"Speeding it up"

[The Kush]

For me the fun about an mmo is the times when you have massive coordination and teamwork. This is why planetside stole my heart. The game had some amazing memories of large groups working efficiently and cooperatively together to achieve a common goal. With all this "speeding up" and multiple spawn points and faster kills and more capture points the game is losing what made it so great for me. Maybe I am just crazy, but I don't want this game to "speed up" because the reason I liked it was the time and effort it took to capture a base, kill an enemy, ect. and this is what gave us the amazing teamwork, faction loyalty, and feeling of accomplishment we all loved and desired.

I hope the beta proves me wrong and this game is still centered around teamwork. I know it's kinda early to be worried but it doesn't hurt to point out that speeding the game up too much could potntially hurt the game.

[Bags]

I don't see what any of that has to do with teamwork; moving faster and killing faster doesn't have anything to do with teamwork or faction loyalty or feeling of accomplishment.

[iSpectre]

By "Speeding up" you mean the faster killing?
You mentioned the spreading out of Capture points - Why is that bad?
if anything it means you won't be forced to play in massive swarms or join a random group already in a war.
you'll be able to stick it out with something as small as a group of 8-12 mates and target specific capture points - Which would benefit those that like to coordinate in smaller - specialized groups.

[Shogun]

the TTK looks too fast.

in a game where you can do so many different things and have to face so many enemys at once it sucks to be killed in a second.

it´s ok that the movement or means of deployment were sped up, but the TTK needs to be reduced a little.
the vehicles feel useless if everything can shoot them in seconds. especially those that are supposed to be armored and powerful. a lightning should not be able to kill a main battle tank in seconds!
a longer TTK better displays the differences of the vehicles and soldiers! if everything dies almost from the first shot of any weapon, what´s the point of all the diversity?

in ps1 it really mattered to use the right weapon against specific targets. and only the best specialized weapon would kill its designated target that fast. wrong weapon/target combinations resulted in a harsh and long firefight, sometimes with almost no damage being dealt at all. that was a lot of fun.

[Toppopia]

For me the fun about an mmo is the times when you have massive coordination and teamwork. This is why planetside stole my heart. The game had some amazing memories of large groups working efficiently and cooperatively together to achieve a common goal. With all this "speeding up" and multiple spawn points and faster kills and more capture points the game is losing what made it so great for me. Maybe I am just crazy, but I don't want this game to "speed up" because the reason I liked it was the time and effort it took to capture a base, kill an enemy, ect. and this is what gave us the amazing teamwork, faction loyalty, and feeling of accomplishment we all loved and desired.

I hope the beta proves me wrong and this game is still centered around teamwork. I know it's kinda early to be worried but it doesn't hurt to point out that speeding the game up too much could potntially hurt the game.

No matter how fast a game is you can still have teamwork? Me and some friends would use teamwork all the time in MW3, so if you can do it in something like MW3 then you can easily do it in Planetside 2.

[Sabrak]

it´s ok that the movement or means of deployment were sped up, but the TTK needs to be reduced a little.
the vehicles feel useless if everything can shoot them in seconds. especially those that are supposed to be armored and powerful. a lightning should not be able to kill a main battle tank in seconds!
a longer TTK better displays the differences of the vehicles and soldiers! if everything dies almost from the first shot of any weapon, what´s the point of all the diversity?

I agree with that.
A quick TTK is alright when you're in a 32vs32 battle, but what will happen with hundreds of players in?

And when a tank will appear on the battlefield and be taken as a target by some anti vehicle guys? Two/three shots and it's over? Meh...

But all this is balance related, and that's something that will (hopefully) be tweaked in beta if it's really needed.
We shall see in time.

[Mechzz]

And when a tank will appear on the battlefield and be taken as a target by some anti vehicle guys? Two/three shots and it's over? Meh...


We know Higby is a BF fan, and that is exactly what happens in BF. But it doesn't stop peeps hopping in a tank and having a good time.

And there will be sidegrades to improve the survivability of your vehicle, anti-mine armour etc.

On reflection overnight I will admit to a bit of concern over the "universal" launcher. I'm all in favour of decent hand-held AA/AV for grunts, but you should at least have to change the ammo for AA vs AV. I don't recall TB doing that.

[Shamrock]

I don't think you should be able to kill an MBT in seconds, PS1 had it just about right. I wouldn't want vehicles like "Unreal tournament" that feel paper thin. As an infantry man when you see an enemy tank you should feel threatened to either run or take cover even if you did have an RPG available in your load out.

[Sabrak]

We know Higby is a BF fan, and that is exactly what happens in BF. But it doesn't stop peeps hopping in a tank and having a good time.

Yes, but in BF, there are about 32 ennemies in front of you. And not all of them will have the weapon needed to take you down.

In Planetside 2, with the hundreds of ennemies and all the different weapons/vehicles, 32 isn't even close to the number of threats you'll get for your MBT.
And if only 3 shots can kill you, you won't stay alive for long, which is a problem.

In PS1 a MBT was a threat to almost everyone, and taking cover was a rule if you didn't wanna get in big trouble, even if you had the weapon to destroy it, because the thing was hard to kill.

But again, we need to see it running with hundreds of players first, and get to test it ourselves before being sure of what is good and what isn't.

[Mechzz]

Yes, but in BF, there are about 32 ennemies in front of you. And not all of them will have the weapon needed to take you down.

In Planetside 2, with the hundreds of ennemies and all the different weapons/vehicles, 32 isn't even close to the number of threats you'll get for your MBT.
And if only 3 shots can kill you, you won't stay alive for long, which is a problem.

In PS1 a MBT was a threat to almost everyone, and taking cover was a rule if you didn't wanna get in big trouble, even if you had the weapon to destroy it, because the thing was hard to kill.

But again, we need to see it running with hundreds of players first, and get to test it ourselves before being sure of what is good and what isn't.

I agree with the concern about vehicle longevity when a massive base fight is in the offing. But for smaller encounters the shorter TTK is fine. And it could be that the new hex and resource system means we have more small battles and the more occasional biggy. And for the biggy, we may need new tactics. There are peeps who enjoy finding new tactics.

All speculation, i know, and I'm more than happy to be proven wrong in beta, cos we should all have maximum fun playing, and if I'm wrong it should mean the "funnest" gameplay won out.

[RodenyC]

This is one of those things I really have to see in beta.From videos though,it does indeed look fast.I mean when you have hundreds of people fighting over a base if it takes 3 seconds for one person to kill imagine with hundreds.Same goes for vehicles.It should indeed be hard for infantry to kill a tank and in gameplay videos they die with the snap of a finger.So again I would have to get a fell for and see if it's a twitch reflex game.

[Snipefrag]

If you don't think of it as 'speeding it up' but more as 'removing the slightly annoying tedium of getting around' then I cant see how it can be detrimental to gameplay. I loved PS1 but the FPS elements really suffered because of the massive downtime you would accrue over a play session just trying to get around. Some may say that's part of the journey, but SOE are selling an FPS so that side of things has to be up to scratch.

[MacXXcaM]

This is one of those things I really have to see in beta.From videos though,it does indeed look fast.I mean when you have hundreds of people fighting over a base if it takes 3 seconds for one person to kill imagine with hundreds.Same goes for vehicles.It should indeed be hard for infantry to kill a tank and in gameplay videos they die with the snap of a finger.So again I would have to get a fell for and see if it's a twitch reflex game.

Agree.

About speed in general:
I really liked Planetside1 for the fact you had too travel a certain amount of time. Killing people did take some time, too. And that's where teamwork comes in... You have to organize your squad to take down tanks or other infanterists.

I like the CQC in Battlefield 3 but I don't think it will apply in PS2. If everyone will be killed as easy as in BF3, you want see these really huge firefights going on anymore.

[Stardouser]

I believe that the game should have a properly balanced pace. That means that infantry should be able to sprint, and have unrestricted squad spawning(to be clear: squad spawning would be restricted to leader spawn only, but you could use it indoors), and of course, you also can respawn on Galaxies. Oh, and vehicles are available to everyone, that makes everyone fast, too. These things make the game faster, and it should be offset by HUGE maps, and a moderate TTK instead of an extreme low TTK.

To be clear, TTK is not just bullet damage, it's also the effects of deviation(cone of fire to you), recoil, weapon rate of fire, effective range, and many other things, including even hit detection. Yes, you heard that right : When technology makes hit detection better, TTK goes down and weapons get deadlier. And so, to the infantry gameplay we saw on TB's video, I would propose it take about 1.5 more bullets to kill, and then there be some meaningful deviation and recoil. Perhaps even look at lowering the rounds per minute slightly. As far as deviation, understand this : Random deviation should be fairly high if you fire while moving or fire from the hip, but if you stop and aim down sight it will be reduced to zero. Understand also that even if you do stop and ADS, you're still going to have recoil.

Under normal circumstances, the huge maps would offset the fast pace caused by sprinting, squad spawning, etc and make the pace perfect. However, we've seen jump pads now...what ELSE are we going to see that will nullify the pace balance that huge maps bring?

I don't see what any of that has to do with teamwork; moving faster and killing faster doesn't have anything to do with teamwork or faction loyalty or feeling of accomplishment.

It has everything to do with it. If the game pace is so fast that it's one big meatgrind, then teamwork means nothing.

Battlefield 3 proves this, albeit on a much smaller scale. The TTK and time between kills is so fast that there's no time to even bother with commo rose(voice macro VVV system to you guys) presets. Hell, some people don't even bother with VOIP.

And only the people with superb twitch skills feel like they accomplished much in BF3.

Faction loyalty is of course, meaningless to this.

[Graywolves]

Dark Skyes (my outfit) always tried to move fast.


With a quicker TTK and quicker travel this just means that your leadership is going to need to be quicker. (or the synergy of your group). Your enemies will fall faster and your allies will too.

Just be bolder.

[ringring]

I do fear that the game will be too fast and the person who wins will be the 15 y. o. with the fastest reflexes....

[Stardouser]

Dark Skyes (my outfit) always tried to move fast.


With a quicker TTK and quicker travel this just means that your leadership is going to need to be quicker. (or the synergy of your group). Your enemies will fall faster and your allies will too.

Just be bolder.

This is the "just adapt" argument in defense of a faster pace. There are two aspects of adaptation:
1. Adapting to succeed
2. Adapting to enjoy

The first one, most people can adapt to. But not everyone can adapt to enjoy a faster pace if they do not. This is why when I play Battlefield 3, I might do just as well in KDR and points as I would have in BF2, but I quit quickly because I'm tired of it - the pace was too fast to play all night long.

[Warborn]

TTK on infantry and vehicles is super low. I was pretty surprised at how fast it is. I don't know that I like it, but I guess we'll see how it goes. Either way, it's pretty disconcerting seeing people at medium-long ranges get taken down in a handful of bullets.

[RSphil]

the ttk was the only thing that got me. looked very fast. as for everything else i cant see a problem. if anything there need to be more team work. if you have to take multiple objectives not it will be good for a number of teams to get ready then all attack at once to him multiple targets at once. this will be very hard to defend against and require good team work and good communication.

[Sturmhardt]

the TTK looks too fast.

in a game where you can do so many different things and have to face so many enemys at once it sucks to be killed in a second.

it´s ok that the movement or means of deployment were sped up, but the TTK needs to be reduced a little.
the vehicles feel useless if everything can shoot them in seconds. especially those that are supposed to be armored and powerful. a lightning should not be able to kill a main battle tank in seconds!
a longer TTK better displays the differences of the vehicles and soldiers! if everything dies almost from the first shot of any weapon, what´s the point of all the diversity?

in ps1 it really mattered to use the right weapon against specific targets. and only the best specialized weapon would kill its designated target that fast. wrong weapon/target combinations resulted in a harsh and long firefight, sometimes with almost no damage being dealt at all. that was a lot of fun.

I couldn't agree more, the TTK needs to go down, right now kills look very easy. I always liked that about PS1: The best player wins, and not the player who was lucky enough to spot his victim first.

And also if you wanna play a game all night long, you need to be able to relax a little and coordinate with your squadmates.

[Bromaxulon]

While I can empathize with your concerns, I actually like to faster ttk. You won't be able to just run around like a lunatic in your mbt or with your boots. You will need to take your time, move slower and use squad and company level tactics to achieve your goals.

It's all in the preparation, much like our real militaries you will have to prepare your squads and tactics before hand, so when things start going down you can react fluidly. Less micro command and more macro.

Tanks will have to use hull down more often and shoot move tactics to survive.

Most importantly the game will play like a shooter and not like an mmo( like original ps). I can't count the number of time i snuck up on a HA user in ps empty a clip into the back of their head just to have them turn around and kill me because they basically had " bigger boots" then me.

IMHO faster ttk puts more emphasis on preparation of tactics at that level, giving coordinated outfits an edge. Strategic level planning is basically unchanged.

Just be glad the ttk isn't like arma or other sims, regardless can't really know till it's out or you get into beta. Looking forward to see how that pans out.

[MrBloodworth]

I think it is to fast, especially the flimsiness of the armor.

Part of the joy and attraction to PS1 was you could survive an encounter and get away. Unlike other FPS games where one or the other was sure to die.

This is how rivalries are made, how the tug-of-war is created. Endlessly cycling in a death/spawn cycle does not make for those epic moments PS1 provided.

Line up two opposing sides of tanks, in a line. If more half of the tanks on ether side are gone in the first volley, its too fast.

As it stands now, there seems to be no outcome for any encounter other than one dieing quickly. No repose, no chance of escape for ether combatant, no shootout situations, no area denial, no epic moment other than increased kill count.

I want more than kill count and Death/spawn cycling.

On another subject, I find the removal on reliance on other troubling. Nothing should auto-anything in this game. Nothing. Every action should require an action by a player. If you get taken to half health, you should stay at half health until someone heals you are you visit a med term. This shield system needs to go, or become an elective implant.

[Graywolves]

Here's a theory.


The TTK might be as fast as it is right now because they don't have the numbers to test it on the actual scale. So when we get into beta and have the 600+ player battles at a base we should see a necessity to have the TTK increased if it is not scaled up already.


Being able to survive encounters is probably more important than getting quick kills for the overall gameplay experience and player retention. (could be argued all day)

[Bromaxulon]

Here's a theory.


The TTK might be as fast as it is right now because they don't have the numbers to test it on the actual scale. So when we get into beta and have the 600+ player battles at a base we should see a necessity to have the TTK increased if it is not scaled up already.


Being able to survive encounters is probably more important than getting quick kills for the overall gameplay experience and player retention. (could be argued all day)

You might be onto something with your theory, but I would imagine that the ttk would be the same at all stages. Only Benefit of reduced ttk due to population is to increase the fun factor and since they are play testing it would stand to reason that these are the anticipated final values damage values.

As to your engagement survival statement, I believe that a change in tactics can achieve similar ends as an increase in ttk. We will just have to play differently, and be more cautious.

[Shogun]

i really hope the ttk is just an alpha thing to compensate for low pops.

it really has to be longer to fully enjoy all the weapon features of planetside 2.
this is my only concern right now, that could be a total gamebreaker and spoil the planetside experience.

beta will show if it´s really an issue, and i hope our feedback will change the ttk to something closer to the original.

speeding up the game is ok, but the ttk is the wrong spot for this. the removal of death penalties, the sanctuarys, and the addition of spawn on squad are all speed increasing features. i think this is enough.

i don´t want medics to ONLY be useful as revivers because there are only full health soldiers or dead soldiers, and nothing in between.

[Badjuju]

Allot has changed in the game, wait till beta before you judge. With a larger battle front and more players, "speeding it up" may bee needed. We wont be able to tell untill beta.

[Badjuju]

Also squad spawning isn't going to be like battlefield which I was worried about as well. You can only spawn on you squad leader, and only if he has certed into that ability, which I don't think will be bad.

[Stardouser]

Also squad spawning isn't going to be like battlefield which I was worried about as well. You can only spawn on you squad leader, and only if he has certed into that ability, which I don't think will be bad.

Squad leader only spawning should be standard really. BUT, that aside, unfortunately I heard rumors that the SL might also be able to spec into allowing all squad members to spawn on all squad members. If that turns out true, it's very very bad and increases game pace too much.

[Shogun]

i would assume the squad leader spec would enable the squadleader to set the spawnpoint on any any team member like giving the spawnbeacon away. so he can steer a little where his squad will spawn. i don´t think it will unlock every single squadmember as a spawnpoint.

like sl is standard spawnpoint until someone in the squad screams that he is in a good position. then the sl can switch the spawnpoint away from himself to this squadmember. a simple "unlock all members as spawnpoints" would suck

[2coolforu]

The magrider died way too fast. It took two hits from a vannie to get it (one rear, one front) and the vannie itself was critically damaged (flames) by about 6 seconds worth of fire from the AA gun ontop of the magrider to the frontal armor.

I think a rear hit should do a very large amount of damage as it encourages a more layered battle, with tanks actually forming lines which prevents it all becoming a clusterfuck. I just can't see the tank combat being rewarding if it takes 3 front hits to take you out as it does in battlefield. It becomes less about managing damage and more upon who was unlucky enough to get 2-3 tanks shooting them at the same time.

I definitely think the MBT's should be able to take serious punishment to the front, it simply makes tactics more rewarding. The Lightning also seemed to cripple the magrider, it should have killed it if it had aimed a few shots a little better.

[Shamrock]

i really hope the ttk is just an alpha thing to compensate for low pops.

it really has to be longer to fully enjoy all the weapon features of planetside 2.
this is my only concern right now, that could be a total gamebreaker and spoil the planetside experience.

i don´t want medics to ONLY be useful as revivers because there are only full health soldiers or dead soldiers, and nothing in between.

Couldn't agree more. As far as I could see TB was wearing heavy exo as a VS at one point and he died in a split second. Dying that quickly means no time to react, to return fire or take cover. Some of the best fire-fights I have been in is where I have been clipped by a few shots but still had a fighting chance because I had time to run for cover.

[deltase]

If by speeding you mean fast TTK? Yeah i don't like it at all. The slower it is the better, i say. But things like Jump pads that take you from one point to another for very short time are a good feature. So what should be slowed and what should be made a bit faster? Yes the question lies in the overall balance of the pace of the game. Some things should be slow to do, others maybe a bit faster. I must be in game and played at least a few hours to say what should and what shouldn't.

[Gonefshn]

I loved the slow pace of PS1 but I'm not too worried about the fast TTK for infantry in this new game.

By not worried I mean I think I'll like it anyway but I do agree it could stand to be a bit longer. Really the TB video made it look almost exactly like BF3. Maybe making it 150% of what it is in that video would do nicely.

However, vehicles is a different story. I am VERY concerned about the TTK on tanks. In PS1 it was hella fun cause you could last in a fight for a LONG time, unless of course you were targetted by many many enemies and moved in too far (basically when the enemy teamed up on you... isn't this supposed to be a game about teamwork?). I remember epic 1v1 tank fights. As a magrider it I could chase a vangaurd but it would take at least 10 shots to take it out or more. It was fun because there was enough armor to duke it out and really skirmish. BF3 vehicles are in no way as fun, the only reason they have any survivability is the fact you can repair them so easily. you can even repair them on the move and under fire. The entire Planetside vehicle experience will be broken if MBTs take each other out in 3 or 4 hits. And honestly all the things Totalbiscuit was saying about how great it is that infantry now have a fighting chance against vehicles I totally disagree with.

Infantry shouldn't have a fighting chance against a vehicle.
The only way they should have a fighting chance against a vehicle is with NUMBERS. One guy with a rocket launcher shouldnt be able to drop an MBT. You should need a few guys to do that. Once again. Promote teamwork.

[Sturmhardt]

I can't count the number of time i snuck up on a HA user in ps empty a clip into the back of their head just to have them turn around and kill me because they basically had " bigger boots" then me.


Well that is what different classes are for. If you wear the heavy armor, you are supposed to kick light infantrys asses in 1on1 straight duels. Light classes have other advantages (speed, weapons for higher distance with less recoil etc) and obviously you were not able to play them out so the other guy just killed you. A good Shooter plays like Chess and you have to think what you can beat with your current equipment and what might be not suitable to try. Thats what makes it tactical.
Onehitkills make tactics unimportant while longer fights make tactics and skills crucial to success. Thats why I like longer battles.

[captainkapautz]

Since TTK seems to be the topic, does anyone of you guys remember how many boomers it took to take out a tank?

Edit:

Well that is what different classes are for. If you wear the heavy armor, you are supposed to kick light infantrys asses in 1on1 straight duels. Light classes have other advantages (speed, weapons for higher distance with less recoil etc) and obviously you were not able to play them out so the other guy just killed you. A good Shooter plays like Chess and you have to think what you can beat with your current equipment and what might be not suitable to try. Thats what makes it tactical.
Onehitkills make tactics unimportant while longer fights make tactics and skills crucial to success. Thats why I like longer battles.

You are missing his point completely, he WAS using tactics (element of surprise a.k.a. an ambush) and not engaging headon "straight 1v1", yet still got facerolled.

If that was because he was bad or RExo took to much punishment is open for debate, but his point was atleast a little valid.

[Irish]

I feel the game can always naturally speed up when there is action to be had. but always logging in and having that instant gratification feeling of transportation, or gaining kills faster might get old after a while.

planetside always had, IMO, a fast enough style of play during the chaotic action moments. But where i had a fantastic time was the 5 on 5 tower skirmish in the middle of no where, or the 1v1 sniper duel.

i would hate for them to get lost to the idea that small skirmishes, or hiking a mile to get into that awesome spot would not appeal to the masses.

i always thought a fast style of gameplay catered to the younger crowd, whereas older more mature players enjoyed the strategy and HUNT that went into planetside 1

[Mechzz]

i always thought a fast style of gameplay catered to the younger crowd, whereas older more mature players enjoyed the strategy and HUNT that went into planetside 1

My feeling too. Maybe us old ones just need to take a chill pill and accept that the kiddies can have their fun with the game play changes, but we know we will get more fun by waiting for the bus/gal in the courtyard and flying out with 20 team-mates on a war-turning spec ops mission.

[Dreamcast]

The TTK is perfect....Killzone 2 clone in TTK and gunplay.

As for how fast it is to get to action..Im not sure but it looks good so far...I guess if it shouldn't be one second respond are you spawn right in to action but I have to see how it is in the beta.

[MacXXcaM]

And honestly all the things Totalbiscuit was saying about how great it is that infantry now have a fighting chance against vehicles I totally disagree with.

Infantry shouldn't have a fighting chance against a vehicle.
The only way they should have a fighting chance against a vehicle is with NUMBERS. One guy with a rocket launcher shouldnt be able to drop an MBT. You should need a few guys to do that. Once again. Promote teamwork.

Agreed. Why would I want to play as tank driver if I feared every inf sneaking around the corner? I want to feel massive and invincible until I find a good match (=enemy tank).

Also where's the roleplaying fun if in a squad everyone can just open fire on a tank without having to fear its superiority to ordinary foot soldiers?
If I'm a squad leader I want to order my anti tank soldier to take it down while the rest of us gives him cover.

[moosepoop]

judging from the alpha videos the ttk is not below bf3, its just as fast. i think the ttk needs to be lowered. not neccesarily to a snail crawl like planetside 1, but still need to be lower, otherwise it would be unplayable in large pop situations.

[Bags]

When it enters beta with A LOT OF PEOPLE PLAYING, I imagine they're realize their current TTKs, at least for the tanks, are ridiculously low.

[Gonefshn]

Agreed. Why would I want to play as tank driver if I feared every inf sneaking around the corner? I want to feel massive and invincible until I find a good match (=enemy tank).

Also where's the roleplaying fun if in a squad everyone can just open fire on a tank without having to fear its superiority to ordinary foot soldiers?
If I'm a squad leader I want to order my anti tank soldier to take it down while the rest of us gives him cover.

Thank you.
If they put so much emphasis on a class system for infantry what is the difference when it comes to vehicles? Really in a basic way being in an MBT is as much a "class" as being a LA or Medic. Why do people feel everything should be able to counter everything else??? Tanks should DESTROY infantry 1 on 1 unless the pilot is an absolute idiot. You shouldn't be able to kill a tank as a soldier, you should have to rely on the armor columns of your fellow team mates. Each vehicle, soldier, and aircraft should fit a role and should have to rely on each others capabilities to survive. When a tank rolls in infantry should duck and cover. they should have to call in aid from their own MBTs or rely on numbers to overwhelm the tank.

[Shogun]

My feeling too. Maybe us old ones just need to take a chill pill and accept that the kiddies can have their fun with the game play changes, but we know we will get more fun by waiting for the bus/gal in the courtyard and flying out with 20 team-mates on a war-turning spec ops mission.

but this cannot be applied to the ttk!
if everything is almost one shot one kill, we old players will have no time to relax. the transportation is of no concern to me. just like you said, let the kiddys spawn inside of the boiling pot while we take the oldschool method. but we cannot send the kiddys to die with one shot, and have the old long time to kill for us oldies.

it IS a thing that we will have to feel for ourselfes in beta, but i really think a longer ttk will multiply the joy of all the great features we have. even adhs call of duty kiddys will get it at some time. you know, it´s not only the ps vets that need to accept evolution... same applies to the bf and cod players coming over to ps2.

[JPalmer]

I'll wait until beta. I can't judge the infantry vs tank argument because that guy in that tank did not have a squad of people around him working as a team. If I was in a squad with my friends in that situation they would had started shooting TB when he was falling from the sky.

Can't judge the TTK either because the map was being played like it was FFA, there wasn't a frontline and the game probably plays a lot different when there is one. And I like fast TTK, you can't make mistakes. Call fast ttk casual as you want, but if you make one mistake you are dead. Can't say the same for PS1 TTK. Slower is the more casual.

[Bromaxulon]

Well that is what different classes are for. If you wear the heavy armor, you are supposed to kick light infantrys asses in 1on1 straight duels. Light classes have other advantages (speed, weapons for higher distance with less recoil etc) and obviously you were not able to play them out so the other guy just killed you. A good Shooter plays like Chess and you have to think what you can beat with your current equipment and what might be not suitable to try. Thats what makes it tactical.
Onehitkills make tactics unimportant while longer fights make tactics and skills crucial to success. Thats why I like longer battles.

Another poster pointed out what you missed from my post so I won't rehash that.

Most here that faster ttk will eliminate the "tactical" elements from the game. This is quite untrue, it just changes the tactical style.

What I mean by this is that things like suppress and flank and other modern infantry tactics will be much more valid. It becomes a game of position and movement, using infantry level tactics ( bounding overwatch etc) and less about spamming medpacks and carrying the right implants.

Sure most modern tactics worked in the original ps, it was a deep game in that sense, but when using sound tactics to get the jump on your opponent don't work because he has +1 armor or can hit f1 faster or just duck around a corner and heal(all infantry had med app and armor reps in ps1) the game feels less like epic advanced warfare and more like a traditional mmo.

Faster ttk and the improved gunplay will make battles even more engaging and tactical. You will have to think before you move because if you don't you die, much like a real battlefield and a lot more like chess then your example is.

[NCLynx]

In TBs video the TTK looked a LITTLE bit high to me, but it not even that much. Everything else looked fine.

[Mechzz]

I'm not going apeshit over the TTK *yet*

What we saw was Alpha quality, maybe an older build and probably tweaked to suit the devs needs for bug testing. I can easily imagine they have a dev-tool that winds up and down the TTK to suit how many players are in the game, for example.

The game IS walking a tightrope, however, at least for the team-oriented players. They must get the masses in to populate the game and make some money. But for the team-oriented peeps, they need to retain enough the things that rewarded team play for them to hang around. That is a cleft stick, and it's an uncomfortable place for anyone to be.

[Gonefshn]

Another poster pointed out what you missed from my post so I won't rehash that.

Most here that faster ttk will eliminate the "tactical" elements from the game. This is quite untrue, it just changes the tactical style.

What I mean by this is that things like suppress and flank and other modern infantry tactics will be much more valid. It becomes a game of position and movement, using infantry level tactics ( bounding overwatch etc) and less about spamming medpacks and carrying the right implants.

Sure most modern tactics worked in the original ps, it was a deep game in that sense, but when using sound tactics to get the jump on your opponent don't work because he has +1 armor or can hit f1 faster or just duck around a corner and heal(all infantry had med app and armor reps in ps1) the game feels less like epic advanced warfare and more like a traditional mmo.

Faster ttk and the improved gunplay will make battles even more engaging and tactical. You will have to think before you move because if you don't you die, much like a real battlefield and a lot more like chess then your example is.

I agree with this post. This is part of the reason I can dig the faster TTK in games like BF3. Survivability becomes more about the choices you make then being a numbers game. It also gives players a better chance of getting kills without taking damage themselves, meaning a good player can take out more than one guy at a time if he is good enough and uses his environment wisely to draw people into his line of sight or into ambushes.

I do think the TTK needs to be slower a bit, ive said this before. Simply because compared to BF3 or CoD you will have so many more things going on a longer TTK will be helpful to give a slightly higher buffer for situations where you just cant keep track of everything.

I do forsee outfits being even more tactical this time around. In Planetside being out in the open was totally fine. If you had cover close by you could easily run behind it when under fire and repair. I like the idea that you need to be inside cover to be safe, popping out only to move to new cover, take some shots, or get a gauge on the surroundings. A good outfit can really make some cool strategies with this style.

I still think this doesn't apply to tanks though. You can't covertly play as an MBT and using cover is an afterthought mostly. Tanks need to retain a long TTK so they feel as powerful as they need to be.

[Raymac]

The original Planetside always felt slow and clunky to me. I like the idea that it will be sped up a little and smoothed out. Obviously we know it's not going to be like Tribes or anything, but there was plenty of room to speed up the game. For TTK, the dev's have repeatedly said the goal will be between BFBC2 and BF3 which sounds good to me. That goal can be reached with some minor tweeks through testing.

Also, I'm tired of hearing how every criticism about the game will "kill teamwork". You can completely debate something about the game without playing the "kills teamwork" card. If they remove squads, outfits, or chat, THEN you can complain about teamwork getting killed, otherwise, just choose a different argument that actually holds water.

[Bags]

Also, I'm tired of hearing how every criticism about the game will "kill teamwork". You can completely debate something about the game without playing the "kills teamwork" card. If they remove squads, outfits, or chat, THEN you can complain about teamwork getting killed, otherwise, just choose a different argument that actually holds water.

Jump pads kill teamwork! Classes kill teamwork! Three continents at launch kills teamwork! :lol:

[Xyntech]

My feeling too. Maybe us old ones just need to take a chill pill and accept that the kiddies can have their fun with the game play changes, but we know we will get more fun by waiting for the bus/gal in the courtyard and flying out with 20 team-mates on a war-turning spec ops mission.

This.

No matter the pacing or TTK, I believe that more seasoned, tactically oriented players who may or may not be into the more twitch elements of the game will still have their place.

A lot of players have mentioned over the past few months how they enjoyed the lull in the action between certain fights, how it gave them some down time... Go sit in a quiet corner and make yourself a sammich. The rest of the game shouldn't have to slow down just because a few players want a break.

That being said, TTK seems a tiny bit fast on infantry and way too fast on vehicles. TTK isn't that hard of a stat to adjust though, so I doubt it will be too big a deal to get it right during beta, if they haven't already fixed it before then.

Just remember that tactical and team players will still be valuable and useful no matter how fast the TTK is. You can have your fun while the twitch shooter kiddies have theirs, however they can't have their fun if the game is paced like PS1. The game may have been perfect for some players, but it was too slow for a shooter in general.

Hopefully we strike a good balance between too slow and too fast, but this is certainly another area where we will have to adapt and overcome. PS1's pacing will not work as a successful game today. It barely worked for the first game, although there were a lot of other reasons why populations suffered back then as well.

On the subject of TTK's being a bit fast, I agree, but I'm not worried about that til beta. On the subject of the game being sped up, I say good. It will help it be a success and I'm confident that, if done within reason, it won't hurt the most important gameplay aspects of Planetside 2 at all. Team work will still thrive, especially due to the persistent nature of the environment.

[Kurtz]

Fast gameplay and MMO do not go together well. There needs to be downtime in between. Nobody can keep a fast twitch playstyle up for too long. I played BF2 and COD competitively and was always best coming off a break. 2 hours of playing and I was slowing down and burning out. Having watched the gameplay videos the devs are either terrible or were told to stand around and let Higby shoot at them. The gameplay I have seen will not represent the gameplay we will see at beta/launch. I will actually be much better at PS2 than I was at PS1 simply because PS2 is more like the games I am good at.

So by no means do I want a slow TTK because I don't feel like I can keep up. I don't want a fast TTK because I want to ENJOY the moments of an MMO.

Devs need to remember that the camaraderie (and immersion) was created ON THE WAY TO BATTLE. In PS1 and WW2Online, the best times were in the Gal (or transport of choice) on the way to the battle. It gets the adrenaline up to be helplessly in the back of a transport that could get shot down or blown up at any point in time only to jump out and go from quiet to chaos at the drop of a hat. Pressure on the driver to deliver the troops, etc... great game tension all around. Spawning on teh SL takes the need for this away.

BF3 Control points at a base make the fight too spread out and will not concentrate enemies to a reduced number of entrance points. Add jump jets and Luanch pads and this game will be BF3 meets unreal tourney.

Also the ability to spawn off a team mate indoors will completely undo the idea of the orginal game. You needed to run from point a to point b to get inside. Usually if your AMS was blown or you died after a GAL drop you had to regroup and redeploy.

There was something great about getting rid of an enemy AMS and hunting for hidden ones that were somewhat further away. Equally fun on the attacking side was regrouping after your attack was thwarted.

the TTK on the MBT was WAAAAAAY too fast. Add in the gunner is now the driver and the tanks will be useless. Back in the day good Tank gunners and drivers were a highly sought after team. A good driver kept at the fringe of the fight without diving in too far. A good gunner kept enemies at bay and took out the competition. 10 hits would take out a tank as opposed to BF3s 2. No one will take the 2nd gunner spot unless they're infy looking for temporary cover from air.

TTK is the one thing that concerns me about this game. I don't want it to be too slow like PS1 but BF3 is a little too fast for a MMOFPS IMO.

I like WW2 online and PS2 because you feared Tanks and Planes.

In BF3 planes have no bombs...its laughable.
Tanks are a joke.

In PS1 you crapped in your pants if you saw a tank. Infy with a decimator could only keep a tank at bay for so long. You were pretty much dead meat.

Thats they way war is thats the way this game should be.

I remember very specifically that Planetside really emulated real war in the way that you had to control the air first in hostile territory if you wanted to win (just like IRL), the way you countered Air was putting up good dog fighters yourself and some AA. When the defenders countered with AA you brought in the tanks (to clean up the max units and skillguards), forcing the enemy to counter with tanks.

The point is there was a process to winning the battle that was a rock paper scissors style of game play. If one side wasn't flexible (wouldn't pull armor for example) then they lost. Period. end of fucking story.

I don't want to see a bunch of Infy fighting off Air and Tanks with a couple of Shoulder rockets and C4.

[Bags]

pawn off a team mate indoors will completely undo the idea of the orginal game.

Whoa whoa whoa, source fucking please.

[Bags]

Oh, and can we stop systematically insulting everyone who doesn't hate the TTK? Thanks.

[Gonefshn]

Oh, and can we stop systematically insulting everyone who doesn't hate the TTK? Thanks.

Dude, Bro. You don't hate the TTK??? WTF Bro.

[Xyntech]

Fast gameplay and MMO do not go together well. There needs to be downtime in between. Nobody can keep a fast twitch playstyle up for too long. I played BF2 and COD competitively and was always best coming off a break. 2 hours of playing and I was slowing down and burning out.

So take some down time. Go do something logistical for your empire that is less intense. I've played twitch shooters for many hours on end, and while I'm not the most skilled player, endurance isn't a problem for me, or a lot of other players.

I'll grant that my endurance isn't as high for a shooter as it is for an MMORPG, but MMORPG's are all about downtime and boring shit. Even when they get intense they are still pretty mundane. The are like glorified chat rooms. I think Planetside needs to focus a little more on the FPS than the MMO when it comes to pacing, or else it will miss out on its largest pool of potential players.

Set your own pace. The war wont be lost because you took it easy after an intense fight. Even the fighting itself should be possible to play at variable speeds. There were players who tried as hard as possible to rush past the slow pace of the first game, while other groups in fact played even slower than average. Everyone can still contribute. Nobody has to be left behind. Just make sure you're in an outfit that can accommodate playing at the pace you like to play at.

Faster pacing just allows the game to be more engaging for players who haven't gotten into the deeper tactical shit yet, but the very nature of the game is going to funnel them towards more team oriented play the longer they stick with the game. Hopefully having very fun shooting gameplay will help keep those players around long enough that they do start becoming more valuable team members, and not just abandon the game like PS1 was abandoned.

The point is there was a process to winning the battle that was a rock paper scissors style of game play. If one side wasn't flexible (wouldn't pull armor for example) then they lost. Period. end of fucking story.

I have little doubt that this will still be the case in PS2, even if it's at a slightly faster pace than before. If I end up being wrong, I'll be right there with you demanding it get fixed. Combined arms was an essential part of Planetsides formula, so it certainly wouldn't be acceptable to lose that dynamic.

[Graywolves]

While I think adapting to a much quicker paced game won't be too difficult. Kurtz raised a very good point about how long the average play session of a twitchy shooter is and how it effects an MMO.


I used to play Planetside all day everyday. I will in Planetside2 any chance I get.

But newer players and others will probably find that they require a good break every hour or so if they want to consistently play way.

Current TTK and speed to the battle might be a bit of a double-edged sword as players are spending more time competing and focusing on the immediate battle but less time reflecting on their actual play, hyping themselves up, speaking to other players..

It could be undermining the MMO part of the game.


-edit-

But I do think organized outfits will still have those moments where you need to rally at a location, pile in a transport, or decide where to go next after a big fight.

[Attackmack]

Im not happy about the fact that you can't push your enemy out of the battle (more or less).

I mean, in ps1 if you assaulted a facility and where pushed back and eventually lost all towers around that base, that assault was essentially a failure and the battle was "over". For a while the defenders could easy up and regroup as the attackers would have to regroup at sanc or some adjacent facility.

In PS2 it seems you will always have enemies very close by, and no matter how hard you push them, attacking or defending, they will always be able to spawn just "over there".

And when the current players engaged in the battle have tired of it, logs off and go to sleep, there will be new ones logging in respawning in the heat of battle taking their place.


Im all for having ongoing action when action is the case but i fear it will just feel like a huge player round of never ending modern warfare. At first it might sound like it would be awesome but in fact it wouldn't. :/

[Xyntech]

I think a better solution would be to try to find ways off facilitating and supporting some of those MMO and community elements, but not at the cost of hurting the speed of the firefights.

I know most MMO's tend to be largely about the socialization, with gameplay being more of an afterthought, but that just doesn't fly for an FPS, and the more Planetside 2 embraces being an FPS, the better I think it will do.

Obviously it's also important that it is an MMO, and the socialization and community aspects are important for that. I just believe that the two elements can coexist, without hurting each other.

Getting rid of continent locks and speeding up the gameplay will mean that if a player wants to just drop in and shoot a few guys before work, there will always be a battle ready for them to jump into. Hell, the mission system should even help make those short play sessions helpful to the team effort.

I'd rather have players jumping on for an hour at a time to play Planetside 2 than to play any other game, because even if it's a short play session, those players are still keeping the populations high.

There will still be players pulling 8 hour sessions. We will just find the pace that's right for ourselves, so that we can stay in the fight for as long as we want.

[Gonefshn]

But I do think organized outfits will still have those moments where you need to rally at a location, pile in a transport, or decide where to go next after a big fight.

Your absolutely right, and Xyntech said the same thing above.

I've said this time and again in various different places when it feels necessary to the discussion. Just because there will be players zerging and playing a lone wolf twitch game doesn't mean it has any effect on you.

The mass wave of zerging rinse/repeat run and gun players in PS1 never hurt the game. In fact, I feel it provided the essential backbone to keep the fight going. If you want to play tactical, then sit back and gather troops, work on a large coordinated assault, whatever. What is stopping you? Nothing.

Set your own pace, play your own way. The zerg stalemate will exist. So take a step back, organize 30 MBTs or a 10 galaxy drop team and kick the damn door in. No amount of lonewolf rinse and repeat players trickling into a fight will be able to compete when large combined arms groups show up. Not in PS1 and not in PS2, gauranteed.

[Kurtz]

Xyn, you are right we can always go do something else in between hectic battles, unless the hectic battles never end ;) But I get your point.

AttackMac is getting what I'm saying. Its not that the speed you need to play at to get kills and avoid dying is a problem. Its the time it takes you to die that is the problem. This compounded with the fact that you are always right there near the action. If you die quick, then you better be right back in the fight.

Higs said he wanted to speed up the time it takes to get into battle and they did. I am assuming with the quick TTK will come a quck way to get right back into battle.

So to Macs point, the enemy can never really be pushed away. never being pushed away means no journey to the fight, which was often a challenge in itself (ambushes)

This will reduce the quite before the storm as there will be no journey to the fight. That was the coolest thing about PS1. Sitting in a Gal waiting to hot drop into a clusterfuck. If you got beat, you had to rally and start again. This was epic. Or sitting in Deliverer with a small hurt squad ready to hop out at the back door.

Spawning vehicles near the bases (not sure if that is possible) would remove the need for most of the map. In the early PS1 days there would be ambushes on major intersections otw to key bases out in the middle of nowhere. All of these things lead to a need for an open world.

The solutions to get to the fight quickly work well in a server based shooter with a tiny map. They don't necessarily translate well into an open world that is huge with 24/7 fights.

[Gonefshn]

So to Macs point, the enemy can never really be pushed away. never being pushed away means no journey to the fight, which was often a challenge in itself (ambushes)

This will reduce the quite before the storm as there will be no journey to the fight. That was the coolest thing about PS1. Sitting in a Gal waiting to hot drop into a clusterfuck. If you got beat, you had to rally and start again. This was epic. Or sitting in Deliverer with a small hurt squad ready to hop out at the back door.

I would argue the opposite. With fast TTK it will be less likely to have a stalemate meaning the fight will move more.

In PS1 you could run out, take some damage, run back behind a tree or wall, repair your armor and health to full, then run back out and do it again and again. With the long TTK it gives people a lot of time to return to hard cover and repair. For example a 1v1 sniper battle (assuming no one else interferes) with both players using bolt drivers. LITERALLY could never end unless one player was a complete idiot. You take one hit, you go behind cover and repair. There was no way to kill someone with a bolt driver if they were next to cover and had repair tools. you could starve them out i guess but it would take probably over 5 minutes for them to run out of ammo for the repair guns.

My point with the bolt driver example. The fight cant move forward easily when players can so easily run behind cover and negate the effects of the damage they just recieved. cautious play was hard to combat in PS1 because it was so easy to fall back into cover and repair.

With fast TTK you can actually punish players easily who stay out of cover too long, or simply arent as good at shooters.

[Toppopia]

I would argue the opposite. With fast TTK it will be less likely to have a stalemate meaning the fight will move more.

In PS1 you could run out, take some damage, run back behind a tree or wall, repair your armor and health to full, then run back out and do it again and again. With the long TTK it gives people a lot of time to return to hard cover and repair. For example a 1v1 sniper battle (assuming no one else interferes) with both players using bolt drivers. LITERALLY could never end unless one player was a complete idiot. You take one hit, you go behind cover and repair. There was no way to kill someone with a bolt driver if they were next to cover and had repair tools. you could starve them out i guess but it would take probably over 5 minutes for them to run out of ammo for the repair guns.

My point with the bolt driver example. The fight cant move forward easily when players can so easily run behind cover and negate the effects of the damage they just recieved. cautious play was hard to combat in PS1 because it was so easy to fall back into cover and repair.

With fast TTK you can actually punish players easily who stay out of cover too long, or simply arent as good at shooters.

And now not everyone can repair/heal themselves, only medics. So that plan almost flies out the window unless you have a medic hiding behind the tree with you.

[Gonefshn]

And now not everyone can repair/heal themselves, only medics. So that plan almost flies out the window unless you have a medic hiding behind the tree with you.

Are you agreeing with me? cause that's pretty much my point exactly. With the new system and faster TTK you can actually dispatch players instead of dealing with people that are endlessly "dug in" behind cover. At range sometimes shooting people in PS1 could feel almost pointless because you could never kill them in time before they hid and repaired. At least now people have more immediate consequences for their actions.

[Stardouser]

With fast TTK you can actually punish players easily who stay out of cover too long, or simply arent as good at shooters.

Now, I agree with staying in cover, but you know, you can't win. If you stay in cover because of the punishingly low TTK, you will be branded a camper and then some people will cry for things like killcam. Yes, I know killcam is confirmed gone, it's merely an example of what people will cry for.

Of course, the real sentiment people are expressing here is, "how dare you avoid my bullets".

[Toppopia]

Now, I agree with staying in cover, but you know, you can't win. If you stay in cover because of the punishingly low TTK, you will be branded a camper and then some people will cry for things like killcam. Yes, I know killcam is confirmed gone, it's merely an example of what people will cry for.

Of course, the real sentiment people are expressing here is, "how dare you avoid my bullets".

Don't you hate it when people brand you a camper even though you are doing the smartest thing possible? Putting a waist high wall between you and the enemy so you can pop up and shoot and he can only hit small part of you and you can hit all of him? I tell ya, people these days are idiots, using cover is part of shooting, if you join the army lets see how long those guys last not using cover being Rambo and charging enemy lines with duel wield pistols.

But then someone will say that its a video game so they can do that stuff because you can't do it in real life, but you still have to be smart in games.

[ArmedZealot]

Don't you hate it when people brand you a camper even though you are doing the smartest thing possible?

Not really. In my experience it's a good thing to get this kind of attention. You can often use it to get certain players to go out of their way to try to kill you and end up getting themselves killed in the process. It's one of the funnest things to see in online games.

[Stardouser]

Not really. In my experience it's a good thing to get this kind of attention. You can often use it to get certain players to go out of their way to try to kill you and end up getting themselves killed in the process. It's one of the funnest things to see in online games.

Well, THAT is fine. The problem is when these people stop pursuing you with weapons in the game, and instead go to the devs to ask for the game to be changed to punish camping. All you have to do is go to the killcam thread to see that thought process in action.

I mean, sometimes it's just a simple matter of our squad is pinned down by enemy suppressive fire or because we don't have any anti tank weapons and there's a tank, but nevertheless, being behind cover makes you a camper :(

[Toppopia]

I mean, sometimes it's just a simple matter of our squad is pinned down by enemy suppressive fire or because we don't have any anti tank weapons and there's a tank, but nevertheless, being behind cover makes you a camper :(

1)I believe camping is hiding round a corner with a shotgun (or any weapon) and shooting someone that runs round. That is camping.

2)Using cover and popping up and shooting people. That is not camping that is using cover effectively, see the major difference?

3) Lying on a hill using a sniper rifle. Not camping, that is sniping. Unless he isn't using a sniper rifle, then its being an idiot lying on a hill for no good reason.

Option 1 is camping, option 2 is not. Option 3, not camping.

See the differences?

[Stardouser]

1)I believe camping is hiding round a corner with a shotgun (or any weapon) and shooting someone that runs round. That is camping.

2)Using cover and popping up and shooting people. That is not camping that is using cover effectively, see the major difference?

3) Lying on a hill using a sniper rifle. Not camping, that is sniping. Unless he isn't using a sniper rifle, then its being an idiot lying on a hill for no good reason.

Option 1 is camping, option 2 is not. Option 3, not camping.

See the differences?

I see the difference although I am bound to point out that the difference between 1 and 3 is that a sniper is using range/cover for his advantage, and a shotgun camper is using surprise/a better short range weapon for his.

Most people probably do consider snipers to be campers, however, most games like CoD are deathmatch focused(and they may have objective modes, but people play those like deathmatches anyway). Planetside is not a deathmatch and therefore, in Planetside, the sniper may not be a camper, but the sniper in other games is a camper.

Or at least that's how most people think. Personally I think camping is a valid tactic either way and should not be artificially prevented by killcams or other mechanics.

[Toppopia]

I see the difference although I am bound to point out that the difference between 1 and 3 is that a sniper is using range/cover for his advantage, and a shotgun camper is using surprise/a better short range weapon for his.

Most people probably do consider snipers to be campers, however, most games like CoD are deathmatch focused(and they may have objective modes, but people play those like deathmatches anyway). Planetside is not a deathmatch and therefore, in Planetside, the sniper may not be a camper, but the sniper in other games is a camper.

Or at least that's how most people think. Personally I think camping is a valid tactic either way and should not be artificially prevented by killcams or other mechanics.

I only don't like people camping or 'hiding' is them being in some stupid corner and waiting for you to run round, that is annoying but base assaults will be like that, enemies at every corner. Hmm, will we beable to get a cert to deploy cover as any class? Or can engineers deploy cover, don't remember reading it anywhere.

[Gonefshn]

You kinda just said what I was about to say Stardouser. A camper in PS2 will almost not exist due to the persistent nature. If someone is camping, go somewhere else. In a timed match thats not an option. In other games camping to me is exploiting objectives to kill players who are unsuspecting. Staying put while under fire isnt camping. I barely ever heard the word camper used in planetside, it just didn't really apply because defending will often be as important as attacking. Camping really only applies like you said in a deathmatch where kills are all that matters.

[Stardouser]

You kinda just said what I was about to say Stardouser. A camper in PS2 will almost not exist due to the persistent nature. If someone is camping, go somewhere else. In a timed match thats not an option. In other games camping to me is exploiting objectives to kill players who are unsuspecting. Staying put while under fire isnt camping. I barely ever heard the word camper used in planetside, it just didn't really apply because defending will often be as important as attacking. Camping really only applies like you said in a deathmatch where kills are all that matters.

Exactly. I think I said this in another thread last week, but instead of camping, snipers and people who intentionally stay behind cover, they are not campers, they are support fire. See, camping is mostly an accusation you hurl at enemies. In Planetside, the problem is not one that you need to worry about your enemy, but instead, the problem is if your own team has too many people providing support fire and not enough throwing their bodies onto the capture points. But that is something you will bitch at your own team about, the enemy shouldn't really be complaining about it.

[Gonefshn]

the problem is if your own team has too many people providing support fire and not enough throwing their bodies onto the capture points.

BINGO! Cue the arguement about lifetime K/D ratio....

Oh god no I'm just kidding please don't lollol

[Toppopia]

You kinda just said what I was about to say Stardouser. A camper in PS2 will almost not exist due to the persistent nature. If someone is camping, go somewhere else. In a timed match thats not an option. In other games camping to me is exploiting objectives to kill players who are unsuspecting. Staying put while under fire isnt camping. I barely ever heard the word camper used in planetside, it just didn't really apply because defending will often be as important as attacking. Camping really only applies like you said in a deathmatch where kills are all that matters.

So... this means that noobs won't swear at me and call me a camper even though i did nothing wrong??.... Yipee a game that is finally great *Hellejuh music plays* :groovy:

[Stardouser]

BINGO! Cue the arguement about lifetime K/D ratio....

Oh god no I'm just kidding please don't lollol

Well, you're not wrong. The desire to have a good KDR, combined with a low TTK, will lead to a lot of people wanting to do support roles and not too many wanting to put their bodies on capture points.

In fact, I can see it now, some people might have a side account/secondary character they use just for capturing flags, so that their primary account/character's uber KDR isn't affected.

So... this means that noobs won't swear at me and call me a camper even though i did nothing wrong??.... Yipee a game that is finally great *Hellejuh music plays* :groovy:

Some will, no doubt, but unlike Battlefield, if too many campers, I mean, support fire personnel, cause you to lose a base, the front line gets pushed back to the next base and all the campers, I mean support fire, have to move...so if too many people do it, they will be moving one way or another.

[ThirdCross]

And when the current players engaged in the battle have tired of it, logs off and go to sleep, there will be new ones logging in respawning in the heat of battle taking their place.

I don't see why this would be the case? Most of the spawn points in PS2 are very vulnerable. Spawn points are just as they were in PS1. Gals are even more vulnerable than AMSs were, hell most of you were complaining about this. The last one, squad leaders, are 1st, very noticeable when spawned on, and 2nd, very easy to kill.

[SgtMAD]

I started laughing when I read the post that said there won't be any camping in PS2.

you ppl just lack imagination

[Toppopia]

I started laughing when I read the post that said there won't be any camping in PS2.

you ppl just lack imagination

Its not called camping, its called defending the objective and using cover effectively, so no, there won't be camping. :p

[SgtMAD]

Its not called camping, its called defending the objective and using cover effectively, so no, there won't be camping. :p

yea, tell me all about it when NIC sets up a bunch of burster maxs camping your air pads

[Gonefshn]

yea, tell me all about it when NIC sets up a bunch of burster maxs camping your air pads

Although it's annoying I call that good strategy.

[Stardouser]

Although it's annoying I call that good strategy.

Yep, completely legit.

[Gonefshn]

Yep, completely legit.

always fun judging if things are sarcastic over the internet lol.

There will be many places that have aircraft pads. Camping things like spawn points in a game like PS2 makes sense, if you camp repair pads for aircraft you deny the enemy the ability to repair the aircraft locally. Denying the enemy resources is a huge part of winning in a game like this.

[Stardouser]

always fun judging if things are sarcastic over the internet lol.

There will be many places that have aircraft pads. Camping things like spawn points in a game like PS2 makes sense, if you camp repair pads for aircraft you deny the enemy the ability to repair the aircraft locally. Denying the enemy resources is a huge part of winning in a game like this.

Nope, no sarcasm. Setting up rape teams to suppress reinforcements and repairs coming from aircraft pads only makes sense, and if the enemy spawning near the aircraft pads can't dislodge you they need to either accept it, or find a new tactic besides spawning and rushing at you. Now I know this would never happen in Planetside but in Battlefield DICE has made places like that out of bounds, and yes, I am comparing vehicle spawns/repair pads to Battlefield uncaps. No thanks to out of bounds.

[captainkapautz]

[...]Now I know this would never happen in Planetside but in Battlefield DICE has made places like that out of bounds, and yes, I am comparing vehicle spawns/repair pads to Battlefield uncaps. No thanks to out of bounds.

Yeah, you kinda need out of bounds in BF, because unlike in PS you can't just spawn at a different base or sanc to regroup.

Would be funny though "GUYS WE R LOOSIN CASPIAN! ALL RESPAWN FIRESTORM AND PULL AIR/ARMOR 4 COUNTERPUSH!".

[Raymac]

Yeah, but those air pad campers never last too long. If they'd take me out, I'd just spawn with my AV loadout, run up to them and shove my Phoenix up their ass and slowly pull the trigger until it goes click.

In Planetside, unless you are inside a base defending, you need to displace pretty frequently or you'll get toasted. Essentially the "camping problem" corrects itself, right?

[Stardouser]

Yeah, you kinda need out of bounds in BF, cuz unlike in PS you can't just spawn at a different base or sanc to regroup.

Would be funny though "GUYS WE R LOOSIN CASPIAN! ALL RESPAWN FIRESTORM AND PULL AIR/ARMOR 4 COUNTERPUSH!".

Actually, you can, usually. Battlefield is a maximum of 64 players, so another flag is just as good as another base.

The reason people cry about their uncap being attacked is that the uncap is where their jets, helicopters, and tanks spawn. "How dare you come after my tank spawn! You are supposed let me get out of my base and rape you with them!" is basically what these people are saying.

Either that, or they want a duel simulator where you can only fight the enemy in the middle of the map and can never press the advantage you earned by killing them before then proceeding to their uncap.

But this is why 8km X 8km maps are so important to a shooter. I hope the day comes when CoD and BF3 small maps are the minority, instead of Planetside size maps being a rare jewel.

[Gonefshn]

Yeah, but those air pad campers never last too long. If they'd take me out, I'd just spawn with my AV loadout, run up to them and shove my Phoenix up their ass and slowly pull the trigger until it goes click.

In Planetside, unless you are inside a base defending, you need to displace pretty frequently or you'll get toasted. Essentially the "camping problem" corrects itself, right?

This Guy ^

and segway back to the main topic.

A faster sped up game could make taking out campers easier as well.
Camping in a persistent world to me is creativity and tactics. You just need to think smart to fight back against it thats part of the fun.

[captainkapautz]

Actually, you can, usually. Battlefield is a maximum of 64 players, so another flag is just as good as another base.

The reason people cry about their uncap being attacked is that the uncap is where their jets, helicopters, and tanks spawn. "How dare you come after my tank spawn! You are supposed let me get out of my base and rape you with them!" is basically what these people are saying.

Either that, or they want a duel simulator where you can only fight the enemy in the middle of the map and can never press the advantage you earned by killing them before then proceeding to their uncap.

But this is why 8km X 8km maps are so important to a shooter. I hope the day comes when CoD and BF3 small maps are the minority, instead of Planetside size maps being a rare jewel.



Well I meant from an "All bases caped, now we baserape!"-kinda scenario.

[Stardouser]

Well I meant from an "All bases caped, now we baserape!"-kinda scenario.

Well, that's a legitimate scenario. I understand the controversy, but the real cause of those things is team stacking and/or too many snipers/non flag capping players on one team, out of bounds uncaps are a bandaid that prevent those baserapes at a great cost to freedom of tactics.

Fortunately, Planetside has such large continents that this is not an issue although I will be honest, I believe footholds should, although uncapturable, be fully attackable. I mean, they should be shielded, and it should prevent enemies from firing through the shield, but enemies should be able to walk through the shield and attack.

[captainkapautz]

[...]I mean, they should be shielded, and it should prevent enemies from firing through the shield, but enemies should be able to walk through the shield and attack.

I'd totally agree, as long as there was a sanctury, but with the game lacking sancs I personally think allowing that would turn real bad sooner or later.

[Bromaxulon]

I used to play Planetside all day everyday. I will in Planetside2 any chance I get.

But newer players and others will probably find that they require a good break every hour or so if they want to consistently play way.


Unrelated to the thread but I notice a lot of you talking about playing hours on end with no breaks.

Turn your keyboard upside down and read the warning. Even with a ergonomic setup you can seriously fuck yourself up if you don't take a break at least once an hr and do something else....

Carpel tunnel and other rsi is no joke it's seriously painful and will prevent you from gaming an other fun wrist using activities like ping pong n other shit like that.

So unless you feel like dolling out 100s of bucks on painkillers or acupuncture
Take my advice....

[Xyntech]

Footholds are essentially just warpgates without load screens. They fit into the "speeding it up" niche that this thread talks about, but they don't really change much.

They could still have continent locks and just disallow people to leave their foothold during a lock if they wanted to. Continent locks being removed is an entirely different matter.

People shouldn't be able to shoot inside a foothold just like they couldn't shoot inside a warpgate. The moment someone leaves the foothold/warpgate, all bets are off.

[captainkapautz]

[...]other fun wrist using activities like ping pong n other shit like that.[...]

Fapping, right?

[LancerNC]

I am not a computer programmer, but I imagine that TTK is a relatively easy thing to tweak. That being said I would think that during beta the dev team will toy around with different TTKs and see which one works best, so I am really not too worried.

[WorldOfForms]

I think we may end up seeing considerable changes to TTKs once beta hits. The devs haven't thought through the true scale of this game and what it means for longevity.

Something it seems they haven't even considered is random bullets. In most shooters, fire is fairly directed, but in Planetside, there are so many people firing at so many targets that you get a true "real-life war" effect where stray bullets are flying everywhere.

With these short TTKs, the devs are going to discover how much people are going to die to stray bullets. That's why TTKs were so long in PS1, so if you caught random fire, you could react and still survive.

People are going to be dropping like flies in beta and I'm betting it will be a huge slaughter and the devs will sit back and go "Hmm, maybe BF-like TTKs just don't work on this scale."

Let's hope. Otherwise, PS2 will be a game where you die to things for reasons you don't even know, all the freaking time.

[Bromaxulon]

Fapping, right?

:nod:

[ArmedZealot]

I think we may end up seeing considerable changes to TTKs once beta hits. The devs haven't thought through the true scale of this game and what it means for longevity.

This is my thoughts on the matter. PS1 had a high TTK for a number of reasons for both gameplay and as a patch for bad netcode.

Hopefully with larger playtests and an open beta we can see just how much things change and have more concrete reasoning behind the TTK other than "it feels to fast" or "it feels to slow" from second hand gameplay videos.

As on opinion though this forum has steadily brought me over to the higher TTK end of the spectrum.
I play a ton of T: A and the TTK for that game is absurd compared to most modern FPS's but there is a lot more than just shooting the other person to winning a duel or getting kills which makes the game pretty intense. However, I don't really see how such distractions can be implemented into PS2 to make the higher TTK seem more tactical than ADADADAD.

[Sifer2]

Poll isn't specific enough for me. Since I don't mind them speeding up certain aspects of it. For example the really long hack times. Stuff where your not really doing anything but forced to sit an wait. That I can see speeding up.

On the other hand i'm not as much a fan of them speeding up the pace of the combat. With the really low TTK's were seeing. I want to be able to take some hits cause there are going to be a LOT of people shooting at you. The games not fun if you spend most of it respawning. No matter how fast an easy those respawns are.

[Mechzz]

Poll isn't specific enough for me. Since I don't mind them speeding up certain aspects of it. For example the really long hack times. Stuff where your not really doing anything but forced to sit an wait. That I can see speeding up.


Well, hack times were too long when pops fell. With high pops, fighting during a hack was quite intense and felt like it had meaning. Maybe the hack time should be longer the more players are in an SOI ? That's kinda counter-intuitive, but it would work well imo.


On the other hand i'm not as much a fan of them speeding up the pace of the combat. With the really low TTK's were seeing. I want to be able to take some hits cause there are going to be a LOT of people shooting at you. The games not fun if you spend most of it respawning. No matter how fast an easy those respawns are.

PS1 TTK was too slow. Most of us have a story to tell of how we crept up behind a guy, shot him in the head and then died to his l33t skillz cos our weapon wasn't quite the right one.

Now, what will the new TTK be? Faster. How much faster? Hopefully we can change it during beta if the initial value really doesn't work.
But a good TTK for a big base fight might not be the same as a good TTK one-on-one. Maybe the beta will have a structure so we focus on different fight scenarios. One day towers, the next day bases, the next day open ground?

[Zulthus]

PS1 TTK was too slow. Most of us have a story to tell of how we crept up behind a guy, shot him in the head and then died to his l33t skillz cos our weapon wasn't quite the right one.


I disagree. The good thing about PS1 is that combat relied on skill, not who saw each other first. BF3 and other fast paced twitch shooters are fun sometimes but there's a reason I get bored after playing less than an hour a week. There really isn't any skill involved. All it comes down to is who saw the person first.

Combat in PS1 was better than most modern shooters, and I know I'm the 1% by saying that. You had to keep your reticle on your target and dodge their fire simultaneously. On top of that, kills weren't instant, and promoted teamwork in taking targets down. I really don't care for ADS; I had great fun without it in PS1.

Anyway, if you snuck up behind someone and you shot him first, and he still killed you, then he's just plain better than you. That's all there is to it.

I don't really get the fast TTK in this game right now anyhow. These soldiers are wearing powered exosuits made of nanites WITH SHIELDS and they get dropped in two seconds flat, even less with headshots. WTF?

Also, with the way the TTK on the tanks is now, it looks like armor fights will be boring as fuck. They'll be over with in such a small amount of time since it only takes 3-4 shots to destroy a tank now. Am I really the only one who totally enjoyed not being instakilled in the original? There was a sense of accomplishment to beating another tank 1v1. It all depended on who had the better crew; whose driver was able to evade the other gunner's shots and whose gunner was able to land them all.

[Pyreal]

I'll wait for beta, but the weakness of armor to all units has me worried. I wanted to be a tanker in this game but why waste all those certs on a tank when every grunt can kill me?

[Mechzz]

Anyway, if you snuck up behind someone and you shot him first, and he still killed you, then he's just plain better than you. That's all there is to it.


If I was smart enough to get the drop on a guy by getting behind him then something in the game mechanics is what stops him dying. Not his skill. Why should my skill in ambushing him be wiped out by giving me a gun that won't finish the job?

If I was facing him, then fair enough. That's a question of our relative skill levels, other things being equal.


I don't really get the fast TTK in this game right now anyhow. These soldiers are wearing powered exosuits made of nanites WITH SHIELDS and they get dropped in two seconds flat, even less with headshots. WTF?


It's a computer game and it's not real. They can do whatever they want. What they need to do to succeed is make it so that it balances out and people can have fun playing the game. That doesn't mean that each individual currently posting about TTK and game pacing will be happy with the result. Some of us will be unhappy. But SOE wins if they get enough people to play the game for long enough and pay enough in the cash shop for cool kit.

If long TTK is the way to do that then that is the direction the game should take. Same applies to short TTK, however. That's why in life you sometimes need to decide which way you're going and stick with it for long enough to find out if it really works.

[Attackmack]

I don't see why this would be the case? Most of the spawn points in PS2 are very vulnerable. Spawn points are just as they were in PS1. Gals are even more vulnerable than AMSs were, hell most of you were complaining about this. The last one, squad leaders, are 1st, very noticeable when spawned on, and 2nd, very easy to kill.

Gals replacing ams is fine by me, squadspawning is not but i can live with that.
But I'm guessing we will be able to spawn at capture points aswell.
Defenders, of course, should be able to choose and spawn at the different CPs but if attackers are able to spawn at those CPs they have captured then it will really ruin things. GALs will be useless for anything other then the first initial push on a base.
And if we are able to spawn at whatever tower we wish for, then gals are altogether useless (as is every other form of troop transport).


I believe SOE are removing essential tactical and strategical play that made PS1 so great, all in favor of making the game more casual.

[Nick]

Imagine how much more fun of a game BF3 would be if you didn't die so fast. Half the time you die in that game as an infantry, you don't even get a chance to react and overcome that disadvantage with superior skill/aiming.

[MacXXcaM]

Imagine how much more fun of a game BF3 would be if you didn't die so fast. Half the time you die in that game as an infantry, you don't even get a chance to react and overcome that disadvantage with superior skill/aiming.

TTK in BF3 is fine. What's wrong about it is that there's no time to breathe or operate tactically. You're inside of the action all the time. Even when you're far away you constantly feel that you can be killed at any point of time.

[Karriz]

BF3's problem is too small distance between capturepoints, everybody can just run between flags and keep killing. While the bases in PS2 might have fast-paced gameplay, there seems to be enough room between the bases, judging by the videos.

I've never played the original Planetside, but when it comes to teamwork, I've had some great moments in BF2 mod Forgotten Hope 2

[Stardouser]

BF3's TTK is noticeably low. But, even if I put that aside for a moment, yes, the other problem with BF3 is too small distance between capture points and out of bounds that are restrictive and prevent proper flanking(note that in this case I am talking about the out of bounds around the entire map, not the uncap out of bounds).

And, this is not strictly a TTK issue, but infantry weapon ranges are just too long compared to BF2. Partly that's because BF2's guns did not have 4X and 6X scopes on every assault rifle, and BF2's deviation mechanic, while it was significant at medium range, was devastating at long range. And that was a good thing because BF3 is now spray and pray...or really, just spray, no need to pray, at ranges beyond what it should be.

[Stardouser]

Even though TTK is being discussed in this thread, this thread's poll deals more with game pace overall,not TTK, because simply saying "speeding it up" is a generalized term. I think there are two aspects to a game's pace:
1. Pacing, meaning, travel time, time between fights, etc
2. TTK, which is ONLY the time between your first shot at an enemy, up until he dies, and is a product of recoil, bullet damage, deviation, etc.

I think we need a TTK specific poll since this thread's poll is really about general game pace, not TTK. But it wouldn't do to just make a new thread about it without getting people to agree, because then it would just get locked because of its similarity.

Personally I would suggest a poll as follows:

Do you prefer a TTK that is :
Extreme low (Realism sims, CoD)
Very low (BF3, BC2)
Moderate(BF2)
High(Planetside 1, Bad Company 1)
Very high(Don't know any examples)

I'm really only familiar with Battlefield games, so they are the only ones I can put in parentheses for comparison.

[dachlatte]

...because BF3 is now spray and pray...or really, just spray, no need to pray, at ranges beyond what it should be.

not really. only true for support class with LMGs. those guys are not the biggest threat.

Even though TTK is being discussed in this thread, this thread's poll deals more with game pace overall,not TTK, because simply saying "speeding it up" is a generalized term. I think there are two aspects to a game's pace:
1. Pacing, meaning, travel time, time between fights, etc
2. TTK, which is ONLY the time between your first shot at an enemy, up until he dies, and is a product of recoil, bullet damage, deviation, etc.
i dont think you can seperate those to things. if you have a low TTK and long distances from your spawn to the action every death will be horrible frustating.
i would draw a correlation between the physical scale and TTK. more scale = longer TTK and vice versa

[Stardouser]

not really. only true for support class with LMGs. those guys are not the biggest threat.


i dont think you can seperate those to things. if you have a low TTK and long distances from you spawn to the action the gameplay will suck.
i would draw a correlation between the physical scale and TTK. more scale = longer TTK and vice versa

Time To Kill has nothing to do with the scale of the game, TTK is how long it takes an enemy to die from the moment you start firing at him until he dies. It's completely separate from how long it takes you to get from your spawn point to a point where you can actually fire at enemies.

For obvious reasons, TTK is generally considered on a 1 to 1 basis. Certainly 1 to 1 is the only meaningful benchmark that can be estimated.

Time Between Kills is what you're thinking of. That said, if you always have a long distance to walk between spawn point and fight, it sucks no matter what the TTK is, squad spawning and deployed Galaxy spawning are the solution there.

[Unforgiven]

i cant disagree with you all more, a faster TTK has nothing to do with taking the strategy out of the game, if anything its going to make more strategy!

before you just run around a corner, your will stop and think about it, cause you know you might get your ass handed to you, on the other hand, you could catch them off guard and take out 1,2, or even 3 guys before having to reaload... not to mention you will have some type of grenade you could throw. Smoke to cover an escape, or frag do weaken/kill them. who knows.

i mean honestly, a faster TTK will put MORE strategy into your thought process because you know the consequence of a bad decision will result in death, instead of you just popping a medpack and running away while they dump 20-30 rounds into you

i dont care how much of a bad ass you are, your not taking more than 1-2 in your back before you hit the ground like a little baby, body armor or not!

[vampyro]

Keep in mind the role of a medic. The medic is going to be dropping med packs while the fight is going on, and maybe even reviving? Explosions also look like they will disorient the enemy. There is a few other variables that will impact the pace and TTK.

[Sabrak]

The medic is going to be dropping med packs while the fight is going on

Well that's another thing that really suck.

But that's off-topic...

[Bromaxulon]

Were all entitled to our opinions, fast ttk or slow it all comes down to personal preference.

Unfortunately, for those who prefer the old planetside high ttk mechanics you need to be aware that SEO is gunning for the COD and BF3 gamers.

Those two games hold the lions share of the market, and rake in millions with each new edition.

Basically PSU and old PS1 vets are less then 5% of thier intended market, they want the COD kiddies, and the other gamers that are often talked down about. They want that casual market, and fast ttk and emulating COD and BF3 will bring those people in, that and the amazing price.

We can debate ttk all we want, heck its fun.. and neither side is wrong, just differs in preference. but you can be assured that SOE will be going for the high lethality environment that is prevalent in most modern twitch shooter.

[dachlatte]

Time Between Kills is what you're thinking of. That said, if you always have a long distance to walk between spawn point and fight, it sucks no matter what the TTK is, squad spawning and deployed Galaxy spawning are the solution there.
i was talking about the relations between "time between kills" and TTK.
long walk + short TTK is very frustrating. if i look at the scale of the bases, the current ttk and ppl whining about the jump pads, i see a bad mixture.
squad spawning and galaxies are not the simple solution....i dont want to suicide every time to cross a base

[Stardouser]

Were all entitled to our opinions, fast ttk or slow it all comes down to personal preference.

Unfortunately, for those who prefer the old planetside high ttk mechanics you need to be aware that SEO is gunning for the COD and BF3 gamers.

Those two games hold the lions share of the market, and rake in millions with each new edition.

Basically PSU and old PS1 vets are less then 5% of thier intended market, they want the COD kiddies, and the other gamers that are often talked down about. They want that casual market, and fast ttk and emulating COD and BF3 will bring those people in, that and the amazing price.

We can debate ttk all we want, heck its fun.. and neither side is wrong, just differs in preference. but you can be assured that SOE will be going for the high lethality environment that is prevalent in most modern twitch shooter.

And SOE needs to be aware that there is a lot of resistance to low TTK in the BF community at least, CoD I do not know.

They should not make the same mistake that DICE does, and assume that every sale of BF3 is a vote for low TTK. They are NOT. What it comes down to, is that games are sold on a take it or leave it basis, and a lot of people simply stop playing a game after they buy it, instead of going to forums to complain. BF3 changed hundreds of things collectively from the BF2/2142 series, you cannot just say that just because BF3 sold 10+ millions of copies that those sales are a vote for any individual change.

i cant disagree with you all more, a faster TTK has nothing to do with taking the strategy out of the game, if anything its going to make more strategy!

before you just run around a corner, your will stop and think about it, cause you know you might get your ass handed to you, on the other hand, you could catch them off guard and take out 1,2, or even 3 guys before having to reaload... not to mention you will have some type of grenade you could throw. Smoke to cover an escape, or frag do weaken/kill them. who knows.

i mean honestly, a faster TTK will put MORE strategy into your thought process because you know the consequence of a bad decision will result in death, instead of you just popping a medpack and running away while they dump 20-30 rounds into you

i dont care how much of a bad ass you are, your not taking more than 1-2 in your back before you hit the ground like a little baby, body armor or not!

Indeed. Instead of staying on the move as a strategy, people will decide that they need to stay behind cover more often, and that will cause the people with short attention spans and quick twitch skills to accuse them of camping, at which point they will beg for killcam or similar "anti-camper" features.

[captainkapautz]

[...]Instead of staying on the move as a strategy, people will decide that they need to stay behind cover more often, and that will cause the people with short attention spans and quick twitch skills to accuse them of camping, at which point they will beg for killcam or similar "anti-camper" features.

So what, who is really gonna care?

If the Devs stay true to their word to actually listen, then I'm pretty sure that they'll be able to tell the vocal minority apart from the rest, which btw goes both ways and does not only mean the "ADHD-CoD/BF3"-crowd.

You WILL have people whining about the dumbest shit in ANY game, that's the nature of the beast.
I mean just look at this thread and several others, you guys are going ballistic over frickin Alpha-Balance, if it were beta already and not just 20 SOE-dudes playin then I'd agree, but to get so bend out of shape at this point in time is such a waste of time and effort.

Save it for actual beta when "we" will actually get to play ourselves and can actually make educated arguments, instead of this "I saw it for 5 seconds in a video from alpha on the internet so it has to be fixed, otherwise the game is dead."-BS.

TL;DR: Chillax and wait for actual beta.

[Stardouser]

I mean just look at this thread and several others, you guys are going ballistic over frickin Alpha-Balance, if it were beta already and not just 20 SOE-dudes playin then I'd agree, but to get so bend out of shape at this point in time is such a waste of time and effort.


Personally I don't believe it's a question of "balance", at least insofar as we are talking about TTK and game pace. Low TTK takes away fun and strategic depth, it doesn't unbalance anything, though. And not having a meaningful amount of time between kills isn't good either, some people, after wiping an enemy squad out, like to have at least 10 seconds to move or contemplate the next attack. BF3 is so fast paced, it doesn't even give you that much, and there's only 64 players. Imagine how bad it can get with PS2 if the devs are seeking to accelerate the pace instead of keep it balanced?

[The Kush]

It has everything to do with it. If the game pace is so fast that it's one big meatgrind, then teamwork means nothing.

Battlefield 3 proves this, albeit on a much smaller scale. The TTK and time between kills is so fast that there's no time to even bother with commo rose(voice macro VVV system to you guys) presets. Hell, some people don't even bother with VOIP.

And only the people with superb twitch skills feel like they accomplished much in BF3.

Faction loyalty is of course, meaningless to this.

Exactly Star. Thank you

[goneglockin]

BF3s problems and why I didn't buy it:

Low TTK + low mobility + High CoF + Movement/Stance accuracy Penalties + Radar/Spotting = camp fest. The game punishes you for moving. Period.

That's what they want though. Tit for Tat FPS gaming. You stop to kill a guy, and another guy stops to kill you, who is killed by another guy who stopped to kill the guy who stopped. Everybody gets kills, everybody wins, everybody is happy and keeps buying BF games.

The way PlanetSide looks currently, it's fine. But the a combination of "small" changes can have a very dramatic effect on gameplay.

[captainkapautz]

Personally I don't believe it's a question of "balance", at least insofar as we are talking about TTK and game pace. Low TTK takes away fun and strategic depth, it doesn't unbalance anything, though. And not having a meaningful amount of time between kills isn't good either, some people, after wiping an enemy squad out, like to have at least 10 seconds to move or contemplate the next attack. BF3 is so fast paced, it doesn't even give you that much, and there's only 64 players. Imagine how bad it can get with PS2 if the devs are seeking to accelerate the pace instead of keep it balanced?

See, there is that problem of comparing BF3 with PS2 again.

Yes they seem eerily simar atm, but they differ so much in actual scope, the closest they get is probably if you take a 64 player BF3 map and compare that to 1 (ONE) base in PS2 and to be quite honest that seems pretty balanced to me.

I dunno, I just think that blowing this issue way out of proportion at a point in time were the ONLY things we really have to go on is ~23 minutes of alpha-gameplay-footage with a bare minimum of players in it.

[Gonefshn]

I dunno, I just think that blowing this issue way out of proportion at a point in time were the ONLY things we really have to go on is ~23 minutes of alpha-gameplay-footage with a bare minimum of players in it.

Look at it a different way. Instead of saying people are getting out of shape over alpha balance think like this. People will have opinions on things like game pace and TTK before they ever play. That's fair enough too because there are some things you can assume based on other games. I played PS1 and BF3 so it's ok to make some decent guesses as to what consequences certain balancing issues might have.

Seeing a low TTK will obviously make people talk about it, don't tell them they are bent out of shape. Now that we have seen it with a low TTK in alpha people are starting to express that they don't want the finished product to be like that. It's an opinion based on past experience with other games. Seeing the Alpha footage gives people an example to use when expressing these kinds of opinions. People can now say, "I saw it in alpha, I'd prefer it be a higher TTK than that" whats the issue??? It's not that everyone is like "OMG That's how it will be in endgame! Ah rage!" People are simply talking about what they would like to see happen with the games direction.

Personally I think everything about them speeding up the game is awesome. I would prefer if the TTK was a little longer than that alpha footage but if it stays that way I'll be pretty happy too. Of course we need to wait for beta to really know anything but having conversations about it is harmless so why can't people just say what they want?

[captainkapautz]

Look at it a different way. Instead of saying people are getting out of shape over alpha balance think like this. People will have opinions on things like game pace and TTK before they ever play. That's fair enough too because there are some things you can assume based on other games. I played PS1 and BF3 so it's ok to make some decent guesses as to what consequences certain balancing issues might have.

Seeing a low TTK will obviously make people talk about it, don't tell them they are bent out of shape. Now that we have seen it with a low TTK in alpha people are starting to express that they don't want the finished product to be like that. It's an opinion based on past experience with other games. Seeing the Alpha footage gives people an example to use when expressing these kinds of opinions. People can now say, "I saw it in alpha, I'd prefer it be a higher TTK than that" whats the issue??? It's not that everyone is like "OMG That's how it will be in endgame! Ah rage!" People are simply talking about what they would like to see happen with the games direction.

Personally I think everything about them speeding up the game is awesome. I would prefer if the TTK was a little longer than that alpha footage but if it stays that way I'll be pretty happy too. Of course we need to wait for beta to really know anything but having conversations about it is harmless so why can't people just say what they want?

I totally understand that point of view, but TB already stated several times in the video that everything we saw was highly work in progress and most stuff was in no way representative of the later state, like i.e. almost killing a vany with a AI/AA machinegun, I kinda doubt that'll stay like that, ;)

[Gonefshn]

I totally understand that point of view, but TB already stated several times in the video that everything we saw was highly work in progress and most stuff was in no way representative of the later state, like i.e. almost killing a vany with a AI/AA machinegun, I kinda doubt that'll stay like that, ;)

I agree with you I don't think a lot of it will stay that way but if I were to guess one thing about the gameplay they might have a decent grasp on it would be infantry combat and gun mechanics, locational damage etc. Thats the most basic core of the whole experience. I'm confident that the speed and pace of the game, when revealed in Beta, will be suggest to changes due to feedback.

If the entire beta people are whining about how easily they get killed it probably wont stay the same.

I don't see this as an argument or even productive so to speak its just a conversation.

[captainkapautz]

I don't see this as an argument or even productive so to speak its just a conversation.

Tru dat.

But since I can't end this exchange of words by simply agreeing with you, because you're a purple traitor to the republic, let me just say you suck and are purple which is like totally a girls color, so there.

Pfeh, constructive dicussion, can't have that.

;)

[Aaron]

When it comes to realistic TTK, YES. When it comes to traveling times, that's a whole different story. I really don't like shooting shooting at someone for a really long time, but I also don't like cutting out any traveling time/organization when it comes to routes and such.

EDIT: Also, I don't think low TTK times should make the game into a get kills/camp fest. Planetside is different from BF in that it incorporates a lot more teamwork and strategy. Obviously, don't play solo if you don't want it to feel like BF.

[Goku]

BF3s problems and why I didn't buy it:

Low TTK + low mobility + High CoF + Movement/Stance accuracy Penalties + Radar/Spotting = camp fest. The game punishes you for moving. Period.

That's what they want though. Tit for Tat FPS gaming. You stop to kill a guy, and another guy stops to kill you, who is killed by another guy who stopped to kill the guy who stopped. Everybody gets kills, everybody wins, everybody is happy and keeps buying BF games.

The way PlanetSide looks currently, it's fine. But the a combination of "small" changes can have a very dramatic effect on gameplay.

Are you that Glockin from PS that used to run around and blow gens all the time?

[goneglockin]

Are you that Glockin from PS that used to run around and blow gens all the time?

I have a pretty colorful history with the game, yes.

[Bromaxulon]

And SOE needs to be aware that there is a lot of resistance to low TTK in the BF community at least, CoD I do not know.
.

Games online communities typically represent a small vocal minority of a games population. These are people like us who have an interest in game development or the competitive side of the games.

We are not the majority, and most of the other players don't care about balance etc bf3 servers are still packed and will continue to be so for a long because there are a great deal of people who enjoy the game despite its flaws.

[Stardouser]

Games online communities typically represent a small vocal minority of a games population. These are people like us who have an interest in game development or the competitive side of the games.

We are not the majority, and most of the other players don't care about balance etc bf3 servers are still packed and will continue to be so for a long because there are a great deal of people who enjoy the game despite its flaws.

You didn't quote my explanation but this is why I said all that about sales do not equal votes of support for individual features. Yes, the vocal minority is not the majority, but that does not automatically mean that the majority disagrees with the vocal minority.

The only real way to prove anything about how the community feels is to poll the entire community. SOE has the power to do this through the station launcher, they HAVE done it with Everquest, I know this because I was playing it at the time.

As to your suggestion that BF3 servers are packed, well, the BF3 servers that exist might be packed, but....does anyone know how to get accurate figures on the number of BF3 players online at any given moment? If that information is available, I would bet that the number of people playing BF3 at any given time, on average, compared to the number of people who purchased BF3, is a lot less than the number of people who play MW3 compared to the number who purchased it.

[captainkapautz]

As to your suggestion that BF3 servers are packed, well, the BF3 servers that exist might be packed, but....does anyone know how to get accurate figures on the number of BF3 players online at any given moment? If that information is available, I would bet that the number of people playing BF3 at any given time, on average, compared to the number of people who purchased BF3, is a lot less than the number of people who play MW3 compared to the number who purchased it.

Whoa, wait, wait, wait, so you're saying that people found BF3s TTK to low so they rather play MW3?

Does not compute.

[Sturmhardt]

Have you guys ever played BF3 on a 64 player map? Phew, thats just stressful. Run around, see a guy, kill him with a few shots and get killed instantly by another guy who happens to be lucky enough to get a peek at you and kill you. Respawn and same thing all over again. Its just so packed with players everywhere and its so easy to kill other players that you are just fucked if you move out of your cover. Camping is rewarded and I would not like to see PS being a "camper's" game, I really liked the "open field" feeling of the original because it wasnt easy to kill a guy from 300 meters away if you were not a sniper. I really hope that this feeling returns in PS2 and that you can run through an open field without being instantly killed. I know that is not realistic, but it has always been FUN - and thats what is important about a videogame, we wanna have FUN :)

[Stardouser]

Whoa, wait, wait, wait, so you're saying that people found BF3s TTK to low so they rather play MW3?

Does not compute.

Nope, not saying that at all. If anything, the conclusion that one might draw from BF3 having a low play/high purchase rate is that a lot of people purchased BF3 expecting a game with the pace and gameplay of a traditional BF game, but when they didn't receive it, they stopped playing. The only reason I bring up MW3 is that it doesn't do any good to compare BF3 to a non-AAA game or a game that didn't sell at least 5 million copies, MW3 is the only other sizable competition I can think of in that respect.

Yes, MW3's high play/high purchase rate proves that there are a lot of people who want CoD pacing, but at the same time it is my belief that BF3's low play/high purchase rate proves that a lot of people want the middle ground pacing and TTK of BF2/2142.

[Goku]

I have a pretty colorful history with the game, yes.

Lol, colorful that describes it well. I remember chatting with you a few times anyway.

[captainkapautz]

Have you guys ever played BF3 on a 64 player map? Phew, thats just stressful. Run around, see a guy, kill him with a few shots and get killed instantly by another guy who happens to be lucky enough to get a peek at you and kill you. Respawn and same thing all over again. Its just so packed with players everywhere and its so easy to kill other players that you are just fucked if you move out of your cover. Camping is rewarded and I would not like to see PS being a "camper's" game, I really liked the "open field" feeling of the original because it wasnt easy to kill a guy from 300 meters away if you were not a sniper. I really hope that this feeling returns in PS2 and that you can run through an open field without being instantly killed. I know that is not realistic, but it has always been FUN - and thats what is important about a videogame, we wanna have FUN :)

I dunno, I gotta admit 64 player Caspian/Firestorm or any other of the proper "big" maps felt reminicent to PS1 to me, only differences were that it was faster, not inherently a bad thing, and that it felt like just 1 outpost being fought over.

64 Metro was complete full on retard though, yeah.

I'll be completely honest here, I do not get the whole "BF3 sux cuz its to fast and there are to many people in to little space", I gotta say normal non-hardcore BF3 felt pretty much spot on in TTK, and come on if you wanna talk to many people in to little space, then might I remind you of the regular, inevitable hallway clusterfuck of derp that was/is a PS1 interior basefight?

The biggest problem with BF3 in non-hardcore is the handholding by the game.
See an enemy? Spam spot so EVERYONE sees that motherfucker everywhere because of retarded 3D-spotting.
THAT is, imo, the main problem with BF3 and not low TTK.

Was rather baller in hardcore were you actually had to use the minimap to find spotted enemies, downside being non-existant TTK.

[Stardouser]

The biggest problem with BF3 in non-hardcore is the handholding by the game.
See an enemy? Spam spot so EVERYONE sees that motherfucker everywhere because of retarded 3D-spotting.
THAT is, imo, the main problem with BF3 and not low TTK.

Was rather baller in hardcore were you actually had to use the minimap to find spotted enemies, downside being non-existant TTK.

On this, we are agreed. I love hardcore for the fact that you don't get spam spotted. And actually, while spam spotting is technically a pacing/time between fight issue and not TTK, it's actually quite refreshing to be able to walk around without taking fire from all the way across the map from a guy who wouldn't normally be able to see you due to the distance but can because he looked off into the horizon and hit Q. In fact, even though TTK is even faster due to lowered player health, not taking constant fire from spam spotting makes hardcore seem slower by a bit.

What I don't like about hardcore, in addition to the lowered player health, is the lack of infantry HUD. We shouldn't have to suffer those changes just to get rid of the handholding tools.

[captainkapautz]

What I don't like about hardcore, in addition to the lowered player health, is the lack of infantry HUD. We shouldn't have to suffer those changes just to get rid of the handholding tools.

Gotta admit, I kinda like it for the lolrealism, but yeah I do understand if you don't like it.

[Pyreal]

I played PS1, and I wonder how many of the people who voted in favor of speeding things up played it as well.

I do not like the much lower TTK.

With such a low TTK you take away a player's ability to assess, and then strategically react to an opponent.

You take away a large chunk of 'learned skill element' by reducing a confrontation to a mere 'I hit you first!' scenario.


Players won't invest thought into the deeper workings of the game because there won't be any! It APPEARS to cater to a instant gratification demanding, attention deficient crowd.


It's turning into Pong, and I think PS1 resembled Chess.

[Gonefshn]

The galaxy and squad leader spawning will keep the game fast paced and get you back into things quickly and thats a good thing especially if TTK is faster.

It's not like this fast pace will stop you from playing tactical planetside. In the last game if you attacked in a group as an outfit, when you died you couldn't really catch back up but with the new system outfits can move as units and fight together more easily regardless of TTK changes.

[Juniata]

Somewhere in between Planetside 1 and the faster FPS games of today should be fine; not too slow but not too fast.

[captainkapautz]

[...]but at the same time it is my belief that BF3's low play/high purchase rate proves that a lot of people want the middle ground pacing and TTK of BF2/2142.

Just saw this.

Well, yeah maybe, but (there is always a but ;) ) I think a lot of the low play also stems from bad choices balancewise, like thermal, mortars, repairbot exploits, etc.

It is NOT purely because of TTK, I wouldn't even go as far as to say that it's even a marginally large percentage, but that's pure speculation on my part that I can't back up, so take it with a shaker of salt. ;)

[Stardouser]

The galaxy and squad leader spawning will keep the game fast paced and get you back into things quickly and thats a good thing especially if TTK is faster.

It's not like this fast pace will stop you from playing tactical planetside. In the last game if you attacked in a group as an outfit, when you died you couldn't really catch back up but with the new system outfits can move as units and fight together more easily regardless of TTK changes.

This reminds me. At least in the base we saw in TB's video, the indoor areas weren't very deep, so what use is the restriction on squad spawning against using it indoors? For example, the flag capture areas I saw were 5 feet away from the door and thus the outside.

UNLESS the term "indoor" for squad spawning means "inside the base perimeter" and not simply outdoors with no roof over your head. If you can't squad spawn inside a base(meaning, inside the base perimeter but with the sky over your head)...I'm not sure that's good. I mean, it may help keep the pace from getting too fast, but I think it would be the absolutely wrong way of doing it.

And yes, I'm aware that the intent is to use drop pods for squad spawning and no, I don't agree with that, we don't need that any more than we need vehicle exit animations. All the lights in the sky from squad respawn drop pods is going to look stupid as dozens of people respawn every 10-20 seconds.

[Pyreal]

Yes, MW3's high play/high purchase rate proves that there are a lot of people who want CoD pacing, but at the same time it is my belief that BF3's low play/high purchase rate proves that a lot of people want the middle ground pacing and TTK of BF2/2142.

Bold mine. I bought BF3 expecting gameplay and vehicle action similar to 2142. I was sorely disappointed and don't play anymore.

[Pyreal]

It's not like this fast pace will stop you from playing tactical planetside. In the last game if you attacked in a group as an outfit, when you died you couldn't really catch back up but with the new system outfits can move as units and fight together more easily regardless of TTK changes.

Bold mine. In layman's terms a group of players to be successful requires less forethought and more numbers, as being removed from your team is merely a temporary setback.

Overwhelm your opponent with numbers and capture their spawn.

It's like putting a flamethrower (propane) on an ant hill. You burn the little buggers off the top but soon you take it off they swarm right back up. It's futile.

[captainkapautz]

I played PS1, and I wonder how many of the people who voted in favor of speeding things up played it as well.

Doesn't really matter, since the game isn't meant to be just for PS1-players.

FWIW, I played PS1 extensivly and am liking the faster TTK, but I voted "Too early to have an opinion", because that's pretty much it, without seeing a big extended fight there really isn't a way to judge if it's too fast or not.

With such a low TTK you take away a player's ability to assess, and then strategically react to an opponent.

You take away a large chunk of 'learned skill element' by reducing a confrontation to a mere 'I hit you first!' scenario.

You know, you CAN assess a situation without standing around in the open, and if by assess you mean if you're getting shot at, well there really isn't much to assess and react strategically, except getting the fuck into cover.

You also do not take away any "learned skill element", unless you mean skills learned from PS1, bcause you will just learn new skills appropriate to the new environment, like moving with cover, sneak approaching places, etc.

Players won't invest thought into the deeper workings of the game because there won't be any! It APPEARS to cater to a instant gratification demanding, attention deficient crowd.

Like I already mentioned, people will just adapt and use different tactics.

It's turning into Pong, and I think PS1 resembled Chess.

Let's call a ***** a ***** here, you seem to make PS1-players out to be some kind of strategic übermensch, which is just plain wrong.

If you remember, a majority of the common footzerg was pretty much the epitom of derp.

But if you count throwing enough bodies at the enemy until he suffocates as a strategy, then I am more then willing to bet that PS2 will not disappoint in that.
;)

[Attackmack]

Just a small note for everyone Mentioning the games alpha/beta status.

It is very seldom that a games core will change drastically from alpha to beta to retail.

Most often, if youve had the chance to play the alpha/beta build of a game and you enjoyed/disliked it then you will feel the same of the retail product.

This is not true for all games, but almost all.

So bottomline, whatever we see now that we dont like, chances are we will still not like it when game is "finished".

[ArmedZealot]

Just a small note for everyone Mentioning the games alpha/beta status.

It is very seldom that a games core will change drastically from alpha to beta to retail.

Most often, if youve had the chance to play the alpha/beta build of a game and you enjoyed/disliked it then you will feel the same of the retail product.

This is not true for all games, but almost all.

So bottomline, whatever we see now that we dont like, chances are we will still not like it when game is "finished".


Dunno about that. Just look at PS1's alpha to its launch gameplay.

[captainkapautz]

Just a small note for everyone Mentioning the games alpha/beta status.

It is very seldom that a games core will change drastically from alpha to beta to retail.

Most often, if youve had the chance to play the alpha/beta build of a game and you enjoyed/disliked it then you will feel the same of the retail product.

This is not true for all games, but almost all.

So bottomline, whatever we see now that we dont like, chances are we will still not like it when game is "finished".

That's only because in the last few years betas stopped being betas and turned into "check out how awesome our game is"-demos, easily seen in how often you can get into betas nowadays just by preordering.

And saying the same thing about alphas is kinda hard to prove, because alphas tend to be family&friends or employee only.

[The Kush]

BF3's problem is too small distance between capturepoints, everybody can just run between flags and keep killing. While the bases in PS2 might have fast-paced gameplay, there seems to be enough room between the bases, judging by the videos.

I've never played the original Planetside, but when it comes to teamwork, I've had some great moments in BF2 mod Forgotten Hope 2

LOL
You can't compare BF, CoD, or Halo to the teamwork seen in the original planetside. Thats what the problem is. People like you don't understand what I mean by teamwork. Teamwork is having an organized outfit on team speak preparing for a mission and perfectly executing the outfits goals because everyone puts the outfit before themselves. This is not something you can understand without playing the original ps.

[captainkapautz]

LOL
You can't compare BF, CoD, or Halo to the teamwork seen in the original planetside. Thats what the problem is. People like you don't understand what I mean by teamwork. Teamwork is having an organized outfit on team speak preparing for a mission and perfectly executing the outfits goals because everyone puts the outfit before themselves. This is not something you can understand without playing the original ps.

Please don't make it sound as if PS1 was the only game to ever promote teamplay, or that PS1 was the only game with "real" teamwork, because that's just elitist bullshit.

[The Kush]

Please don't make it sound as if PS1 was the only game to ever promote teamplay, or that PS1 was the only game with "real" teamwork, because that's just elitist bullshit.

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. It did however achieve a level of teamwork that hasn't been matched in any other game.

[Xyntech]

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. It did however achieve a level of teamwork that hasn't been matched in any other game.

Level of teamwork in terms of scale, yes, Planetside us unmatched. Level of teamwork in terms of cooperation and putting the team ahead of yourself, no, that happens in any good team of players in a game that has any support of tactical play.

Being one of the larger FPS games after Planetside, Battlefield is actually a good place to find (somewhat) similar experiences to Planetside, even if they pale in comparison to the scale.

Of course, if PS2 achieves their target of 2000 players per continent instead of PS1's 500, PS2 will dwarf the first games scale and perhaps make PS2 players mock the first games pitiful lack of scope. So lets not be too quick to LOL at players from other games.

[captainkapautz]

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. It did however achieve a level of teamwork that hasn't been matched in any other game.

You are saying it, you are saying that PS1 is/was the only game with "proper" teamwork/teamplay.

I'd really like to know what makes PS1 superior to any other game that involves working together in a team.


Edit: Just read Xyntechs post and in scale I'd like to name EvE, yes it ain't a shooter, shouldn't matter, has bigger scale in teamwork/teamplay than PS1.

[goneglockin]

That's only because in the last few years betas stopped being betas and turned into "check out how awesome our game is"-demos, easily seen in how often you can get into betas nowadays just by preordering.


I complained about the BF3 "demo" on the BF forums and OMG I never heard the end of it. IT's A BETA YOU NOOB!!! ZOMG! I said, the game was releasing in 3 weeks. It is very likely already shrinkwrapped on a pallet in a warehouse somewhere. It's a demo, eat me I said.

I think maybe 1 person had a nagging thought that maybe this was in fact a demo, even though it was being called a "beta" and then went back to calling me a noob.

It went rather well.

[captainkapautz]

I complained about the BF3 "demo" on the BF forums and OMG I never heard the end of it. IT's A BETA YOU NOOB!!! ZOMG! I said, the game was releasing in 3 weeks. It is very likely already shrinkwrapped on a pallet in a warehouse somewhere. It's a demo, eat me I said.

I think maybe 1 person had a nagging thought that maybe this was in fact a demo, even though it was being called a "beta" and then went back to calling me a noob.

It went rather well.

Man, I kinda dug that dem...beta showed how well balanced even the smaller maps were, with each side having totally equal starting points and like no avantage at all in any way.

Good stuff, proper beta.

[ArmedZealot]

I complained about the BF3 "demo" on the BF forums and OMG I never heard the end of it. IT's A BETA YOU NOOB!!! ZOMG! I said, the game was releasing in 3 weeks. It is very likely already shrinkwrapped on a pallet in a warehouse somewhere. It's a demo, eat me I said.

I think maybe 1 person had a nagging thought that maybe this was in fact a demo, even though it was being called a "beta" and then went back to calling me a noob.

It went rather well.

I think there is going to be rather large difference between the battlefield 3 beta and what PS2 beta will be.

It'd probably be closer to Tribes: Ascends beta. They share similar payment schemes. For a 60$ game it's important to release a Beta/Demo rather than a long run Beta.

[captainkapautz]

For a 60$ game it's important to release a Beta/Demo rather than a long run Beta.

Yeah, a demo you more often then not have to pay for.

[ArmedZealot]

Yeah, a demo you more often then not have to pay for.

Not like PS2 is any different in that respect. Will have to buy a Game Informer magazine or pay a few months for a dead game to get into beta.

[Toppopia]

Not like PS2 is any different in that respect. Will have to buy a Game Informer magazine or pay a few months for a dead game to get into beta.

No you don't have to do that, it just maybe increases your chances of getting into beta by 0.0000000000001%

[Cosmical]

For a 60$ game it's important to release a Beta/Demo rather than a long run Beta.

Wait...$60?? I thought it was free to play? I mean obviously cost is no issue on wether we will buy it.

[ArmedZealot]

No you don't have to do that, it just maybe increases your chances of getting into beta by 0.0000000000001%

So much better. :)

[ArmedZealot]

Wait...$60?? I thought it was free to play? I mean obviously cost is no issue on wether we will buy it.

Was talking about BF3 there. My bad for the bad formatting.

[goneglockin]

Yeah, a demo you more often then not have to pay for.

More often that not post xbox360. I don't think 7 years of 360 negates more than a decade of PC shareware/demos.

[Baneblade]

The longer it takes to die, the less individual skill matters. This was no better evidenced than by BFRs where the least capable players could rain havoc on a battlefield with no need to fear anything not as tall as you were.

Decisions matter more when you have less room for mistakes.

PS2 will make many PS1 Elites cry.

[ArmedZealot]

PS2 will make many PS1 Elites cry.

Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Most PS1 Elites are in favor of a higher TTK. Yet you are arguing for a shorter one.

[Stardouser]

The longer it takes to die, the less individual skill matters. This was no better evidenced than by BFRs where the least capable players could rain havoc on a battlefield with no need to fear anything not as tall as you were.

Decisions matter more when you have less room for mistakes.

PS2 will make many PS1 Elites cry.

It's different from infantry to vehicles, and it's also different when we're talking about going from very low to just moderate.

It also matters why. It's hard for me to tell from watching the video so I simply have to say I don't know what the video shows, but if the infantry TTK is low due to lack of recoil and lack of deviation etc, it's just spray kills, all that will matter is how fast you twitch your aiming sight to the target, accuracy of aim and control of your body(stopping, crouching and aim down sight which would reduce cone of fire to zero) and other factors won't matter.

[Baneblade]

Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing?

Most PS1 Elites are in favor of a higher TTK. Yet you are arguing for a shorter one.

In PS1, I was a Rexo tank. Literally the Paladin of PlanetSide. But that does not mean I think it was a good thing.

[goneglockin]

Random deviation should be fairly high if you fire while moving or fire from the hip, but if you stop and aim down sight it will be reduced to zero.


What is fairly high? The games where your bullets are coming out at 45 degree angle because you are moving, and you cannot hit something you are centered on less than 20 feet in front of you are all trash. Cross hairs don't have to be Quake 3 arena lasers, but it'd be pretty sad to see BFBC2/BF3 cones of fire.

As it was, it looked tighter than BFBC/BF3. Thank god, that game has gotten ridiculous.

[captainkapautz]

[...]all that will matter is how fast you twitch your aiming sight to the target, accuracy of aim and control of your body(stopping, crouching and aim down sight which would reduce cone of fire to zero) and other factors won't matter.

You know that's actually what most FPS-players would call skill.

It's not like you're instantly the best ever, practice makes perfect as the saying goes.

It will however probably not take weeks or more, like PS1, to learn all the ins and outs of combat.

Edit: @goneglockin: Imo early BF3 gunplay was pretty spot on.

[goneglockin]

...all that will matter is how fast you twitch your aiming sight to the target...

Why should anything else matter? What else is there? Accuracy? Isn't accuracy keeping your crosshairs on your target? What difference does it make if it's a sight or a crosshair as far as shooting is concerned?

Do not agree with the modern take on FPS games that leaves movement out of it. That forces you to stop, aim down sight, or change stance. They do that to slow it down for console players and make the game playable for the lowest common denominator. It's not needed in a PC game.

P.S.

Secondly, being able to move to dodge the other guy's fire while shooting him back was half of the entire skill behind FPS gaming in the first place. Xbox360 makes people forget that, but the pendulum will swing back the other way because what they have now is a boring campfest by discouraging movement in every way possible.

[goneglockin]

Edit: @goneglockin: Imo early BF3 gunplay was pretty spot on.

When my TTK from the hip and from the iron sights are the same at ranges less than 20 feet I'd be fine with it. I basically have just gotten used to flipping ADS on to shoot at anyone who isn't close enough to take up a quarter of my screen. Pretty sad I think.

ADS should be for far shots only. And by far I mean like more than 40-50 yards. You know what game honestly had it right? It didnt have ADS but it had this zoom thing where you could barely move when you did it and crosshairs went into laser mode- FEAR. It was one of the last great PC shooters before console gaming's tendrils of lameness seeped into PC gaming too.

[ArmedZealot]

Secondly, being able to move to dodge the other guy's fire while shooting him back was half of the entire skill behind FPS gaming in the first place. Xbox360 makes people forget that, but the pendulum will swing back the other way because what they have now is a boring campfest by discouraging movement in every way possible.

How do you propose the developers implement this without it looking stupid? Have you ever tried to shoot accurately while moving at a speed capable of dodging fire?

[Stardouser]

What is fairly high? The games where your bullets are coming out at 45 degree angle because you are moving, and you cannot hit something you are centered on less than 20 feet in front of you are all trash. Cross hairs don't have to be Quake 3 arena lasers, but it'd be pretty sad to see BFBC2/BF3 cones of fire.

As it was, it looked tighter than BFBC/BF3. Thank god, that game has gotten ridiculous.

I shouldn't have said high, I should have said consistent. The deviation might only be a degree or two(or whatever is just enough to have a meaningful effect). And BC2 is just as much a spray and pray game as BF3 is.

Why should anything else matter? What else is there? Accuracy? Isn't accuracy keeping your crosshairs on your target? What difference does it make if it's a sight or a crosshair as far as shooting is concerned?

Do not agree with the modern take on FPS games that leaves movement out of it. That forces you to stop, aim down sight, or change stance. They do that to slow it down for console players and make the game playable for the lowest common denominator. It's not needed in a PC game.

P.S.

Secondly, being able to move to dodge the other guy's fire while shooting him back was half of the entire skill behind FPS gaming in the first place. Xbox360 makes people forget that, but the pendulum will swing back the other way because what they have now is a boring campfest by discouraging movement in every way possible.

If we're going to have Quake, Unreal Tournament or Serious Sam, then make a game like that, but that mechanic isn't really suited to things that approach...well, war simulators. And Planetside is the closest thing to a war simulator that exists. Maybe if we were talking about CoD, there would be an argument on that point, but we aren't.

Also, you're exactly right. Keeping your crosshairs on target is a big part of skill. But the accuracy of your aim is technically different from the pure speed with which you twitch to your target. With spray weapons that have no meaningful recoil or other factors, you're basically wielding a sword of infinite length and all you have to do is slice it at your target such that your aim briefly intersects the target's location.

[goneglockin]

How do you propose the developers implement this without it looking stupid? Have you ever tried to shoot accurately while moving at a speed capable of dodging fire?

Have I tried? I've been doing it for years! Doom, Duke, Quake, UT, FEAR... oh you mean like in real life? What does real life have to do with anything?

[ArmedZealot]

ADS should be for far shots only. And by far I mean like more than 40-50 yards. You know what game honestly had it right? It didnt have ADS but it had this zoom thing where you could barely move when you did it and crosshairs went into laser mode- FEAR. It was one of the last great PC shooters before console gaming's tendrils of lameness seeped into PC gaming too.

I think this is the solution I came to about this issue back in the "Higby want your thoughts on iron sights" thread.

I think a general increase in movement speed would be good too.

Have I tried? I've been doing it for years! Doom, Duke, Quake, UT, FEAR... oh you mean like in real life? What does real life have to do with anything?


I'm just saying they have to make the animations fairly plausible. In an ADS system it would look slightly stupid to see this guy with his head crammed to the sights and running sideways at full speed while still shooting you.

[ArmedZealot]

Delete

[Stardouser]

When my TTK from the hip and from the iron sights are the same at ranges less than 20 feet I'd be fine with it. I basically have just gotten used to flipping ADS on to shoot at anyone who isn't close enough to take up a quarter of my screen. Pretty sad I think.

ADS should be for far shots only. And by far I mean like more than 40-50 yards. You know what game honestly had it right? It didnt have ADS but it had this zoom thing where you could barely move when you did it and crosshairs went into laser mode- FEAR. It was one of the last great PC shooters before console gaming's tendrils of lameness seeped into PC gaming too.

Far shots only? You want to use hipfire as far out as 50 yards? That's definitely a bad idea for this game, it's definitely trying to put a big chunk of Quake/Unreal Tournament/Serious Sam mechanics into it.

[goneglockin]

If we're going to have Quake, Unreal Tournament or Serious Sam, then make a game like that, but that mechanic isn't really suited to things that approach...well, war simulators.

Are we going to simulate digging a hole in the frozen ground and sitting in it for months on end, and getting trench foot too? If you're going to make an MMOFPS, do it- but make it fun I say.

Realism is passe.

[Toppopia]

I'm just saying they have to make the animations fairly plausible. In an ADS system it would look slightly stupid to see this guy with his head crammed to the sights and running sideways at full speed while still shooting you.

That is possible, but his gun would be waving from pointing at the sky to down to his feet, across to his left and right, realistically its possible, but you won't hit the broadside of the barn at 1 metre away.

[goneglockin]

I'm just saying they have to make the animations fairly plausible. In an ADS system it would look slightly stupid to see this guy with his head crammed to the sights and running sideways at full speed while still shooting you.

Yes, but ADS would still work like ADS, slows you down and all that. Just saying that the ready stance/moving fire should be pretty accurate out to 30-50 feet, and decreasing in effectiveness from there unless you shoot in semiauto or short bursts.

I find anything more restrictive than that and you end up with everyone hiding behind rocks, glued to their sight, because you cannot advance and fight at the same time. Should be able to do that.

[Stardouser]

Are we going to simulate digging a hole in the frozen ground and sitting in it for months on end, and getting trench foot too? If you're going to make an MMOFPS, do it- but make it fun I say.

Realism is passe.

I hardly think that there is a comparison between aim down sight mechanic instead of hipfire lasers, and digging foxholes.

You really want AD AD AD AD AD mechanics?

[ArmedZealot]

Yes, but ADS would still work like ADS, slows you down and all that. Just saying that the ready stance/moving fire should be pretty accurate out to 30-50 feet, and decreasing in effectiveness from there unless you shoot in semiauto or short bursts.

I find anything more restrictive than that and you end up with everyone hiding behind rocks, glued to their sight, because you cannot advance and fight at the same time. Should be able to do that.

How do you reconcile this with your feelings that the COF on guns in modern games is to large?

It would be slightly pointless to use ADS shooting for long ranges when hip firing is accurate already.

You really want AD AD AD AD AD mechanics?

You aren't going to get rid of AD AD AD with ADS shooting, but with a lower TTK.

[Toppopia]

I think the early ghost recon games had fairly accurate non ADS shooting, then to be extremely accurate you could aim down the sights. So long as you wern't moving you didn't have to be in ADS, man i miss those games..

[goneglockin]

I hardly think that there is a comparison between aim down sight mechanic instead of hipfire lasers, and digging foxholes.

You really want AD AD AD AD AD mechanics?

But there is an analogy there and it's this: ADS is unnecessary realism; especially when the only time hip fire is even useful is when you can almost touch the other guy with the muzzle... as the majority of modern shooters made it, and it's wrong.

Call it "AD AD mechanics" but it's always been a part of FPS gaming and it was the only brand that was ever intense or demanding enough to generate huge interest in gaming tournaments where the word "athelete" got thrown around quite a bit.

The same cannot be said of the new school shooters that are all about stopping to shoot.

[Stardouser]

I think the early ghost recon games had fairly accurate non ADS shooting, then to be extremely accurate you could aim down the sights. So long as you wern't moving you didn't have to be in ADS, man i miss those games..

Isn't that the primary complaint, though, of the ADS haters, that they have to stop moving? The only difference there is that you don't have to ADS, you still have to stop.

But there is an analogy there and it's this: ADS is unnecessary realism; especially when the only time hip fire is even useful is when you can almost touch the other guy with the muzzle... as the majority of modern shooters made it, and it's wrong.

Call it "AD AD mechanics" but it's always been a part of FPS gaming and it was the only brand that was ever intense or demanding enough to generate huge interest in gaming tournaments where the word "athelete" got thrown around quite a bit.

The same cannot be said of the new school shooters that are all about stopping to shoot.

I think that if ADS is unnecessary realism and that we can run around and strafe at full speed and still get high accuracy, the very first thing we also need to bring back is firing while jumping, and prone diving. They all go together.

[goneglockin]

It would be slightly pointless to use ADS shooting for long ranges when hip firing is accurate already.


On defense it would be great. But try playing offense in a game that doesn't let you hit anything unless you are crouched and standing still. Most of these games that do this, the attackers just find a way to bypass the defensive fire and hit from behind.

It's a poorly thought out mainstream design staple.

[goneglockin]

I think that if ADS is unnecessary realism and that we can run around and strafe at full speed and still get high accuracy, the very first thing we also need to bring back is firing while jumping, and prone diving. They all go together.

Oh yeah, I forgot, there's no such thing as middle ground. My bad.

[captainkapautz]

But there is an analogy there and it's this: ADS is unnecessary realism; especially when the only time hip fire is even useful is when you can almost touch the other guy with the muzzle... as the majority of modern shooters made it, and it's wrong.

Call it "AD AD mechanics" but it's always been a part of FPS gaming and it was the only brand that was ever intense or demanding enough to generate huge interest in gaming tournaments where the word "athelete" got thrown around quite a bit.

The same cannot be said of the new school shooters that are all about stopping to shoot.

No offense mate, but I don't think you're looking for PS2, I think you're looking for Tribes: Ascend.

[goneglockin]

No offense mate, but I don't think you're looking for PS2, I think you're looking for Tribes: Ascend.

Why would I want to play a flight simulator? Seriously, that game just looks silly.

[ArmedZealot]

No offense mate, but I don't think you're looking for PS2, I think you're looking for Tribes: Ascend.

I don't think what he want's is quite out of the realm of PS2. In essence he just wants combat to be fast paced and intense while still retaining skill and tactics.

While he may not be able to get this through movement it could be introduced in other tactial decisions like the HA's shield or the light assaults jumpjets.

[captainkapautz]

Why would I want to play a flight simulator? Seriously, that game just looks silly.

Because you're obviously looking for something just like that.

Fast twitchbased shooter with no ADS (as far as I know).

That is pretty much what you described this whole time.

[goneglockin]

I don't think what he want's is quite out of the realm of PS2. In essence he just wants combat to be fast paced and intense intense while still retaining skill and tactics.


Now THAT sounds like a good time!

[Stardouser]

Why would I want to play a flight simulator? Seriously, that game just looks silly.

Hmmm...if you don't like Tribes, have you been supporting us in the fight against jump pads? I wasn't paying attention to who all was posting there.

Oh yeah, I forgot, there's no such thing as middle ground. My bad.

ADS doesn't make it extreme realism. True enough, extreme realism games like ArmA and middle ground realism games like BF2 share ADS, but removing ADS and going with hipfire lasers and strafing is such a huge individual step towards the relaxed end of the spectrum that it couldn't possibly be middle ground, imo.

[ArmedZealot]

but removing ADS and going with hipfire lasers and strafing is such a huge individual step towards the relaxed end of the spectrum


I think "relaxed" is a poor choice of words here. I would argue the opposite.

[goneglockin]

Because you're obviously looking for something just like that.

Fast twitchbased shooter with no ADS (as far as I know).

That is pretty much what you described this whole time.

Except for the whole Ascend part where you fly around like superman. Not to my tastes. Prefer to keep it mostly ground based, fast enough to move while shooting and at least present a moving target to whoever is shooting at you. No rocket jumping arena stuff.

[goneglockin]

Hmmm...if you don't like Tribes, have you been supporting us in the fight against jump pads? I wasn't paying attention to who all was posting there.


I have mixed feelings about the jump pads... BUT since they are pads in a fixed location that send you in a fixed direction, and they aren't everywhere, and you can't just do this anywhere at anytime, I'm fine with them.

[Stardouser]

I think "relaxed" is a poor choice of words here. I would argue the opposite.

How could it be the opposite? Firing weapons that are so accurate you can strafe, that's the very definition of relaxed, at least as far as the weapons themselves go.

Or, I suppose you could look at this another way: You're just transferring the importance from aiming skill to body movement. That's why I mentioned prone diving above, if people wanted the game to be like that, they wouldn't go insane at the idea of prone because a lot of people don't want to have the enemy avoiding their shots with dolphin diving.

I have mixed feelings about the jump pads... BUT since they are pads in a fixed location that send you in a fixed direction, and they aren't everywhere, and you can't just do this anywhere at anytime, I'm fine with them.

Thus far we have only seen a detailed battle at a base. It's entirely possible that there will be jump pad equivalents in other areas. For example : I don't know what they are called, but some arcade games have those things on the ground that when you drive over them they boost your speed. I can just imagine that we might have that on roads or whatever in order to shorten the ground travel time, and definitely that would be bad.

[captainkapautz]

Now THAT sounds like a good time!

Wait so let me get this straight, you want the game to feel and play like an old-school FPS like Doom/Quake/etc. yet keep the strategy, tactics and long TTK from PS1?
Do you want some hitscan weapons with that as well?

[ArmedZealot]

You're just transferring the importance from aiming skill to body movement.

Is it really that hard, or far fetched to have both?

Wait so let me get this straight, you want the game to feel and play like an old-school FPS like Doom/Quake/etc. yet keep the strategy, tactics and long TTK from PS1?
Do you want some hitscan weapons with that as well?

PS2 weapons are hitscan... All but the snipers I think, but I am probably wrong.

[The Kush]

You are saying it, you are saying that PS1 is/was the only game with "proper" teamwork/teamplay.

I'd really like to know what makes PS1 superior to any other game that involves working together in a team.


Edit: Just read Xyntechs post and in scale I'd like to name EvE, yes it ain't a shooter, shouldn't matter, has bigger scale in teamwork/teamplay than PS1.

Lol kid quit putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said PS is the only game with "proper" teamwork. I said you can't compare BF/CoD/Halo teamwork to PS teamwork. I never said it didnt exist. I am simply saying the amount of teamwork and type of teamwork involved is not duplicated in those games.

And I never said anything about wow or EVE or Everquest or anything so once again your learning a valuable lesson don't put words in someone's mouth.

EDIT: to answer your question about superiority the answer is one word, scale. It's easy to coordinate 6 guys now lets see you step up and do that with 50. It's rather amusing that you have convinced yourself a small team requires the same amount of teamwork as a large one.

[Pyreal]

Doesn't really matter, since the game isn't meant to be just for PS1-players.

I didn't make myself clear. If you haven't played PS1 you have no point of reference to say whether or not this Speeding up is detrimental to the core gameplay of PlanetSide.


You know, you CAN assess a situation without standing around in the open, and if by assess you mean if you're getting shot at, well there really isn't much to assess and react strategically, except getting the fuck into cover.

I said react to an opponent. Obviously, standing in the open isn't reacting. Again, I didn't make myself clear. Or maybe it's intentional on your part, at any rate, this is the scenario I don't want: you die before you are even allowed to seek cover.


You also do not take away any "learned skill element", unless you mean skills learned from PS1, bcause you will just learn new skills appropriate to the new environment, like moving with cover, sneak approaching places, etc.


No. I meant learning to counter class and fit combinations. If there is no window (or ability to create that window) in which to execute a strategy, strategy will have no place in PS2.



Let's call a ***** a ***** here, you seem to make PS1-players out to be some kind of strategic übermensch, which is just plain wrong.

If you remember, a majority of the common footzerg was pretty much the epitom of derp.

But if you count throwing enough bodies at the enemy until he suffocates as a strategy, then I am more then willing to bet that PS2 will not disappoint in that.
;)

You assessment of my statements are wholly inaccurate.

A ***** is a still a shovel, however, every cognac is a brandy, but not all brandies are a cognac.

[Sledgecrushr]

From what I have seen in some of the videos the ttk isnt all that bad, you really have to absorb a half dozen good shots before you go down.

[captainkapautz]

@ArmedZealot
PS2 weapons are hitscan... All but the snipers I think, but I am probably wrong.

No, no, no, all weapons that fire bullets, i.e. not VS PewPewLaserz, have bullet-drop, so aren't hitscan.


@The Kush
Lol kid quit putting words in my mouth. Please quote where I said PS is the only game with "proper" teamwork.

Just a sec, right here:

I didn't say that so don't put words in my mouth. It did however achieve a level of teamwork that hasn't been matched in any other game.

By your words, no other game achieved the level of teamwork that PS1 had (not true, but not the point atm), therefore what you are saying is that every other game has not as good teamplay as PS1 does, therefore PS1s teamplay is the, for lack of a better word, proper one.

I said you can't compare BF/CoD/Halo teamwork to PS teamwork. I never said it didnt exist. I am simply saying the amount of teamwork and type of teamwork involved is not duplicated in those games.

Never said it was, was just pointing out that your "no other game" statement, which by definiton means every game not just BF3/CoD/Halo, was wrong.

And I never said anything about wow or EVE or Everquest or anything so once again your learning a valuable lesson don't put words in someone's mouth.

that was in reply to Xyntechs post, as I stated, and not you.

EDIT: to answer your question about superiority the answer is one word, scale. It's easy to coordinate 6 guys now lets see you step up and do that with 50.

But here I can play the EvE card again, bigger scale then PS1.

It's rather amusing that you have convinced yourself a small team requires the same amount of teamwork as a large one.

Yeah, so much for the whole putting words into other peoples mouth?


P.S.: The whole insulting thing with calling me kid isn't really helping your point.

P.P.S.: Look, I will say the the part that CoD or Halo have no teamplay is utterly true.
I'd maybe debate BF3, because you CAN use teamplay very effectively, but, like you said, not near the scale of PS1.

It's just that your post reads like "Only PS1 teamplay is worth a crap, and if you haven't played PS1 then gtfo because your opinion ain't worth shit"
Atleast to me.


@Pyreal
I didn't make myself clear. If you haven't played PS1 you have no point of reference to say whether or not this Speeding up is detrimental to the core gameplay of PlanetSide.

Yeah, but the poll isn't about PS, it's about PS2, that's what I mean.

I said react to an opponent. Obviously, standing in the open isn't reacting. Again, I didn't make myself clear. Or maybe it's intentional on your part, at any rate, this is the scenario I don't want: you die before you are even allowed to seek cover.

That's what I meant with adapting new tactics.

Of course you won't be able to just dash away into cover everytime you come under fire in the open, because you just got ambushed while you ran around in the open, when you should've moved with cover.

No. I meant learning to counter class and fit combinations. If there is no window (or ability to create that window) in which to execute a strategy, strategy will have no place in PS2.

That's really just en exaggeration on your part, saying no strategy will have place in PS2 just because the TTK got lower.

You assessment of my statements are wholly inaccurate.

A ***** is a still a shovel, however, every cognac is a brandy, but not all brandies are a cognac.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean.

Look, I'm in no way saying that the TTK has to stay exactly like it is atm in alpha as seen in the video.
All I'm saying is that a lower TTK is NOT the end of the strategyworld as we know it.

I mean that's what actual beta will be for, not the end of the strategyworld hopefully, but actually tweaking stuff like TTK to were it is balance.



Holy crap people, post slower. :x

[The Kush]

By your words, no other game achieved the level of teamwork that PS1 had (not true, but not the point atm), therefore what you are saying is that every other game has not as good teamplay as PS1 does, therefore PS1s teamplay is the, for lack of a better word, proper one.

Yes my opinion is no fps game has matched the level of teamwork PS1 has and possibly no game has matched that level. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We are talking about a fps and that is the genre I am refering to. I could have been more specific and said that. Yes there are games like wow, eve, ect like I agreed and those games are fairly populated.. But sadly I cant say playing a fps vs an rpg requires the same skill. mmorpg's usually require a mere button to be pressed, and usually the most players working together at a time is 40. FPS require aiming and things of that nature. So maybe PS was the best teamwork we have seen in an mmo or any game for that matter because of how diverse the gameplay is vs everyone casting spells:rofl:. or the smallscale small map teamwork of CoD BF Halo ect. That is my opinion, everyone else has their own, but the scale of this fps brought some real magical moments of working together, and im sorry you havent experienced that and I hope one day you will.



Never said it was, was just pointing out that your "no other game" statement, which by definiton means every game not just BF3/CoD/Halo, was wrong.

As I mentioned before I dont play games like that they bore me. I was refering to FPS apologies for not making myself clear. And how can you judge the PS teamwork when yo have never played PS?



P.S.: The whole insulting thing with calling me kid isn't really helping your point.

Not meant to be an insult.


P.P.S.: Look, I will say the the part that CoD or Halo have no teamplay is utterly true.
I'd maybe debate BF3, because you CAN use teamplay very effectively, but, like you said, not near the scale of PS1.

I never said the games dont have teamwork, I am merely saying it is a different kind. Doesnt require as much planning and communication because it is a smaller scale.

It's just that your post reads like "Only PS1 teamplay is worth a crap, and if you haven't played PS1 then gtfo because your opinion ain't worth shit"
Atleast to me.

That is definitely not the message I want to send. But as I have said you cant talk about something you dont truly understand. You have neevr played PS1 so you shouldnt be considered a knowledgeable source for information regarding PS1 and the kind of teamwork it created.

[captainkapautz]

Yes my opinion is no fps game has matched the level of teamwork PS1 has and possibly no game has matched that level. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We are talking about a fps and that is the genre I am refering to. I could have been more specific and said that. Yes there are games like wow, eve, ect like I agreed and those games are fairly populated.. But sadly I cant say playing a fps vs an rpg requires the same skill. mmorpg's usually require a mere button to be pressed, and usually the most players working together at a time is 40. FPS require aiming and things of that nature. So maybe PS was the best teamwork we have seen in an mmo or any game for that matter because of how diverse the gameplay is vs everyone casting spells:rofl:. or the smallscale small map teamwork of CoD BF Halo ect. That is my opinion, everyone else has their own, but the scale of this fps brought some real magical moments of working together, and im sorry you havent experienced that and I hope one day you will.

Meh, F the likes of WoW, but seriously, EvE is still the king in scale atm when it comes to teamplay.

It takes a different kind of "skillset" then an FPS, but, seeing as you can't objectively say FPS-Skill > Strategy-Skill, that doesn't matter.

And how can you judge the PS teamwork when yo have never played PS?
But as I have said you cant talk about something you dont truly understand. You have neevr played PS1 so you shouldnt be considered a knowledgeable source for information regarding PS1 and the kind of teamwork it created.

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I started playing PS1 in Beta.

[Badjuju]

I honestly don't think its going to be feel that much faster overall as there will be much more players playing and likely larger battle fronts. As far as the ADS, I probably would not play this game if ADS was not in it. I am a huge fan of PS1 and all but ADS is something I would expect from a modern day shooter. Part of the reason why PS1 was so great for me was the immersion you got due to it feeling like you were on a real battle front. The changes they have made will add to that allot IMO. It adds to the realism and becomes more immersive for me. If they left everything the same I don't think many would ply it long as we have played the first for 9 years. I think the real issue is allot of people love PS1, and like everything else they have trouble excepting something new. Hip firing mechanics just seem very silly and outdated to me personally, especially being in the military. It will also allow people to work together more tactically as you can fire more precisely, and you don't have everyone hopping left and right into each others cross fire. Tactics is what this game is all about.

[The Kush]

I honestly don't think its going to be feel that much faster overall as there will be much more players playing and likely larger battle fronts. As far as the ADS, I probably would not play this game if ADS was not in it. I am a huge fan of PS1 and all but ADS is something I would expect from a modern day shooter. Part of the reason why PS1 was so great for me was the immersion you got due to it feeling like you were on a real battle front. The changes they have made will add to that allot IMO. It adds to the realism and becomes more immersive for me. If they left everything the same I don't think many would ply it long as we have played the first for 9 years. I think the real issue is allot of people love PS1, and like everything else they have trouble excepting something new. Hip firing mechanics just seem very silly and outdated to me personally, especially being in the military. It will also allow people to work together more tactically as you can fire more precisely, and you don't have everyone hopping left and right into each others cross fire. Tactics is what this game is all about.

Not true. I like some new ideas and some I don't. I like the iron sights way more. But this game does take place in the "future" so something like taking more then a few shots to kill someone is not only believable but more fun in my opinion.

[captainkapautz]

But this game does take place in the "future" so something like taking more then a few shots to kill someone is not only believable but more fun in my opinion.

It being more fun is completely subjective.

I find it more fun if it doesn't take as long.

And the whole "future"-argument is kinda BS really, because they don't just develop new armor, weapons will get developed as well, so it would rather stay the same.

[The noob]

Right now, it's difficult to judge TTK imo. In the video, it looked like Biscuit was very good at landing multiple headshots, so that would definitely affect what the TTK would look like to someone watching the video. Playing the game is the best way of finding whether the TTK is good enough or not.

[SgtMAD]

the idea that organizing ppl in an RPG is like organizing a bunch of twitch monkeys in an FPS is a friggin joke,you have two different types of player there and the playstyle demands and the experiences in game are totally different.

actually I can't wait to see all these "experts' that have zero experience with large groups of FPS players get friggin steamrolled by outfits that have been playing together for almost a decade now and easily slip into the rolls needed in a squad/platoon to get the job done.

now all you wanna-be's go back to talking about shit that you have no clue about.

[captainkapautz]

the idea that organizing ppl in an RPG is like organizing a bunch of twitch monkeys in an FPS is a friggin joke,you have two different types of player there and the playstyle demands and the experiences in game are totally different.

Yeah, cause playing an FPS is so much harder then any other game. :rolleyes:

actually I can't wait to see all these "experts' that have zero experience with large groups of FPS players get friggin steamrolled by outfits that have been playing together for almost a decade now and easily slip into the rolls needed in a squad/platoon to get the job done.

now all you wanna-be's go back to talking about shit that you have no clue about.

As for organization. Well how can these new guys know what large scale is if they never experienced it? Just like none of us when we first started in PS. They will see soon enough what it's all about but just like seemingly every other topic here they like to think they have a clue but they don't. Ignorance is bliss. All in due time, it will become apparent and they'll get a taste of what scale is all about.

"This new guy" started playing in beta, but keep telling yourself that people who never ever played PS1 are automatically not allowed to have an opinion.

[Baneblade]

"This new guy" started playing in beta, but keep telling yourself that people who never ever played PS1 are automatically not allowed to have an opinion.

Oh they can, they just can't bill themselves as experts.

[captainkapautz]

Oh they can, they just can't bill themselves as experts.

But who did?

If you're talking about me, then in no way am I saying I'm an expert of all things PS1, far from it.

I just don't think it's fair OR constructive by some people to just plain out dismiss any kind of opinion just because the guy who stated it hasn't played PS1 before.

[Pyreal]

Yeah, but the poll isn't about PS, it's about PS2, that's what I mean.

This poll is based on the TTK and pacing of PS2 in direct relation to PS1, and since there is much more information about PS1 than PS2 available, PS1 has more bearing on the outcome of this poll.

"PS2 is quicker than PS1, is this good or bad?"
If a player didn't play PS1, that player can't offer an opinion based on experience.


I mean that's what actual beta will be for, not the end of the strategyworld hopefully, but actually tweaking stuff like TTK to were it is balance.

I certainly hope so.

[SgtMAD]

But who did?

If you're talking about me, then in no way am I saying I'm an expert of all things PS1, far from it.

I just don't think it's fair OR constructive by some people to just plain out dismiss any kind of opinion just because the guy who stated it hasn't played PS1 before.


ahhh yes we can if the opinion has been proven wrong repeatedly by our own in-game experiences

[captainkapautz]

Who's dismissing anyone's opinion? Merely stating the obvious, if you have never played a game with organized outfits of 100+ doing organized ops then how could you know what that experience is like? Be it PS or any other title. If this description does not fit you then perhaps if was not being directed at you but for some reason you like being confrontational?

I bolded the important part, discussion was that if you hadn't played PS1 then you didn't know good teamplay.
I mearly stated that PS1 isn't/wasn't the only game with big teamplay.

And me being confrontational could be explained by the fact that I was argueing this issue the past page and a half and when you come along and skim in then I'll sure as hell think that you are directing it at me.

ahhh yes we can if the opinion has been proven wrong repeatedly by our own in-game experiences

Wait, what was proven repeatedly wrong?

When did we start argueing about specific details?

[Badjuju]

I am with Wild that there is a fine line you have to find with damage to health that I am sure they will work on through out beta. If people die to quick then it is all about who shot first, but if they have to much health it becomes all about who has more numbers and you see everyone running around like they are super soldiers instead playing tactically. That is what vehicles and Maxes are for IMO. If they hit the right spot in the middle then I feel it is allot more competitive. If you shot first your not necessarily going to go down, you have a chance of turning and outgunning you opponent. You should also be able to take out several other people if you out shoot them, apposed to games with high health like halo where the only way your winning two on one is if they are awful (in a strait up gun fight).

[Stardouser]

Name me one other MMOFPS in the history of gaming (no WW2OL doesn't count, that is too much of a sim)? Just one please? If you didn't play PS1 you don't have the experience of that scale of FPS. PERIOD. End of story. Now if you chose to lone wolf it and missed out on that, then well that can't be helped but the fact was it existed beyond compare and still does to this day.

As for the other part, yeah you got me there. I didn't realize you and SgtMad were having such a love fest. :lol:

WW2 OL is definitely an MMOFPS. It's a persistent online world and all that, the problem is that everything is way too slow and thus not fun. Planetside 2 I hope will be a middle ground, but it's threatening to be too fast.

I have said for years that WW2 Online's game world size but with Battlefield gameplay and vehicle/infantry speed would be the best game ever. I stand by that. Imagine flying 5 miles in 10 Blackhawks to assault an enemy base or city? just to be clear, you don't have to travel 5 miles after every spawn, WW2 OL lets you set up forward bases right outside an enemy base/town. And when I say, add BF gameplay to WW2 OL I also mean put in squad spawning and other things.

Naturally there would have to a lot more details to the game world than WW2 OL has but that's the general idea.

[captainkapautz]

Name me one other MMOFPS in the history of gaming (no WW2OL doesn't count, that is too much of a sim)? Just one please? If you didn't play PS1 you don't have the experience of that scale of FPS. PERIOD. End of story. Now if you chose to lone wolf it and missed out on that, then well that can't be helped but the fact was it existed beyond compare and still does to this day.

As for the other part, yeah you got me there. I didn't realize you and SgtMad were having such a love fest. :lol:

Jesus, I already agreed that in terms of FPS PS1 hasn't been toped so far.

My point was soley the stated opinion that PS1 had the best teamplay of ANY game, which by definiton means more then just FPSes.

And you are calling me confrontational.

[Stardouser]

It's a fine line. The developers themselves I believe started out calling the game a sim then a fps. Maybe it was other way around but regardless, they themselves didn't know how to classify their own game. Yes absolutely I agree 100%, the holy grail of FPS games would be a based on a huge singular map, with modern graphics and setting. Would be epic. But we are getting off topic here. :lol:

Just curious...did you mean exactly what you said? That the holy grail of FPS would be a modern setting MMOFPS? To be honest, that's an interesting point. You see, I agree...the reason it's interesting, is that it suggests that Higby's dev team has a significant amount of freedom from SOE's actuaries, because if they didn't, SOE might have insisted on a modern themed MMOFPS.

And to be honest, I think there's room(in terms of marketplace demand) for SOE to do both. After PS2 is successful, they should use PS2 as a base, and (and I hate to use this word but) reskin it as a modern theme game. The infantry combat wouldn't even need to change much, although the game world would have to be completely different and modern looking, with cities and everything, and replace the PS aircraft with F16s, A10s, Blackhawks and Apaches.

And since we're talking about game speed here...IF SOE was to make a modern themed MMOFPS, would you expect PS2 and my imaginary MMOFPS to have the same game pace? Or would one be slower than the other?

[captainkapautz]

Let's get back on topic. Thread is about speeding up the game from the original.

Thank you.

I was getting tired having to explain my point, because people misunderstood it and apparently didn't want to listen. :)

Just curious...did you mean exactly what you said? That the holy grail of FPS would be a modern setting?

He said modern graphics, not modern setting per se.

[Stardouser]

Battlefield the MMO...looks like you put a lot of thought into that.

I've been thinking about MMOFPS as a game concept since before there even was a Battlefield, starting back in at least 1998 when I was playing Novalogic's F22 Raptor and Delta Force, and when people back then were saying "oh I wish we had an integrated battlefield"(meaning tanks, infantry and jets in the same game). I actually had hundreds of posts on WW2 OL's boards during its development time. It just never turned out to be fun.

[captainkapautz]

We could go on about this for hours I suppose but let's give them their thread back.

Well, there isn't much thread left.

I think the actually "Speeding up"-discussion ended like 6 or 7 pages ago.

:lol:

[Stardouser]

Well, there isn't much thread left.

I think the actually "Speeding up"-discussion ended like 6 or 7 pages ago.

:lol:

At this point, there's nothing to do but wait until beta comes, and if they haven't slowed it down, demonstrate why it's not fun and crusade from there.

Though I will say, I do think future theme justifies slowing the pace and TTK a bit, shields and all, you know?

As I say, SOE should also make a modern theme MMOFPS(and half the work is done by reusing as much as they can from PS2!): PS2 would be their moderate TTK/pace game and the modern theme one could be their CoD/BF3 paced game.

[Mechzz]

Well, there isn't much thread left.

I think the actually "Speeding up"-discussion ended like 6 or 7 pages ago.

:lol:

Yeah, just some emotional wreckage to clear away and we can file this one under "complete", eh?

[captainkapautz]

At this point, there's nothing to do but wait until beta comes, and if they haven't slowed it down, demonstrate why it's not fun and crusade from there.

I can support that.

Yeah, just some emotional wreckage to clear away and we can file this one under "complete", eh?

All in a days work.