their parents CC.
3) PC and Internet. Most people have reasonable rigs with reasonable internet to play, back in the day of PS1 not everyone was so lucky.

You can say this generation changes games every 3-6 months but it also means that the people who played other games will now join PS2, by that theory ;)

From that point of view PS2 will have enough players to keep the game going and fun. However the moment they start to slack with bad updates, not banning hackers or bad customer service (EA with SWTOR) the game will fall like a brick.

Good customer service = Customer Retention

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

I disagree with this entire statement because of a few things:
1) PS1 had barriers, required subscription kept the population low because MMO or MMOFPS weren't that known or popular yet.
2) Creditcard requirement, Americans have them Europeans avoid them and have other payment options. Which was the second barrier. Also the people who wanted to play didn't get their parents CC.
3) PC and Internet. Most people have reasonable rigs with reasonable internet to play, back in the day of PS1 not everyone was so lucky.

You can say this generation changes games every 3-6 months but it also means that the people who played other games will now join PS2, by that theory ;)

From that point of view PS2 will have enough players to keep the game going and fun. However the moment they start to slack with bad updates, not banning hackers or bad customer service (EA with SWTOR) the game will fall like a brick.

Good customer service = Customer Retention

You have a valid point about the free play vs subscription. Let's hope that does tip the scale. Let's hope it also doesn't create a hacking nightmare on an epic scale.

But you know and I know the average gamer attention span is completely different now than how it was is 2003. Things tend to have very short shelf lives now adays. The years and years of EverQuest, EVE, Planetside and Wow are now legend. Will anything ever recapture that magic?

[Figment]

and I never called people fanboys Im just saying they overexagerate and some people want Planetside 1 with all is flaws but with better graphics.

The thing is that the moment someone makes a single comparison to PS1 - anywhere and on anything - a certain group of people will automatically counter this with one of these:

- "You just want it to be like PS1"
- "You are probably afraid of change"
- "This is a different game you can't compare it with PS1". Yet comparing to "modern" games and what "modern players want" can be done consistently, of course. In fact, change is often "supported"
- "It was probably flawed"
- "The devs know what they are doing"
- "It's an improvement because it has changed"

I just don't understand the people that try to stop any comparison with PS1 on an individual game trait and gameplay basis. Comparing to ANYTHING ELSE is fine, as long as you don't compare it to the first since they fear you'd conserve something which suddenly would stop PS2 from being a new game or something.

I don't get it. Comparing a sequel with its predecessor or using knowledge and experience from the game closest to PS2 is weird, how?

You are one of these people Dreamcast. You immediately categorise people as "you want PS1 with better graphics" the very moment they critique PS2 and refer to PS1 on whatever level. That makes you a big fanboy tbh. You will jump to the defense of PS2 and try to put down and away anyone refering to PS1 as some sort of extreme conservative. Regardless if they are talking about one, five or ten gameplay elements out of a few hundred.

[Mechzz]

But you know and I know the average gamer attention span is completely different now than how it was is 2003. Things tend to have very short shelf lives now adays.

I actually don't agree with this, surprisingly enough! My kids will still go and play CoD: World at War because it has better online than some other versions. There are still plenty of players in BF:BC2 and other "older" iterations in those big franchises. And WoW speaks for itself in terms of player numbers and longevity. Other games die because people don't want to play them. To paraphrase a sports saying: "If they're good enough they're young enough"

If SOE give peeps what they want, then PS2 will live for a long time indeed.

[Bluecewe]

Whenever a sequel is made, fans of the original title will always come out in force in some attempt to minimize evolution as much as possible. In some cases scepticism is valid, though in most cases it sadly comes down to some people believing too strongly in proven concepts, giving rise to the phrase; "If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

The truth of the matter is that most players who post on forums do so to relieve anger at developers, or to reminisce at how awesome past experiences were. Forum posters are usually a very small portion of the actual player base of a game, and in many cases sadly represent a somewhat one-sided view on certain topics.

Thus the period in which a game has been announced but has not been released will be a tense time for all observers with vested interests in that game. In the end of the day we simply have to hope that the developers are making the right decisions and that some posters opt to write in a constructive manner, as those same angry posters often fail to do so.

[Snipefrag]

The reason games have had a short shelf life recently is because there has been NO innovation amongst the big publishers. They have just kept churning out the safe games, its been boring, repetitive BS.

SWTOR? WoW Clone, BF3? No different from 10 or so previous titles besides graphics. Mass Effect 3? Skyrim? Max Payne? FIFA? Diablo 3. Maybe its the pressures of the industry but most of them seem to have lost their balls, good on SOE for trying something less conventional. Hopefully it pays off.

[Warborn]

Lots of the people here are Planetside 1 weirdos. It's not an accurate depiction of actual Planetside players. Most PS1 players liked the game but realized it also fucked up about 98% of what it tried to do. It was fun essentially in spite itself. So for us people, Planetside 2 making many changes is a good thing, as it indicates the developers don't themselves have their heads up their asses, pining for the days of Planetside 1 shit with a new paintjob at most.

In other words, don't sweat it. The developers I don't think take the people here too seriously. Their business is making games, ours is... not. The idea of them kowtowing to the whimsies of the Asperger cases of Planetside Universe, or any other fansite for that matter, doesn't hold any water I'd think.

When developers and marketeers use terms like "evolve", they usually mean devolve.

"Devolve" isn't a real thing. Evolve doesn't mean it's getting better, it just means it's changing. They're using the term correctly.

[Stardouser]

The funny thing is, I've seen this exact argument play out in Battlefield 3's development process. There may have been 100 different changes incoming, and BF2 vets opposed around 10, but despite the fact that this left 90 changes unopposed, we were accused of not wanting to change.

One thing that people need to learn is that simply changing something is not evolution.

And I'm not even a PS1 vet, so the things that *I* oppose in PS2, it doesn't mean that I would do it the same way Planetside 1 did it, either. Sometimes we still want change, we just don't want the particular change that the devs have chosen. That doesn't mean we are unwilling to accept change at all.

[Infektion]

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

Instant gratificatiOn takes too long...

[Figment]

"Devolve" isn't a real thing. Evolve doesn't mean it's getting better, it just means it's changing. They're using the term correctly.

Not really.

Evolve is a term for mutating a next generation to be more adapted. It means growth, maturing. Typically based on a previous version that is closely related.

Changing just means one used an alternative where multiple alternatives are valid. This is why the critical group uses the term change where the typically less critical group thinks that any change must be an advancement for the better.

The use of evolution is used because people like the positive connotation that it has, being a better version of the previous.`



I can name you countless sequels that "evolved" the previous to make things worse. Especially true for Hollywood movies (think Star Ship Troopers II, upcoming non-TMNT and you could go on like that), but can well be applied to games.

Take a game like Commandoes. Commandoes "evolved" from an godmode isometric overview in I (first) and II (refined version of the first: evolved), to a rotatable isometric view with obscured sights and indoors stuff that only convoluted things unnecessarily in III ('devolved' experimental), to a first person view in part IV. IV was so horrible that I only played ten minutes of it before I stopped caring.

Why? Where III was pushing the experimenting to the point of breaking isometric view, Commandoes IV threw away all that Commandoes was about. It was a revolution, one that shouldn't have taken place, but hey "3D stuff was new and modern, so it had to be better, right?".

This is what a lot of players fear: that "modern" stuff is used for the sake of being more "modern", therefore "better", while it may not be the case.



This sort of thing even happens in aviation. Jet engines only become efficient near mach 0,8. Turbopropellor aircraft are much more efficient at lower speeds up to mach 0,5. Yet because passengers thought jet engines were more modern and did not want to fly in "obsolete propellor aircraft", those were used in the 60s and 70s especially for aircraft that really shouldn't be using them. Wasting fuel in the process.

What most here want, is that the game is created for the best, without losing or sacrificing the core good stuff from PS1. What entails the core stuff may be different for various players though.

The problem for people like Dreamcast, is they see all these different opinions and link them together (they lose the oversight of who wants what), simplify this to mean everyone who refers to PS1, ALL share the exact same opinion and then conclude that "apparently these people all want the same thing: PS1 with updated graphics".

The logic to come to that conclusion is pretty bad, tbh.

[ArmedZealot]

Things a "bittervet" is likely to oppose:

class system
shields
iron sights
lock on weapons
low ttk
driver-gunner tanks
galaxy spawning
lack of support vehicles
lack of buggies
lack of E&E animations

Is anyone who played PS1 that opposes one of these a "bittervet"? No.

A bittervet first opposes these changes by saying it makes the game too much like Battlefield 3/COD or that the game is catering too much to casuals, then go on to nostalgia-gasm over PS1. Any attempt to provide a counter argument leads to them either explicitly saying "you didn't play the game enough" or implying it, and points are reiterated and rehashed ad nauseum. Arguing with these people is like arguing against a wall, except that wall calls you close minded as well.

Doing this provides no feedback for the developers. They will not change their game to suit people like this. If you oppose something, provide good and reasoned argument for against it. Provide data and not anecdotal evidence.

I played PS1, and I played it for more than a year. I would be a veteran technically, but you wouldn't know it from my responses here. I try to provide a foil to most arguments opposing things that the developers have changed or truncated, just because I hate seeing how this community allows such behavior and I hate the developers to become the public pincushion because they can't respond to each and every thread.

[Figment]

So ArmedZealot do you recognise at all that you are:

1. Lumping a list of arguments together to create a stereotype.
2. Creating a negative connotation around this stereotype: the "bittervet".
3. Creating a "non-opposing" stereotype as the "hero": you.
4. Creating a "them-us" situation, where you automatically start to oppose any person refering to PS1 as "nostalgiagasm".

Funny how that works. Got any more derogatory terms for other people?

[Gandhi]

A bittervet first opposes these changes by saying it makes the game too much like Battlefield 3/COD or that the game is catering too much to casuals, then go on to nostalgia-gasm over PS1. Any attempt to provide a counter argument leads to them either explicitly saying "you didn't play the game enough" or implying it, and points are reiterated and rehashed ad nauseum. Arguing with these people is like arguing against a wall, except that wall calls you close minded as well.

I could make the same list and the same statements about a handful of "fanboys" on this board who agree with absolutely everything. But generalizing like that doesn't help anyone.

If you oppose something, provide good and reasoned argument for against it.
Many, MANY people did and do. Pages and pages of arguments against certain changes. I can provide links if you want.

There are always a handful of people on any topic who go no further than "It's too much like CoD", just like there are a handful of people on the other side of the issue who go no further than "You're just a bittervet scared of change". Most of the "whining" I've seen on this board has been in the middle, people opposed to a change providing solid reasons why. Now it might turn out that they're wrong, or that certain things are being blown out of proportion, it's hard to tell when we don't even have a beta to play. But regardless the arguments and reasons to back up the opposition are there, and I know you've seen them.

[Stardouser]

lock on weapons
low ttk
lack of support vehicles

I played PS1, and I played it for more than a year. I would be a veteran technically, but you wouldn't know it from my responses here. I try to provide a foil to most arguments opposing things that the developers have changed or truncated, just because I hate seeing how this community allows such behavior and I hate the developers to become the public pincushion because they can't respond to each and every thread.

What? You are defending the developers' decisions just because they can't or won't do it themselves? At least you admit it.

While most of the things you listed are pointless to resist(such as iron sights, that's clearly an improvement, and entry/exit animations are a waste), 3 things you list stand out:
1. Lock - on weapons = I believe these should be limited to ground to air. Other ground to ground or air to ground could be laser designated but that's not the same. BF3 has proven that lock on weapons remove skill and fun from the game, with constant BEEP BEEP BEEPs.
2. Low TTK : There is plenty of evidence for why this is bad. I'm not saying it should be as high as in Planetside 1, but it was clearly too low in the TB video. In fact, low TTK has a bigger affect on the game than ANY of those other things you listed. Low TTK is NOT an evolution, or an improvement, it is simply a design decision. TTK can be low, moderate, or high. It's nothing to do with advancing the genre or the fact that Planetside 1 is 10 years old. We can go to CoD or BF3 for extreme low TTK, we need a moderate TTK.
3. Are we really losing any support vehicles? I understand this to be that roles are simply shifting.

[Figment]

@Stardouser on 3: We may have lost the ANT (base energy logistics), we lost the AMS (cloaked spawnpoint obtainable at any base, which is not comparable to Gal at this point) and we lost the Lodestar (vehicle repair and resupply, transport capacity) and gained the Sunderer with half the Lodestar ability: repairs and resupply and the Galaxy with half the AMS ability: spawns for infantry without the protection of stealth.

So tallying, yes, support vehicles have been lost and the gain does not fully compensate as of yet.

[ArmedZealot]

So ArmedZealot do you recognise at all that you are:

1. Lumping a list of arguments together to create a stereotype.

I lump these arguments together because this type of opposition has become predictable and expected on these subjects


2. Creating a negative connotation around this stereotype: the "bittervet".

It is a negative connotation. Players who show this behavior are bad for the community and should be ostracized. The first things new players shouldn't see when they log on to PSU to check up on PS2's premier community shouldn't be a bunch of moaning and whining.


3. Creating a "non-opposing" stereotype as the "hero": you.

I can only speak for myself. The community is not homogenous and uniform. Some one can be a bittervet about the class system but be all for driver-gunners. It is just the type of opposition that makes someone a bittervet. Even on something like the U.I I will throw the BF3 flag. The squad indicator is a blatant copy of BF3's.


4. Creating a "them-us" situation, where you automatically start to oppose any person refering to PS1 as "nostalgiagasm".

It isn't "them-us". We all have our buttons that will be pushed. What is important is that when they are our response is something worth considering rather than being filed under the "bittervet" category.

[ArmedZealot]

Forget it Figgy. I've been reading some here and this guy is clearly fanboi material. I know, I know he played a 9 year old game for a total of 1 year so he hides behind the "vet" status but you will never convince his type that any criticism of PS2 is a good thing.

I played for more than a year. I shouldn't and won't explain my history with PS you. Because it doesn't matter, the bar will always be raised.

I have and will continue to criticize changes PS2. If you read my post history you would see that.

[MrBloodworth]

Forget it Figgy. I've been reading some here and this guy is clearly fanboi material. I know, I know he played a 9 year old game for a total of 1 year so he hides behind the "vet" status but you will never convince his type that any criticism of PS2 is a good thing.

This is correct.

[ArmedZealot]

This thread is pointless. Why do you think SOE opened up the dev community to such interaction with the fans at such an early phase of the game? To get sunshine blown up their asses? Hell no. They want feedback. It won't all be good and I hope they expect that. Work with us. Change. Adapt. or at least explain. And ALL of that has been done.

I haven't said that they shouldn't receive feedback I only want the feedback to not be kneejerk reactions followed by personal accounts of the glory days of PS1 and how PS2 is bound to fail before it is even in beta.

[ArmedZealot]

You're obviously very sensitive and have trouble gauging the emotional connotation of posts. Maybe the internet isn't the right place for you.

Same could be said for you. You bit the bait.

[Figment]

Hoookay.

I lump these arguments together because this type of opposition has become predictable and expected on these subjects

Which... might actually mean they are just controversial decisions that not everyone agrees with?

I can only speak for myself. The community is not homogenous and uniform. Some one can be a bittervet about the class system but be all for driver-gunners. It is just the type of opposition that makes someone a bittervet.

No, not at all. This is used it to paint ANYONE opposing or critiqueing a "bittervet" on these particular topics, just so you can "win" the arguments in question for the "pro-PS2-changers". (See what I did there?)

And this is not us-them, how?`Just look at the damn title of this thread and see the polarization!

Even on something like the U.I I will throw the BF3 flag. The squad indicator is a blatant copy of BF3's.

So you're saying you're a bitterBF3vet and we should be ostracizing you for critiquing?

It isn't "them-us". We all have our buttons that will be pushed. What is important is that when they are our response is something worth considering rather than being filed under the "bittervet" category.

It is a negative connotation. Players who show this behavior are bad for the community and should be ostracized. The first things new players shouldn't see when they log on to PSU to check up on PS2's premier community shouldn't be a bunch of moaning and whining.

lol?

[Sentrosi]

To the OPs topic at hand, I consider myself a seasoned Auraxian vet. And I do love the way PS2 is looking and the direction the devs are taking this game. It's going to be epic. It's going to revolutionize the way games are played. Planetside 2 will deliver. But when they put in the jump pads I was like, "Hold on a second." I posted my response to the jump pads in the poll thread. But bottom line is that it is a legit concern for me. Now I'm not going OMG THEY'RE KILLING MY GAME at all. If it's in I will adjust accordingly. It won't kill off my enjoyment of the game. But to me it is a concern.

I think that if this thread doesn't evolve from it's constant name calling and badgering that Hamma will come in and throw down a huge lock on it though. So stop with the name calling please. We PSUers are above that. Always have been. That sort of diatribe was best left over on the old school SOE Official Forums.

[ArmedZealot]

Good to know you're just trolling then. It means we can all stop taking you seriously.


Thanks for playing.

Just because I use the word "bait" doesn't mean I'm trolling and doing it for the lolz.

It just means I knew it would generate a few charged responses, which doesn't affect my legitimacy at all.

[ArmedZealot]

No, not at all. This is used it to paint ANYONE opposing or critiqueing a "bittervet" on these particular topics, just so you can "win" the arguments in question for the "pro-PS2-changers". (See what I did there?)


Please read my post again critically.

I do not say anyone that is opposed to such changes is a bittervet, but the type of response they generate is what makes them so.

[Figment]

Please read my post again critically.

I do not say anyone that is opposed to such changes is a bittervet, but the type of response they generate is what makes them so.

And what I'm saying is that I've noticed ANYONE critiqueing is lobbed in a whiner/moaner group "PS1-hippy"-stereotype by "PS2-hippies" using just that argument.

I do hope you realise right now though that ostracizing means an us-them "we don't want your kind here" kind of thing?

[Badjuju]

It is the american way to fear change.

[Baneblade]

It is the american way to fear change.

Lol?

We invented change, son.

[Shogun]

i don´t see a problem here.
this community is very passionate and most discussions bring up some very constructive views!

the devs have told us on several occasions, that they totally love our feedback and consider it a great and unique way of gamedevelopement!
it is vital that the devs get feedback from newbs and from vets. and as far as i can judge by now, the devs do a good job in filtering the constructive concerns. from the first announcement over the gdc footage till now we had a lot of concerns, and most legit ones were adressed in some way. the devs even found nice compromises like the dedicated tank-gunner as a cert or tradeoff.
THAT´s what i call evolution! just saying yes to every change without voicing your concerns would be devolution.
as an example, where is the evolution in dropping vehicle enter animations?
that´s something i know i will miss! no need to wait for beta to know this.
other things like general balance or the jump pads are things i want to test in the beta before i decide if it´s good or bad.

[Dreamcast]

The thing is that the moment someone makes a single comparison to PS1 - anywhere and on anything - a certain group of people will automatically counter this with one of these:

- "You just want it to be like PS1"
- "You are probably afraid of change"
- "This is a different game you can't compare it with PS1". Yet comparing to "modern" games and what "modern players want" can be done consistently, of course. In fact, change is often "supported"
- "It was probably flawed"
- "The devs know what they are doing"
- "It's an improvement because it has changed"

I just don't understand the people that try to stop any comparison with PS1 on an individual game trait and gameplay basis. Comparing to ANYTHING ELSE is fine, as long as you don't compare it to the first since they fear you'd conserve something which suddenly would stop PS2 from being a new game or something.

I don't get it. Comparing a sequel with its predecessor or using knowledge and experience from the game closest to PS2 is weird, how?

You are one of these people Dreamcast. You immediately categorise people as "you want PS1 with better graphics" the very moment they critique PS2 and refer to PS1 on whatever level. That makes you a big fanboy tbh. You will jump to the defense of PS2 and try to put down and away anyone refering to PS1 as some sort of extreme conservative. Regardless if they are talking about one, five or ten gameplay elements out of a few hundred.

Im not saying every planetside player resists all changes but it does seem their is people who complain about every little change and claim is gonna ruin the great Planetside.

[Stardouser]

At some point we need to come up with a laundry list of every possible aspect of a shooter, and analyze it from PS1 to PS2. Let's just say there were 50 issues that changed. I think you will find it breaks down something like this:
The average PS1 vet will think:
30 are acceptable
10 not impressed, but won't crusade against
10 are unacceptable

that's my personal guess. Not liking 10 out of 50 changes is not the same as being afraid of change.

And as far as list, I got one started here:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40303

Perhaps it will come in handy in 2.5 weeks after TB's additional stuff, Hamma's additional stuff, and E3, give us more info to work with.

[Figment]

Im not saying every planetside player resists all changes but it does seem their is people who complain about every little change and claim is gonna ruin the great Planetside.

No, you are saying that every player who even dares reference PS1 is a zealot.

[Figment]

Stardouser is pretty much spot on. The list changes from person to person though, hence why all 70 might be unacceptable to some (on an individual basis!), but percentually not by far to all.

I mean, some people don't like that BFRs are out. Duh.

[Dreamcast]

The funny thing is, I've seen this exact argument play out in Battlefield 3's development process. There may have been 100 different changes incoming, and BF2 vets opposed around 10, but despite the fact that this left 90 changes unopposed, we were accused of not wanting to change.

One thing that people need to learn is that simply changing something is not evolution.

And I'm not even a PS1 vet, so the things that *I* oppose in PS2, it doesn't mean that I would do it the same way Planetside 1 did it, either. Sometimes we still want change, we just don't want the particular change that the devs have chosen. That doesn't mean we are unwilling to accept change at all.

To me Evolve means change from the way I was trying to use it .....The way I see it a fish evolves to a land creature....Do this mean the land creature is better than the fish?...No it means the land creature is better on land and the fish is better at the water..At least thats how I used evolve, to mean change not to mean a chimpanzee turning into a "better" human.

I hope that makes sense.



Things a "bittervet" is likely to oppose:

class system
shields
iron sights
lock on weapons
low ttk
driver-gunner tanks
galaxy spawning
lack of support vehicles
lack of buggies
lack of E&E animations

Is anyone who played PS1 that opposes one of these a "bittervet"? No.

A bittervet first opposes these changes by saying it makes the game too much like Battlefield 3/COD or that the game is catering too much to casuals, then go on to nostalgia-gasm over PS1. Any attempt to provide a counter argument leads to them either explicitly saying "you didn't play the game enough" or implying it, and points are reiterated and rehashed ad nauseum. Arguing with these people is like arguing against a wall, except that wall calls you close minded as well.

Doing this provides no feedback for the developers. They will not change their game to suit people like this. If you oppose something, provide good and reasoned argument for against it. Provide data and not anecdotal evidence.

I played PS1, and I played it for more than a year. I would be a veteran technically, but you wouldn't know it from my responses here. I try to provide a foil to most arguments opposing things that the developers have changed or truncated, just because I hate seeing how this community allows such behavior and I hate the developers to become the public pincushion because they can't respond to each and every thread.

I could make the same list and the same statements about a handful of "fanboys" on this board who agree with absolutely everything. But generalizing like that doesn't help anyone.


Many, MANY people did and do. Pages and pages of arguments against certain changes. I can provide links if you want.

There are always a handful of people on any topic who go no further than "It's too much like CoD", just like there are a handful of people on the other side of the issue who go no further than "You're just a bittervet scared of change". Most of the "whining" I've seen on this board has been in the middle, people opposed to a change providing solid reasons why. Now it might turn out that they're wrong, or that certain things are being blown out of proportion, it's hard to tell when we don't even have a beta to play. But regardless the arguments and reasons to back up the opposition are there, and I know you've seen them.

HAHAHAHA don't lie.


Their is way more people who say "That is so COD like"...that "you are scarred of change"...In fact I havn't heard anybody say "you're scurred of change" other than this thread which is for the purpose to address the problem of people being scurred of change.

Examples of this are

Low tk= COD......I don't even know how that is possible, is like people are obsessed with hating COD that they don't realize other games have low ttk....BTW Planetside 2 TTK and gunplay is exactly like Killzone 2 which is good.


Iron sights=COD

class system=cod


Anything that COD did is compared to COD from what I have seen in this forums.



The funny thing is since is related to COD....it automatically means "DumbingDown" the game.


Which is the dumbest thing ever since Planetside was never complicated...never.


Planetside 1 was as simple as it got....The combat was very simple...It was fun but simple.


Putting classes, doesnt dumb it down....Just because you could choose a sniper and a med class to heal yourself after you got shot, doesn't make it complicated...It makes is Overpowered and ruins the fun of sniping but not complicated.

[Figment]

No Dreamcast, that doesn't make sense. Let's play football with a brick. Evolution!

[Dreamcast]

No, you are saying that every player who even dares reference PS1 is a zealot.

Thats the reason I said I had concerns about Planetside 2 in my first post and hope they keep they inventory system like in Planetside 1.:rolleyes:

[Hamma]

Ok guys really? Let's try and at least keep this somewhat constructive.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Which is the dumbest thing ever since Planetside was never complicated...never.


Planetside 1 was as simple as it got....The combat was very simple...It was fun but simple.



You're so hung up on this simplicity that you don't actually see past it.

This 'simplicity' allowed outfits to co-ordinate (through 3rd party voice since ingame was... bad) air-drops, logistics, tank columns, spec ops... everything you could think of and more.

This 'simplicity' allowed people to actually play the game and have fun whilst still giving them the freedom to be as involved in the massive fights or lone wolf should they wish.

This 'simplicity' and it's entailed freedom of action was what truly made PS so good, it allowed US, the players, to really be a part of the game and make it so much more than all those other fps out there.

You're telling old PS players to adapt, when the reality is, they adapted so much so that, now, they see decisions being made for PS2 which will actually REDUCE their options/abilities/freedoms that were in the original and you want us to believe it's evolving...

I do find it funny that your 'sniper healing' example was OP, yet when I first played PS all those years ago, I had a conversation with a cloaker in a squad I was in and I asked him what he could use, such as a sniper rifle, he said, no, think how overpowered that would be, stealth and 2 stk from 300+ metres... yet here we are 9 years later and the cloaking 'class' has a sniper rifle.

As mentioned earlier by Longfella, I think, PS2 is looking nice and shiny but no one played PS for the graphics. I hope the team aren't getting stuck into the graphical side of things that are comparatively easier to make amazing than working on the difficult, nebulous, intangible 'gameplay' factor that will be what really makes PS2 the great game it should be.

[JPalmer]

All the vets who dislike this new stuff that is making the game for "casuals"(Funny you hate the term Armed gave you, but call people "casual") need to shut up and wait for beta.

If you dislike it when it comes out there is a game called Planetside 1. I heard it's a pretty cool game.

[Xyntech]

Oh dear god, I read through the entire thread.

Why, why did I do it? My eyes, they bleed!

Debate good.

Thread bad.

Change, worth being cautious about. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Painkillers, heaven sent.

[dsi]

You're so hung up on this simplicity that you don't actually see past it.

This 'simplicity' allowed outfits to co-ordinate (through 3rd party voice since ingame was... bad) air-drops, logistics, tank columns, spec ops... everything you could think of and more.

This 'simplicity' allowed people to actually play the game and have fun whilst still giving them the freedom to be as involved in the massive fights or lone wolf should they wish.

This 'simplicity' and it's entailed freedom of action was what truly made PS so good, it allowed US, the players, to really be a part of the game and make it so much more than all those other fps out there.

You're telling old PS players to adapt, when the reality is, they adapted so much so that, now, they see decisions being made for PS2 which will actually REDUCE their options/abilities/freedoms that were in the original and you want us to believe it's evolving...

I do find it funny that your 'sniper healing' example was OP, yet when I first played PS all those years ago, I had a conversation with a cloaker in a squad I was in and I asked him what he could use, such as a sniper rifle, he said, no, think how overpowered that would be, stealth and 2 stk from 300+ metres... yet here we are 9 years later and the cloaking 'class' has a sniper rifle.

As mentioned earlier by Longfella, I think, PS2 is looking nice and shiny but no one played PS for the graphics. I hope the team aren't getting stuck into the graphical side of things that are comparatively easier to make amazing than working on the difficult, nebulous, intangible 'gameplay' factor that will be what really makes PS2 the great game it should be.
Brilliant post.

PS2 isn't being simplified, it's being dumbed down. It's really disheartening to think that I'll never be able to play the character I really feel like playing because of some stupid highly restrictive inventory-less locker-less class system.

Persistence does a game no good if there isn't anything there to persist besides pretty colors and numbers.

[Thomas]

Brilliant post.

PS2 isn't being simplified, it's being dumbed down. It's really disheartening to think that I'll never be able to play the character I really feel like playing because of some stupid highly restrictive inventory-less locker-less class system.

Persistence does a game no good if there isn't anything there to persist besides pretty colors and numbers.

Come now, I don't think we can say stuff like that until we've seen it all for ourselves. We don't know for sure how the classes are setup or the abilities we can unlock to change how they play.

[ArmedZealot]

Rather than you newcomers try and chest thump your way into a community why not embrace and learn from it. It is a 2 way street but opening up a thread like this and flaming people who if they had not committed $$$ and years, you would not even have the opportunity to be here right now is just immature. Grow up and learn some respect and in-turn you will receive it.


Us "newcomers" have spent just as much cash and time in the game as you. Just because we don't share your view of PS2 does not mean we are not as dedicated as you are.

[CuddlyChud]

I don't think people have a problem with criticizing design decisions in Planetside 2. Its when people start using every single change as apocryphal evidence of Planetside 2 being "dumbed down." Every single one of those threads reads exactly the same. X = less teamwork = money hungry devs who don't care about us.

[JPalmer]

You're telling old PS players to adapt, when the reality is, they adapted so much so that, now, they see decisions being made for PS2 which will actually REDUCE their options/abilities/freedoms that were in the original and you want us to believe it's evolving...



Persistent World: Check

Hundreds of Players: Check

Squads and Outfits: Check

Weapons & Vehicles with customization: Check

Classes while not as open as free inventory are noted to have common pool items that will give variety: Check

Variety of bases and locations to capture: Check

3 Awesome factions: Check


I can keep going and all I see is evolution and good shit. Sure you can't be a engineer/medic. You can't stick a house full of items in a trunk. Evolving is adapting to the environment. Take a species of bird and stick it on a island and if it doesn't die off over many years it will adapt. It will grow a different beak, maybe get longer legs, might get some more feathers, and maybe even change its color. That is evolution. Out with the old, in with the new, but you can still see its that same bird. It changed for the better.

I would to get into a discussion about the features of Planetside 2, but here is the thing.

The game is in Alpha. Meaning none of us here have played the finished product. I am going off the Devs vision. From all the info I have seen on the game the devs have been preaching variety. Even for the classes. I don't know how you are coming to the conclusion that the game is going in the other direction.

And one last thing. Why do people like you who think this take the time out of your day to tell Planetside fans that you think the game is going in the wrong direction and it isn't looking as well as you want it?

Why not spend that time contacting the people behind the game and use that passionate energy on them?

[Stardouser]

Why not spend that time contacting the people behind the game and use that passionate energy on them?

One guy tweeting devs isn't going to get the job done. We have to rally the community against these things or lone voices will be considered as random deviants.

Alpha is absolutely no reason to squelch debate. The results of the debate should always keep the fact that it's Alpha in mind, but it is absolutely no reason not to sit here and be silent and not evaluate such information as we do have available.

[Gonefshn]

All concerns are legit concerns. But people need to realise two things I think.

1. Planetside 1 was a small population game because it had such slow paced niche gameplay. Most people who play shooters don't have the patience for a game like PS1. I know this is true because in my time playing I tried to get atleast 10 different friends to join me and Everybody except one friend tried it and got bored from the downtime and slow pace.

If we want PS2 to be a huge success with thousands of players waging epic battles we NEED to cater to the more casual FPS market (by casual I mean simply, players that want to log on and shoot other players, and arent interested in spending 20 minutes sitting around organizing combined arms operations). There aren't enough people out there who are into that sort of stuff which is exactly why a game like CoD sells so many copies, its a simple design meant to get players into intense competitive action quickly with no downtime. If we want more players we have to make the game work for casual FPS players.

2. Just because lots of Casual players will join PS2 and play lone wolf and not focus as much on teamwork doesn't mean it's stopping the PS1 vets and purists from doing it themselves. And don't forget, this isn't CoD. They are in our world now, and the casual players won't have a clue how to fight against organized assaults. Strategic play will still dominate the zerg hordes.

[Stardouser]

If we want PS2 to be a huge success with thousands of players waging epic battles we NEED to cater to the more casual FPS market (by casual I mean simply, players that want to log on and shoot other players, and arent interested in spending 20 minutes sitting around organizing combined arms operations). There aren't enough people out there who are into that sort of stuff which is exactly why a game like CoD sells so many copies, its a simple design meant to get players into intense competitive action quickly with no downtime. We want more players we have to make the game work for casual FPS players.

That means providing a quick way to get to the area where the combat is taking place. It doesn't mean we have to have CoD and BF3's extreme low TTK. I don't advocate Planetside 1's high TTK either, a middle ground is best. Though I feel compelled to mention that Bad Company 1 had a pretty insanely high TTK and some casuals on Mordor's forums still speak very highly of it.

One thing SOE needs to understand though, is that the casual FPS market players will be the first to abandon a game for the next thing that comes out(and CoD games come out every year). The people who want strategic and tactical play are the ones who will stick with the game, and also they are the ones who will consistently try and rally others to join.

I think the only chance PS2 has of converting the casuals into long time players of a single game is the through the Outfit system and its social aspects. MMORPG players have guilds, but most first person shooters do not have any kind of in-game Clan support at all. That is of course, because most first person shooters are not MMOs. Planetside is. I personally believe that WoW players and other MMORPG players might be quite similar in focus to CoD/BF3 players, but again, BF3 and CoD do not provide the depth of socializing that an MMORPG does.

[Warborn]

Not really.

Evolve is a term for mutating a next generation to be more adapted. It means growth, maturing. Typically based on a previous version that is closely related.

No it doesn't. In biology it's defined as the change in frequency of alleles within a population over time. More colloquially, it's simply change occurring gradually over time. It is not anything like correct to say that evolution demands progression toward a specific goal, "devolution" isn't a word, and nitpicking words like this is totally lame so we should stop.

[ArmedZealot]

One thing SOE needs to understand though, is that the casual FPS market players will be the first to abandon a game for the next thing that comes out(and CoD games come out every year). The people who want strategic and tactical play are the ones who will stick with the game, and also they are the ones who will consistently try and rally others to join.

I think the only chance PS2 has of converting the casuals into long time players of a single game is the through the Outfit system and its social aspects. MMORPG players have guilds, but most first person shooters do not have any kind of in-game Clan support at all. That is of course, because most first person shooters are not MMOs. Planetside is. I personally believe that WoW players and other MMORPG players might be quite similar in focus to CoD/BF3 players, but again, BF3 and CoD do not provide the depth of socializing that an MMORPG does.

I think this is an issue that we as a community will have to figure out pretty soon. New players are coming in every day, most seeing what an MMOFPS is for the first time. How are we going to convince these players that the this genre, consisting of only PS2, is worth sticking with and staying involved in?

It won't be through antagonizing them that is for sure.

EDIT: Not only this but how do we keep casuals (Not just COD/BF3ers but 30 year olds with a family and a job) as well as hardcore players interested in the game in the long run?

[JPalmer]

One guy tweeting devs isn't going to get the job done. We have to rally the community against these things or lone voices will be considered as random deviants.

Alpha is absolutely no reason to squelch debate. The results of the debate should always keep the fact that it's Alpha in mind, but it is absolutely no reason not to sit here and be silent and not evaluate such information as we do have available.

it will be hard to rally a community that has members that highly like the direction the game is going in. Good luck with changing everyone's minds though.

For your Alpha statement. I can agree that features should be discussed now. This is a good time to do it. But, if you think the game has gone in a completely wrong direction then Alpha is not the time to say that. So many features and things will be changed in the future. Saying the game has loss all of it's connections to the original and it lacks all freedom is just silly.

[ArmedZealot]

2nd on the Xbox leaderboard. I think I am done here. :lol:

Where is that respect bro?

[JPalmer]

2nd on the Xbox leaderboard. I think I am done here. :lol:

And that means anything for a sake of a debate? Xbox 360 has been around for how long? The amount of gamerscore I have just shows how passionate I am for games if anything.

But, none of that matters. I don't care if you have the best computer in the world and own every game on Steam. For sake of argument or who to listen to, it doesn't mean shit.

But, I guess I am just "casual" and don't matter. Whatever. I'll make sure to play on your server to kick your ass with a 360 controller all over Auraxis.

[NewSith]

I think the thread about the jumppads gives all the answers. If the feature is well though out, there'll be little/no whining. Remember the GG implementation... Despite its obvious overpower people had no issues with it after the second patch.

Most of the "huh"s related to PS2 is in fact the class system against free inventory and lack of sanctuaries, but people got accustomed to even that.

[Stardouser]

it will be hard to rally a community that has members that highly like the direction the game is going in. Good luck with changing everyone's minds though.

For your Alpha statement. I can agree that features should be discussed now. This is a good time to do it. But, if you think the game has gone in a completely wrong direction then Alpha is not the time to say that. So many features and things will be changed in the future. Saying the game has loss all of it's connections to the original and it lacks all freedom is just silly.

I don't think the game has gone in a completely wrong direction, not at all! Right now the only thing that's worrying me is TTK and game pacing(jump pads fall under game pacing, that's why I'm not listing jump pads as a separate issue). TTK can be easily fixed, I mean, changing deviation/bullet damage/recoil is a lot different than redesigning a continent. The landscapes seem great, base size seems great, all of that seems great.

But a low TTK can definitely change the experience negatively, even though it's such a small detail in many ways. Fortunately it's also easy to change.

In fact, at this point, I am VERY pleased that TTK and jump pads/pacing are the only issues to worry about. E3 may reveal more, who knows, but at this point it's reassuring that there are so few issues.

[Dreamcast]

This thread is pointless. Why do you think SOE opened up the dev community to such interaction with the fans at such an early phase of the game? To get sunshine blown up their asses? Hell no. They want feedback. It won't all be good and I hope they expect that. Work with us. Change. Adapt. or at least explain. And ALL of that has been done.

ORLY? Did I ever say we shouldn't voice our opinions, Im just saying some people over exaggerate.


You're so hung up on this simplicity that you don't actually see past it.

This 'simplicity' allowed outfits to co-ordinate (through 3rd party voice since ingame was... bad) air-drops, logistics, tank columns, spec ops... everything you could think of and more.

This 'simplicity' allowed people to actually play the game and have fun whilst still giving them the freedom to be as involved in the massive fights or lone wolf should they wish.

This 'simplicity' and it's entailed freedom of action was what truly made PS so good, it allowed US, the players, to really be a part of the game and make it so much more than all those other fps out there.

You're telling old PS players to adapt, when the reality is, they adapted so much so that, now, they see decisions being made for PS2 which will actually REDUCE their options/abilities/freedoms that were in the original and you want us to believe it's evolving...

I do find it funny that your 'sniper healing' example was OP, yet when I first played PS all those years ago, I had a conversation with a cloaker in a squad I was in and I asked him what he could use, such as a sniper rifle, he said, no, think how overpowered that would be, stealth and 2 stk from 300+ metres... yet here we are 9 years later and the cloaking 'class' has a sniper rifle.

As mentioned earlier by Longfella, I think, PS2 is looking nice and shiny but no one played PS for the graphics. I hope the team aren't getting stuck into the graphical side of things that are comparatively easier to make amazing than working on the difficult, nebulous, intangible 'gameplay' factor that will be what really makes PS2 the great game it should be.


The point was Planetside is no complicated...So I don't understand this dumbingdown comments...How in the hell does putting classes dumb it down?.....I mean it was so complicated putting OP setups together, I doubt people in these day and age can handle it :rolleyes:

As for evolving since the word offends ppl so much...I meant change...Don't use the word evolve then just change....


Most of the changes I have heard...will not reduce teamwork, I dont see how a cloak sniper will reduce teamwork...or classes will reduce teamwork (Infact it will make teamwork more usefull since the sniper can heal himself anymore).


As for the cloak sniper...Do you even know how it works?.....That's right you don't yet you are saying is gonna be OP....Maybe sniping will be harder in this game, who knows.

One thing I do know is that when a sniper got shot in PS1, he just healed himself and camped on the same area until he was killed by a cloak or aircraft...that just ruin sniper battles....and what I just said is fact, not speculation like u.

[Gonefshn]

That means providing a quick way to get to the area where the combat is taking place. It doesn't mean we have to have CoD and BF3's extreme low TTK. I don't advocate Planetside 1's high TTK either, a middle ground is best. Though I feel compelled to mention that Bad Company 1 had a pretty insanely high TTK and some casuals on Mordor's forums still speak very highly of it.

One thing SOE needs to understand though, is that the casual FPS market players will be the first to abandon a game for the next thing that comes out(and CoD games come out every year). The people who want strategic and tactical play are the ones who will stick with the game, and also they are the ones who will consistently try and rally others to join.

I think the only chance PS2 has of converting the casuals into long time players of a single game is the through the Outfit system and its social aspects. MMORPG players have guilds, but most first person shooters do not have any kind of in-game Clan support at all. That is of course, because most first person shooters are not MMOs. Planetside is. I personally believe that WoW players and other MMORPG players might be quite similar in focus to CoD/BF3 players, but again, BF3 and CoD do not provide the depth of socializing that an MMORPG does.

You raise a good point.

Let me say nowhere in my post did I advocate a high TTK like BF3 or CoD, i was making a general statement which if you asked for specifics I would have said the same thing as you. It means getting people to be in the fight the whole time they are playing, TTK has little to nothing to do with that.

I agree that Hardcore strategic players are the most likely to stick with the game and should be treated with respect. You are absolutely right outfit features and the social game are everything as far as making true converts. It's important still I think to cater to the casual gamers though to get them into the game in the first place. Get people playing the game then let the outfit system and social aspects speak to them and hope they learn to love it. The great thing about planetside is the casual players fight right alongside the most competitive and coordinated. I am confident many people who join for regular shooter reasons will see the depths and be intrigued to learn more.
The best way for success is balance.

[Dreamcast]

That means providing a quick way to get to the area where the combat is taking place. It doesn't mean we have to have CoD and BF3's extreme low TTK. I don't advocate Planetside 1's high TTK either, a middle ground is best. Though I feel compelled to mention that Bad Company 1 had a pretty insanely high TTK and some casuals on Mordor's forums still speak very highly of it.

One thing SOE needs to understand though, is that the casual FPS market players will be the first to abandon a game for the next thing that comes out(and CoD games come out every year). The people who want strategic and tactical play are the ones who will stick with the game, and also they are the ones who will consistently try and rally others to join.

I think the only chance PS2 has of converting the casuals into long time players of a single game is the through the Outfit system and its social aspects. MMORPG players have guilds, but most first person shooters do not have any kind of in-game Clan support at all. That is of course, because most first person shooters are not MMOs. Planetside is. I personally believe that WoW players and other MMORPG players might be quite similar in focus to CoD/BF3 players, but again, BF3 and CoD do not provide the depth of socializing that an MMORPG does.

Planetside 2 TTK is fine...Is a killzone 2 clone.



As for the worry of casual players...i think you are underestimating people.


I have talked to alot of these "casual" gamers and each time I mention Planetside, they like the idea...Why? Because people want a game where 1000's of people are fighting.

If SOE does a good game, people will stick around...Casual or not..Specially since is free.

So I don't see what is the big worry....The game just has to be good.

Some of you guys think "Casual" gamers are idiots...Anything COD related is dumbdown in these forums.

SOE is smart also by having certs leveling when people arn't playing for people with jobs so Im sure they are going to figure it out.

[Mezorin]

I think there are some legitimate concerns people have, especially in the department of TTK for this game. There are a lot of bizzaro changes like the jump pads that I can understand some people having problems with too, although I think they're awesome.

Overall, I like the direction the developers are going towards here: huge epic battles, better ways to co ordinate the zerg via the mission system, an "all the map is in play" hex system, and cleaning up a lot of Planetside 1's balance mistakes.

The gun play is going to be a culture shock to anybody who hasn't played an FPS since 2004, as sprinting, regening shields, aim down sight accurate guns, and fast TTK are the standard fare these days. We'll still have heavy assault guys and MAXes running around though with powerful defenses, and I bet a lot of COD nooblets will get some very nasty surprises the first time they ever see a MAX rush, or a TR outfit's locked down cyclers/pounders blunting a base assault :)

I've probably said this ver betum, but we should humor Higby and company a bit until we get this game into our hands. I don't think fast TTK is the end of the world as I'm used to it in BF and COD games recently, but I agree that about a 40% to 30%-ish increase on TTK would be good, especially with the tanks. But who knows, maybe open beta might prove me wrong here and I'll be eating my words.

[Toppopia]

Planetside 2 TTK is fine...Is a killzone 2 clone.



As for the worry of casual players...i think you are underestimating people.


I have talked to alot of these "casual" gamers and each time I mention Planetside, they like the idea...Why? Because people want a game where 1000's of people are fighting.

If SOE does a good game, people will stick around...Casual or not..Specially since is free.

So I don't see what is the big worry....The game just has to be good.

Some of you guys think "Casual" gamers are idiots...Anything COD related is dumbdown in these forums.

SOE is smart also by having certs leveling when people arn't playing for people with jobs so Im sure they are going to figure it out.

I am an above casual gamer, and i have always wanted a game that was the scale of an RTS, having big groups or units and such, but controlling one of those units in a 1st person perspective, which Planetside 2 will offer me, so thats one reason i will love it, is because it finally brought my dreams into reality.

[Dreamcast]

I am an above casual gamer, and i have always wanted a game that was the scale of an RTS, having big groups or units and such, but controlling one of those units in a 1st person perspective, which Planetside 2 will offer me, so thats one reason i will love it, is because it finally brought my dreams into reality.

Exactly.

I have friends who supposedly by these forums standards are "casual" gamers since they play COD even tho they play COD way more than I play some "Hardcore" games.

Each time I tell them about 1000 players fighting with tanks,guns,airplanes...They all like the idea because is just too damn awesome of an idea.


Once people get to experience 1000 Player + fights, 8 vs 8 or 32 vs 32 won't be that amazing..They will fall in love with Planetside 2.

All SOE has to do is make a good game and get people to play it.

[Stardouser]

Having a balanced TTK is part of a good game. If you pop your head up and die instantly, and don't even have enough of a chance to react such that you could move 6 inches to cover, that's not a good game.

And I'm not talking about dying to sniper headshots, but dying to quick spraydowns from assault rifles at ranges that should otherwise have been far enough away that you could have made it to cover.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

1. The point was Planetside is no complicated...So I don't understand this dumbingdown comments...

2. As for evolving since the word offends ppl so much...I meant change...Don't use the word evolve then just change....

3. Most of the changes I have heard...will not reduce teamwork, I dont see how a cloak sniper will reduce teamwork...or classes will reduce teamwork (Infact it will make teamwork more usefull since the sniper can heal himself anymore).

4. As for the cloak sniper...Do you even know how it works?.....That's right you don't yet you are saying is gonna be OP....Maybe sniping will be harder in this game, who knows.

5. One thing I do know is that when a sniper got shot in PS1, he just healed himself and camped on the same area until he was killed by a cloak or aircraft...that just ruin sniper battles....and what I just said is fact, not speculation like u.

1+3. That's the whole point, PS was that simple it was a case of 'Here are your certs, use/combine them however you like'. Play Tetris with loadouts, plan for what you might need in extended hold situations and bring the most effective weapon for the task you were going to perform. Now you get given a specific class and arbitrary loadout with it and you think that's somehow an improvement? There's more to teamwork than just some forced division of people not being able to self heal/repair, that's like the absolute lowest level of 'teamwork'. It's like the basest level of 'support', you can't do anything alone and HAVE to have someone healing you, whilst the heal bot gets to run around doing nothing but that. I don't want a game where teamwork consists of TF2 medic gameplay or LoL duo bot lane AD carry and support. This is an MMOFPS, 'teamwork', that most bittervets harp on about (I would be willing to bet), is above the 'let me heal/rep you' level of every other game out there and is more about actual tactical and strategic level than just pointing at someone and pressing fire to heal/rep them.

2. I don't mind change if it's done for a good reason, rather than just for the sake of it. Oh hey, small scale FPS have changed since 2003... ok, so you're going to implement those changes into an MMOFPS because... you give me good reasons for doing so then I'm willing to be persuaded.

4. Well I think it's pretty obvious, they cloak, get in position and fire, the act of firing may break cloak.

5. So here, you want to kill an enemy sniper before he backs off and heals, ruining your little 1v1 fight in an MMOFPS (Edit1: ignoring the fact that you get regenerating shields in PS2 which is the exact same as him backing off to repair), where is your buddy to double snipe him, you know one of the most basic levels of 'teamwork'.

(Edit2) You say that healing/repping ruined sniping battles, why? Just because you didn't get the +1 in your K/D?
That sniper was out the fight for 10+ seconds, giving you the chance to target others and letting friendlies push out.
You say that everyone else is whining about all this dumbing down yet you highlight examples where you obviously aren't thinking of anything past your K/D ratio and say it was 'ruined' because you didn't get a kill.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Ugh, anyway, I'm bowing out of this, too much effort to post all these thoughts, I'll just wait and see how it plays and if it's half as good as the original was, it might be worth sticking around for as long as the original kept me.

[Baneblade]

Ok guys really? Let's try and at least keep this somewhat constructive.

Here, let me grab my glue gun.

[Noivad]

There all always people who see the sky is falling.

It's not limited to vets. Lots of people have legitimate concerns, for some people it just doesn't feel like it some things fit(still a legitimate concern).

The community (vet or not) is passionate. It's important to remember that even if some people say the sky is falling they know fully well they are going to be here at launch.



The sky did fall in PS1 - metors everywhere, It was a sad time for a great planet / cont Oshur. Good battles were fought there. We got the bending, we got the Islands, we got hit by Metors then. And they hurt too. we lost continents and gained planets. The game changed. We had Caves, then BFRs. Rabbit Events were next, chasing after the dam thing. Then the Black Ops at the whim of the devs, came next. The Reserves, The Hackers, The free Empire Vehicles for everyone weekends. Some good, Some Bad, All changing Planetside from the way the orginal played. The Game changed., the Concept changed, the way we played the game. The fall of Leadership as more and more people became CR5. I'm one of those Vets, who loved the old Planetside, adapted to the newer planetsides that followed, and will Improvise in the New Planetside2 when it comes out.

The Vets who speak here, just want to keep the game feeling like the orginal Planetside. NOT BF2 - Not Call od Duty, or one of the other Lame games that think 64 people fighting each other is MMOFPS. :evil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dbV_cF5KdU

[Furber]

Many of the changes were inevitable, like faster TTK and a class system. This is just how games are nowadays, and those systems have their pros and cons. There were other changes, such as the driver-gunner vs. dedicated gunner tank issue, which was beaten to death until they gave us both options. We should be proud of this change though, if we hadn't persisted in saying "We want ps1 style tanks!" then we'd be stuck with fewer options and fewer happy Planetside 2 players (For the record, they are most likely going to have both styles). For the most part, we know what works and what doesn't. We know what made Planetside the epic unrivaled game that it was, and what has been phased out of old fpses (free style inventory is an example).

A lot of people probably just want them to stay true enough to the original Planetside so you can really say "Now THIS is a Planetside game!" as opposed to "This is Planetfield Modern Warside 2". To be a success in the modern FPS market, lots of mechanics will need to match that of what people play nowadays. However, somethings are much better off Planetside-style (Massive scale, teamwork, persistence, 3 Factions, to name a few things) . We (most of us) are the only ones who really understand why, from first hand experience with the reason we're here on this forum today, the original Planetside.

Edit: Also, having said all of this, Planetside 2 is currently looking better than anything I could've ever hoped for. F2P, absolutely INSANE graphics/physics, and it appears to be enough like Planetside1 in my book to be a true sequel

[DviddLeff]

Planetside is my favorite game ever, plain and simple.

However it has many, many flaws which need addressing, and PS2 does appear to be fixing pretty much all of them, not necessarily how I would have done it but they are aiming to improve over the original.

A lot of people here whine particularly about FPS mechanics from the past 9 years being added to the game, which if listened to will make the came compare poorly to modern games, and make it feel dated.

However kill cams are unnecessary :p

[The noob]

Making general blanket statements about vets and formal players of Planetside 1 is a rather... stupid thing to do. Vets are not some hive-minded entity who is unwilling to accept changes to the game. Even now, there is basically no real consensus on various topics within the game. Different people are happy and unhappy about the various changes in the game.

When it comes to accepting whether or not Planetside 2 is a worthy successor to the first game, I'll put my opinion on this. As I see it, Planetside 1's goal was to take a contemporary first person shooter of that time period, and crank it up into an MMOFPS. It was largely successful in that regard, although it suffered from many issues (technical and otherwise). Planetside 2's goal is pretty much the same thing as I see it. Take a contemporary first person shooter of this time period, and crank it up into an MMOFPS, hopefully with fewer issues then the first. If first person shooters go through a major change again in the future, and a third game is made, I suspect the same thing will happen in that game.

[Crazyduckling]

If they absolutely have to imitate Battlefailed to be successful (they don't), then they can do it in a hundred ways that don't completely break the gameplay of the original game. The problem isn't that they're imitating, it's that they're imitating the worst, least transferable aspects of it. Iron sight aiming, tanks that die in 2 shots, big swaying guns and shaking screens, squad spawning, removal of inventory, and the list goes on.

1. I have never understood the problem with ironsights. Seriously. I don't understand. I dont use them, and I destroy those who do. If you don't like them, don't use them.

2. Tanks die in 2 shots only if you hit in the right position. (oh no! Planetside actually has hitboxes!)

3. Big swaying guns and shaking screens? Its called character animation, but the one shaking screen was a bit excessive when the infantry was right next to the explosions.

4. Nothing is wrong with squad spawning, especially considering it can only happen outdoors and the scale of combat is much larger, which makes it necessary.

5. There is still an inventory, just not the free-form minigame as we knew it in PS1. You will probably be able to customize the amount of ammo, nades, etc. There just isn't a grid anymore.

I'm getting tired of all these complaints.

I feel like I see this all the time:
PS1 was the best game ever. It had awesome scale but terrible game mechanics. Oh. Now they're changing the broken game mechanics? NO! We can't have that.

[cellinaire]

Well, most of the time this kinda thread tend to end up being a mess(dispite the quality of the writing) but whew....

Just sightseeing a bit here ;)

[Toppopia]

When the people complain about iron sights, are they complaining the looks of them or the fact you have to aim down the sight to hit anything?

Becuase A) having to aim down the sights is the best thing to happen to games.

and B) I wonder when someone will make a game where bullets come out of the barrel perfectly and they go where the barrel is pointing, so if you are moving your gun sways then the bullets come out where ever you are pointing, not at weird angles like your barrel is curved, and then the recoil would be horrible so you can only fire 1-2 shots before you are aiming at the sky so that hip firing is possible but only if the barrel is pointing the right direction.

Since this is the future, do the TR get guns that can fire 2 rounds before the recoil acts on the fun? They have guns that do this, like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

It can fire 2 shots before the recoil kicks in so you can get 2 perfect shots off before you have to adjust for recoil, i would have loved for BF3 to do that, but then it would have been over powered, so hopefully TR get this gun :D

[Gandhi]

I wonder when someone will make a game where bullets come out of the barrel perfectly and they go where the barrel is pointing,
Arma 2 does this. In fact it does a lot of cool things, like using TrackIR to control where you're looking without changing where you're aiming

ARMA 2, showing off TrackIR - YouTube

Personally I don't have a problem with iron sights as long as a) the weapon isn't completely useless at close range when you're not sighted in and b) the sights aren't an iron forest that completely blocks what you're aiming at. I'm not a huge fan of how fast switching to ADS is either, but that's something I can live with. I'd rather it be a tactical choice than simply an extra button to press when you want to fire, so at medium to long range taking that extra half a second to sight in would be worth the accuracy, while at close range you're better off just shooting from the shoulder.

[Toppopia]

Arma 2 does this. In fact it does a lot of cool things, like using TrackIR to control where you're looking without changing where you're aiming


Personally I don't have a problem with iron sights as long as a) the weapon isn't completely useless at close range when you're not sighted in and b) the sights aren't an iron forest that completely blocks what you're aiming at. I'm not a huge fan of how fast switching to ADS is either, but that's something I can live with. I'd rather it be a tactical choice than simply an extra button to press when you want to fire, so at medium to long range taking that extra half a second to sight in would be worth the accuracy, while at close range you're better off just shooting from the shoulder.

Woh!!! That is amazing. I have always seen this game and wanted to play, sure its completely realistic which i have always wanted in a game, but unless i was playing with the friends i play with in BF3 and MW3, i would probably get annoyed very fast at everything.

[Toppopia]

Is he using some kind of advanced equipment or is it just using a keyboard and mouse set up

[Gandhi]

Is he using some kind of advanced equipment or is it just using a keyboard and mouse set up
Keyboard and mouse with the TrackIR system, I'm pretty sure at least. If a realistic shooter is what you're after then that's your game. There's even a pretty neat zombie survival mod that was just released called Day-Z. You play with other people in a persistent world, starting off with just a pistol. The goal is to scavenge better equipment, food, and explore while trying not to get killed by zombies or other players. The only problem with it so far is that everyone tends to shoot on sight as if it's a giant FFA, which doesn't leave much room for teamwork.

[Stardouser]

When the people complain about iron sights, are they complaining the looks of them or the fact you have to aim down the sight to hit anything?

Becuase A) having to aim down the sights is the best thing to happen to games.

and B) I wonder when someone will make a game where bullets come out of the barrel perfectly and they go where the barrel is pointing, so if you are moving your gun sways then the bullets come out where ever you are pointing, not at weird angles like your barrel is curved, and then the recoil would be horrible so you can only fire 1-2 shots before you are aiming at the sky so that hip firing is possible but only if the barrel is pointing the right direction.

Since this is the future, do the TR get guns that can fire 2 rounds before the recoil acts on the fun? They have guns that do this, like this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94

It can fire 2 shots before the recoil kicks in so you can get 2 perfect shots off before you have to adjust for recoil, i would have loved for BF3 to do that, but then it would have been over powered, so hopefully TR get this gun :D

I'm pretty sure they are complaining about the aim down sight mechanic, not "iron sights". It's called "aim down sight" regardless of whether you have a scope or an iron sight.

But using aim down sight is not "imitating Battlefield". Aim down sight mechanic is simply how it's done in 99% of shooters and how it should be done, and that's that.

[Bluecewe]

I wonder when someone will make a game where bullets come out of the barrel perfectly and they go where the barrel is pointing

As I'm sure you are aware, game worlds are rendered as many 2D polygons, giving the impression of a 3D envrionment. Thus, trajectory prediction is usually correct, but animations may not accurately reflect where the gun barrel should be pointed.

[goneglockin]

I don't like other PlanetSide players in general because they are not FPS gamers first, not by any stretch.

SOE made MMOs. I do not want to hear what an MMO company that attracts MMO gamers have to say about FPS game mechanics.

SOE and PS1 vets seem to forget what FPS gaming even is, it's infantry focused combat. Of which there was little to none in PlanetSide. I guess if you count hallway fights and tower footzergs.

Vehicleside. Everyone thinks it's so great that a couple tactical guys who tactically pull a vehicle and use tactics to tactically mow down endless waves of infantry... tactics... is the greatest thing about PlanetSide.

Well guess what? Those endless waves of infantry? Those people were your primary target audience; i.e. people who expected an FPS game. They unsubscribed in a big hurry.

They'll tell you to pull vehicles then, combined arms and all that. But think about what that actually is. It's going back to a base, getting a group together, driving across the map, and then fighting other vehicles... when all you want to do is play a game like CoD or BF3 in a massive environment. It always felt like I had to do chores in PlanetSide for it to let me get infantry fighting going. PS1 vets would just say fine we don't need you then, don't play this game... and then beg for marketing months later so they can again have a target rich squishy environment.

They're basically jerks who don't consider how the other side feels or what FPS games mean to people. It reminds me of playing outside with some of the neighborhood kids when I was young. We'd make up these games and they would try to make the games all about their amusement, and then not understand when all the other kids said screw this im going home.

To me, that's your average PS1 vet.

[goneglockin]

And yet 9 years later here it still is. Largely because people stuck it out and showed devotion to it, you get to play PS2. Suck it up man.

If you guys are going to kill it with epic whining like you did PS1 before it barely had a chance I'd rather not see it at all.

P.S.

It'd be pretty sad to see history repeat itself at this point.

[goneglockin]

If everyone agreed to everything why would SOE even participate in the collaboration here? They wanted it, need it, they are getting it and appreciating it.

So let me put this another way. Why give any weight to the few thousand players who "soldiered on" with a game that 90% of everyone else left in a year or so?

Wouldn't it cross your mind that their input does not reflect what kind of experience your average gamer is looking for?

I think PS2 is coming along just fine by the look of it, and I hope the small enclave of proud PS1 vets are given only the consideration that their segment of the demographic deserves.

[Stardouser]

So let me put this another way. Why give any weight to the few thousand players who "soldiered on" with a game that 90% of everyone else left in a year or so?

Wouldn't it cross your mind that their input does not reflect what kind of experience your average gamer is looking for?

I think PS2 is coming along just fine by the look of it, and I hope the small enclave of proud PS1 vets are given only the consideration that their segment of the demographic deserves.

I am not a PS1 vet(except that I've subscribed to it recently in order to get a feel for a few things), and the only thing that turns me off about it is the things like lack of aim down sight mechanic and lack of sprint. The things we are actually complaining about here and now on this forum, which is TTK, I like that about PS1.

And a lot of Battlefield players are resisting DICE on BF3's very low TTK, so SOE should not get the idea that just because BF3 does something that it's universally accepted. There are a lot of BF players hoping that PS2 will either replace BF3 for us as a long term game we will enjoy, or at least scare DICE into going in a different direction. Or both...

[Graywolves]

This thread is awful and it makes me angry at everyone.

[lawnmower]

Becuase A) having to aim down the sights is the best thing to happen to games.

no
and why do you then go on to praise a feature of sorts that is really fantastic and fun that sort of opposes iron sights

[Zulthus]

I don't like other PlanetSide players in general because they are not FPS gamers first, not by any stretch.

First off, you show yourself as an elitist, and claim to know what us players play or don't play. Alright, wrong on the first sentence. You're right though, there was absolutely no FPS in Planetside. :rolleyes:

SOE and PS1 vets seem to forget what FPS gaming even is, it's infantry focused combat. Of which there was little to none in PlanetSide. I guess if you count hallway fights and tower footzergs.

This one makes me laugh. IN NO WAY does FPS mean infantry focused combat. It means as it says. FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. And guess what? EVERYTHING in the game is first person shooter. Piloting an aircraft, gunning a vehicle, and there was more than plenty of infantry combat to go around.

Vehicleside. Everyone thinks it's so great that a couple tactical guys who tactically pull a vehicle and use tactics to tactically mow down endless waves of infantry... tactics... is the greatest thing about PlanetSide.

Planetside 2 obviously isn't the game you're looking for here. The point of it is to break away from the mold of brain dead boring infantry only shooters. There is actually some depth to this game. You push into bases with vehicles and infantry alike and that leads to massive indoor clusterfuck battle of infantry only in a fight for the base. Yeah... tactics... it's something not found in any other FPS than this series. It's all run and gun, boring as fuck. No teamwork or anything.

Well guess what? Those endless waves of infantry? Those people were your primary target audience; i.e. people who expected an FPS game. They unsubscribed in a big hurry.

They stuck around for a very, very long time. The game was extremely active up until around Core Combat, and then still had many poplocks and battles everywhere up until about 2006-2007. And believe me... the majority of people didn't unsubscribe from the lack of an FPS aspect at all... you must never have played this game.

They'll tell you to pull vehicles then, combined arms and all that. But think about what that actually is. It's going back to a base, getting a group together, driving across the map, and then fighting other vehicles... when all you want to do is play a game like CoD or BF3 in a massive environment. It always felt like I had to do chores in PlanetSide for it to let me get infantry fighting going. PS1 vets would just say fine we don't need you then, don't play this game... and then beg for marketing months later so they can again have a target rich squishy environment.

That's the whole damn beauty of Planetside. The calm before the storm, riding in with galaxies above you, fighter escorts, tank column below, AMSes beside you... so much fucking more fun than CoD or BF3. Again, if you felt like PS1 was a chore, this isn't your type of game. Don't try to change it away from the people that really enjoy it.

They're basically jerks who don't consider how the other side feels or what FPS games mean to people. It reminds me of playing outside with some of the neighborhood kids when I was young. We'd make up these games and they would try to make the games all about their amusement, and then not understand when all the other kids said screw this im going home.

I can say the same exact thing about you right now.

To me, that's your average PS1 vet.

:rofl:

[lawnmower]

But using aim down sight is not "imitating Battlefield". Aim down sight mechanic is simply how it's done in 99% of shooters and how it should be done, and that's that.
and where would you get this idea from

[goneglockin]

First off, you show yourself as an elitist, and claim to know what us players play or don't play. Alright, wrong on the first sentence. You're right though, there was absolutely no FPS in Planetside. :rolleyes:



This one makes me laugh. IN NO WAY does FPS mean infantry focused combat. It means as it says. FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. And guess what? EVERYTHING in the game is first person shooter. Piloting an aircraft, gunning a vehicle, and there was more than plenty of infantry combat to go around.



Planetside 2 obviously isn't the game you're looking for here. The point of it is to break away from the mold of brain dead boring infantry only shooters. There is actually some depth to this game. You push into bases with vehicles and infantry alike and that leads to massive indoor clusterfuck battle of infantry only in a fight for the base. Yeah... tactics... it's something not found in any other FPS than this series. It's all run and gun, boring as fuck. No teamwork or anything.



They stuck around for a very, very long time. The game was extremely active up until around Core Combat, and then still had many poplocks and battles everywhere up until about 2006-2007. And believe me... the majority of people didn't unsubscribe from the lack of an FPS aspect at all... you must never have played this game.



That's the whole damn beauty of Planetside. The calm before the storm, riding in with galaxies above you, fighter escorts, tank column below, AMSes beside you... so much fucking more fun than CoD or BF3. Again, if you felt like PS1 was a chore, this isn't your type of game. Don't try to change it away from the people that really enjoy it.



I can say the same exact thing about you right now.



:rofl:

Average PS1 vet. Words on deaf ears.

Provides a literal definition of FPS games to say they do not mean infantry combat in one paragraph, and then refers to them as "the mold" in the next. I also apparently never played the game because I do not remember PlanetSide being "very active" for a long time. I do remember half of the servers disappearing in less than a year.

And yes, if I don't like it- it's not for me... I know. Good luck telling that to the kind of people who would keep ps2 from being ps1 all over again; bleeding players from the beginning.

[ArmedZealot]

They stuck around for a very, very long time. The game was extremely active up until around Core Combat, and then still had many poplocks and battles everywhere up until about 2006-2007. And believe me... the majority of people didn't unsubscribe from the lack of an FPS aspect at all... you must never have played this game.

Ignoring everything else in this post. I can give you a figure to support this... It however points to a dip in subscriptions in 2005.


http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-3.png

It would be interesting to note that Battlefield 2 launched in June 2005, and both Xbox 360 and the PS3 were announced and the Xbox 360 being released that November.

Core Combat was release in May 2003. I think it is wrong to imply that it was the cause of PS1's demise.

BFR's would be more accurate however. They were released October 2004.

[ArmedZealot]

But you baffoons are now the laugh of the party. Good job.

Where is that respect bro?

[Baneblade]

But you baffoons are now the laugh of the party. Good job.

Buffoon

[Dreamcast]

1+3. That's the whole point, PS was that simple it was a case of 'Here are your certs, use/combine them however you like'. Play Tetris with loadouts, plan for what you might need in extended hold situations and bring the most effective weapon for the task you were going to perform. Now you get given a specific class and arbitrary loadout with it and you think that's somehow an improvement? There's more to teamwork than just some forced division of people not being able to self heal/repair, that's like the absolute lowest level of 'teamwork'. It's like the basest level of 'support', you can't do anything alone and HAVE to have someone healing you, whilst the heal bot gets to run around doing nothing but that. I don't want a game where teamwork consists of TF2 medic gameplay or LoL duo bot lane AD carry and support. This is an MMOFPS, 'teamwork', that most bittervets harp on about (I would be willing to bet), is above the 'let me heal/rep you' level of every other game out there and is more about actual tactical and strategic level than just pointing at someone and pressing fire to heal/rep them.

2. I don't mind change if it's done for a good reason, rather than just for the sake of it. Oh hey, small scale FPS have changed since 2003... ok, so you're going to implement those changes into an MMOFPS because... you give me good reasons for doing so then I'm willing to be persuaded.

4. Well I think it's pretty obvious, they cloak, get in position and fire, the act of firing may break cloak.

5. So here, you want to kill an enemy sniper before he backs off and heals, ruining your little 1v1 fight in an MMOFPS (Edit1: ignoring the fact that you get regenerating shields in PS2 which is the exact same as him backing off to repair), where is your buddy to double snipe him, you know one of the most basic levels of 'teamwork'.

(Edit2) You say that healing/repping ruined sniping battles, why? Just because you didn't get the +1 in your K/D?
That sniper was out the fight for 10+ seconds, giving you the chance to target others and letting friendlies push out.
You say that everyone else is whining about all this dumbing down yet you highlight examples where you obviously aren't thinking of anything past your K/D ratio and say it was 'ruined' because you didn't get a kill.

So how do classes ruin the whole other PS1 teamwork of coordinating an attack accross continents?...It doesn't seem like it does....Can't u pick any cert no still? Except you just can be a sniper and a medic at the same time..Don't see how that ruins the games teamplay...Also the loadouts might have several options except u can't be a medic or engineer which isn't bad IMO...but I will wait and see till beta


Seems like some of the changes r being done for good reason.

4 Again you are assuming...You have no idea how it works...For all we know cloaking sucks and you can tell right away that somebody is cloak and kill them fast.

5 And thats why Planetside was broken...You need 2 persons to kill a sniper lol......I know you are going to say it shows how planetside was about teamwork....It just ruin sniper battles IMO.

As for Planetside 2 regenration.....Again your assuming for all we know the cloaks die with 1 Sniper shot like in Planetside 1.....So they won't regen.



K/d Ratio?....LMAO let me guess u hate K/d ratio because of COD and think I play COD or someshit....No dude I don't give a damn about my K/d ratio in fact I think it was horrible in Planetside...I didn't like the sniping ps1 because it didn't make it dangerous to be a sniper since you could heal yourself....So what was risky about sniping?...Almost nothing.

Thats why i hope SOE fixed sniping so it will be risky...No more healing or anything.

[Hamma]

goneglockin I'm not quite sure who you are but you have done a rather good job of trying to stereotype every PlanetSide vet and at the same time alienating yourself.

I'll give this thread a bit longer if we can have some constructive discussion.

This thread is awful and it makes me angry at everyone.

:love:

[Vancha]

I'm not sure this thread is capable of constructive discussion, considering the answer to the question is rather obvious.

Some people will like certain changes, some people won't like certain changes because they don't like change in general and some people won't like certain changes because they don't like that particular change, for whatever reason.

You simply can't lump "Planetside players" into either having legitimate concerns or "hating to evolve". Out of those who are against a certain change, there'll be some from group A and some from group B.

I can't think of anything more to be said.

[Mechzz]

inb4lok

There's a lot of passion in the community, that's for sure. And the vast majority of polls and threads here have reasoned debate in a good spirit. This one got badly derailed, and there is a risk of it happening again as we learn more about the game and perhaps less well-intentioned peeps gravitate to this site as the hype mounts. That doesn't mean it will set a new benchmark as I believe most of the posters want to keep this as a site where we know we can have a good debate about the game we love.

That is all.

[captainkapautz]

What is this, I don't even

[ArmedZealot]

inb4lok

There's a lot of passion in the community, that's for sure. And the vast majority of polls and threads here have reasoned debate in a good spirit. This one got badly derailed, and there is a risk of it happening again as we learn more about the game and perhaps less well-intentioned peeps gravitate to this site as the hype mounts. That doesn't mean it will set a new benchmark as I believe most of the posters want to keep this as a site where we know we can have a good debate about the game we love.

That is all.

Nah these jackasses were just trolling I reckon. Kind of the dark side of the community, if you will. People not capable of objective thought etc.

Have a negative opinion of the PS2 community, get called a jackass and not capable of objective thought. A real show for the new people that come here to PSU.

As more and more new people show up there will be vets like WildVS that will seek to alienate and divide the community.

[Toppopia]

Quick someone close this thread before its too late!! :eek:

[Xyntech]

Kill everyone in this thread.

[goneglockin]

goneglockin I'm not quite sure who you are but you have done a rather good job of trying to stereotype every PlanetSide vet and at the same time alienating yourself.


8-9 years later and I've still got it. Who knew. I was one of the few vets from the beginning who regularly had it out with loyal PS fans who thought SOE's design decisions were infallible.

I do think it's rather amusing that many of the things I suggested years ago are now cropping up in the sequel; and I believe the OP has a point that most PS vets will raise a stink about it. My point is this though- a consensus of PS1 vets already had their way last time and look how that turned out.

I was shouted down at every turn, the vehicle buff, the decimator nerf, the max buff... PS1's infantry game wasn't that great at the start and all the buffs/nerfs made it less enjoyable each time.

Why all the hate against infantry? Because PS1 vets, the ones who were left when the dust cleared, wanted to farm squishies. That was PlanetSide for them. Doesn't work out so well when the squishies, your average players, not finding manning a vehicle turret a compelling game experience, left.

What would have been great about PlanetSide, was the choice of where you wanted to make a difference and how you wanted to fight your battles. At least in the beginning. Then vehicleside took over and the game turned into a boring cycle. Farm squishies footzerging until the barrel of your vanguard is sticking in the front door of a bio lab; and then line up more people on your end of the hallway and press w to move forward and left click to shoot.

It was awful. If I had my way, I would chose to always be infantry, and would chose to never waste my time taking AV shots at a vehicle only to have it run behind a hill and come back fully repaired a minute later. Let vehicles fight other vehicles. Make it interesting and customizable. Let the players decide where to put their armor. What kind of weapons to have on it. Just leave infantry out of it, let them have the whole base SOI to fight in without being harassed by a PS1 vet mozzie farmer patting himself on the back for "tactics."

[Baneblade]

So you want a game without vehicles at all.

[ArmedZealot]

So you want a game without vehicles at all.

Nice job reading. He didn't say that at all.

[Baneblade]

Nice job reading.

Well I don't think he said he wants to be a Power Ranger.

[goneglockin]

So you want a game without vehicles at all.

No. Just one where infantry gets to make a choice whether or not they want to waste their time fighting vehicles. And no, being forced to pull a vehicle or be farmed by vehicles is not a choice.

Ideally, vehicles should fight other vehicles and infantry should get to fight other infantry, both going on during the same base cap, without having such distinct phases where you either participate in vehicleside or get farmed.

[ArmedZealot]

Well I don't think he said he wants to be a Power Ranger.

Let the players decide where to put their armor. What kind of weapons to have on it. Just leave infantry out of it, let them have the whole base SOI to fight in without being harassed by a PS1 vet mozzie farmer patting himself on the back for "tactics."

I wanna be the red ranger.

[Baneblade]

So you don't want vehicles getting inside bases... that was a bug. Or are you asking for arbitrary invisible walls that vehicles can't cross so dirteaters don't have to worry about being run over?