Becoming Disappointed.

[MrBloodworth]

I really do not like the Auto repair and auto Re-supply. There are invisible walls over land. People get resources automatically every once in a while, just because ( Everyone is special? ). You can switch seats with a key press, you can enter any vehicle from any angle. You can't kick an empire completely off a continent, they have an impenetrable base. You can bail instantly from anything. One man tanks/gunners other than the lightning. No Enter/exit animations, makes the game feel cheap and disassociated. You can spawn on squad leaders. There is no way to deny opposition any equipment ( you spawn fully equipped ). They have power increases in my Planetside.

This isn't a post that "Battlefield did it" but a post about none of the above fits a WAR game.

I thought this was a War game. War games have elements of logistics/denial in it, required teamwork, and you can loose. Most of the above is great for session based shooters where it does not matter after the timer/tickets expire. Session based shooters are DESIGNED to remove reliance on others, it does not discourage teamwork, but its not required.

I personally do not mind that aspects of PS1 have changed. It always needed things like better net code, and more refined shooting mechanics and such. Also, the engine is stellar so far, and the art wonderful ( The VS max is a bit silly ). The team themselves very open, and very much appreciated for all the work to even bring Planetside into 2012.

I just do not understand the push to remove required teamwork to this degree, or aspects that are found in war games. It seems more and more like its becoming imposable to fail in this game, other than death, for a second. Not for a title that is supposed to be a strategic war game at its core. Not for a game that one of its core rules was no player was better than another because of time played. Not for a game that has such a grip on many people IF it got you. I feel many of those PS moments are being removed. I feel like the baby is being tossed out with the bathwater in many areas.

2c

PS: before it comes up. I like the Battlefield series. They are great games. But they are not war games. They are Battle games. Two different types of Shooters. Just like Quake is an arena shooter. Battlefield is a Battle shooter. Planetside is a War shooter. Different designs, different focuses, different game play.

[Stardouser]

Agreed. Autoregeneration of vehicle health is bad, unlimited ammo is bad, and restrictive out of bounds is bad. Not impressed with footholds on every continent, that is one of the few things I'm willing to wait to see in action. One man tanks seems to be a bowing to Battlefield players(not Battlefield copying, but bowing to their players.).

The other things I don't necessarily disagree with though.

Er, you should be able to deny the enemy vehicle and stuff through resource denial, not sure if that's what you were talking about.

But to be perfectly fair, I think we're operating under a certain...safety net, shall we say. This game can't possibly fail to be 10 times better than BF3 even if it doesn't achieve its own optimum design. Let's remember that.

[T MAN]

Yup was thinking the same seeing as how all this is coming out now, soon well see in beta and how much there willing to change stuff.

[basti]

1. Auto Health Regen: Its a customization. If you have it, you dont have flare or anything that goes into that slot. It has a 15 sec delay in wich you cant take any damage, or it doesnt kick in. The delay, the amount it repairs per sec and even the whole thing itself needs to be tested during beta! There is NO WAY of telling if this even makes it into release!

2. Squad spawning is the exact same mechanic as the old Hart + Drop pod. Its just the same without recalling and waiting for the hart. In fact, the sanc recall hart thing was more powerful, as you could send a entire PLATOON, no, AN ENTIRE CONTINENT WORTH OF PEOPLE bloddy EVERYWHERE. At ANY time, without ANY restrictions. Squad spawning wont allow that.

3. Where the hell did you see auto re supply?

4. Those "out of bounds" areas may go away during beta. Theres no point in having them, and its on my list of things i will stress during beta. And they are not walls!

5. Why should you get ressources not once in a while? Theres nothing wrong with that, the whole empire gets them based on the territory you own. It makes the bond within any given empire stronger. I would rather be upset if people would get them individually

6. True that you can switch with a key press, but wait for beta. Once i broke that whole mechanic and shot a few devs in my Mag doing the AV and AA at the same time, as well as blew a few guys up in a lib controlling everything at the same time, this will likley change. I dont like it, at all, its a stupid idea to begin with and got exploited to hell in every game that had this ability.

7. Those footholds wont stay for long, trust me. Devs just didnt have a chance yet to see what they really do to the territory system. But beta will show. :)

8. You always could bail instantly from anything in Planetside, so whats the problem?

9. What other one man tanks? I have not seen any, and neighter did you. If you mean those Driver = gunner stuff: We had that in Planetside for ages, the Magrider. And dont tell me the PPA was useless, the thing was quite good if you knew how to use it. Prowler and Vanguard may get the option to have a dedicated driver, and thats much needed anyway, because you cannot drive and gun at the same time effectivly, especially with all that stuff around. Trust me, those "one man tanks" as you call them will be coffins for everyone in them.

10. The lack of enter and exit animations saddens me as well, but who knows what that 5 year plan may contain. ;)

11. Power increasing? Wut? Err, nope? its called Customization, to gain extra power in A, you give away power in B.

[Malorn]

I dont see it as bad. In PS1, everyone could/did have a glue gun when in vehicles. It was mandatory. If they didnt have autorepair you would effectively be forced into using engineer whenever in vehicles. However i vefy much doubt autorepair will be anything near engineer repair in terms of speed and effectiveness. What it does mean is you dont need a rep gun if you take minor damage. If you are pushing a line youre going to want an engineer. I think this streamlines the game and relieves pressure for every driver to be an engineer. It also stops shenanigans where a mosquito or othef aircraft pelts a tank for tiny damage - in ps1 that would eventually kill a tank. In PS2 it means you need some reasonable minimal dps.

[Stardouser]

7. Those footholds wont stay for long, trust me. Devs just didnt have a chance yet to see what they really do to the territory system. But beta will show. :)


Now that's some optimism I LIKE, but - people claim that with all "hand design" of the continents going on here, won't that be a major change requiring a lot of work and therefore, would require nothing less than a united community rebel yell to get changed?

And what would we replace it with?

[proxy]

I don't see unlimited ammo for infantry, are you talking about vehicles?

[Rbstr]

I am already disappointed with the closed mindedness of so many who haven't played the game yet.

[Stardouser]

I am already disappointed with the closed mindedness of so many who haven't played the game.

I have experienced these features in other games. It's not closed mindedness. The only defense is that PS2 has a lot more people per battle and that somehow that makes it OK but I think the opposite of closed mindedness is the idea that we must have this because other games do, or that it must be OK just because the devs think it's what we need, and that's going to prevent people from properly critiquing it during beta.

[sylphaen]

The cockpits look so great, I wish the rest could feel as solid.

One side looks serious and awesome (great design, impressive visuals/sounds, cockpits) and then the gameplay makes it feel inconsequential (instant entry/exit, instant seat switching, low TTK, driver/gunner).

At the moment, I feel like heavy ground vehicles don't feel that heavy at all but more like an armor upgrade for troopers. Especially the Mag which made me think about an arcade shooter (wasd+strafing+highspeed+guns). Another thing I do not entirely understand is that while the Sunderer has good speed (great improvement from PS1), all tanks also seem to go faster.

Of course, it's only a first impression and overall, the game looks amazing. I just really liked PS1 ground vehicles gameplay (which involved trooper play rather than "we do everything from inside the vehicle and don't need to get out") while I always found BF2142 vehicle gameplay super boring (so much that I usually tried to avoid having to drive one).

TLDR: I share the OP's overall concerns and hope for the best for ground vehicles gameplay. I specify ground vehicles because AirCav gameplay looks great (not too many news about lock-on missiles). We'll have to see with the actual result of all this during beta.

[kasiraghi]

I think he means the closed-mindedness in the sense that you haven't felt how this game acts as a whole yet.

basti is 100% spot on - beta is beta, that's the point, there is no point in worrying about these things until we get our hands on them and test them for ourselves.

If it's a 'true' beta, SOE will either learn lessons from what we do in it, or glory in the fact that they knew what they were doing when they implemented things that may surprise/delight us.

[Redshift]

I really do not like the Auto repair and auto Re-supply.

You're losing your flares to take that option, honestly if you every find anyone with it certed you should thank them for being a free bag of exp......

stop complaining about shit you've not tried

[Gandhi]

I still have a lot of concerns, but I'm not worried at this point. Overall I think the game looks fantastic, I just hope the team stays committed to the idea of trying different things and taking community input during the beta. If we start pushing up against release and people are still hot swapping between AV and AA turrets in their solo Vanguards, then I'll start to get worried. Unless I'm dazzled by the awesomeness of these changes between now and then, as unlikely as that seems to me right now.

[Shlomoshun]

This is a tricky one. I agree with some of the stuff you point out(1 man tanks being a main one, resupply being another if I were playing a support class). But the overall view I'm taking is looking at PS1 and identifying what were the GREAT moments I had in that game, and how will this game create similar really GREAT moments that feel truly epic, and occur more frequently.

I can assure you that in my time in PS1, none of the GREAT moments involved not being able to get into a vehicle easily, switching seats by exiting a vehicle, entry animations, etc... Those are perepheral to the gameplay, and while some of them seem like nice immersion elements, I don't think they will truly make/break the experience as long as it can provide the truly epic things I'm looking for more frequently than the first one did.

[basti]

Now that's some optimism I LIKE, but - people claim that with all "hand design" of the continents going on here, won't that be a major change requiring a lot of work and therefore, would require nothing less than a united community rebel yell to get changed?

And what would we replace it with?

Ive managed to pull of crazier shit already. Getting a whole community to rebel against something is a piece of cake. Especially if a lot of those people see the issue and know how it could be.
Thats the big benefit of a 2 in any games name: you know how it once was, and how changes affect something.


To go into a bit detail: The devs clearly want to have us fighting over the whole continent. Now, the territory system enforces that, but the footholds completly destoy it. You wont even get near a enemys foothold, because the more territory you take into their direction, the harder it gets for you to keep pushing. As you take more and more of their ground, they have less ground to defend, and the third empire is just going to attack you with everything they got, because your empire has no chance to keep everything secure. All they need to do is open a lot of fronts, hack into a lot of different spots, and then just defend that one you didnt manage to resecure. Bang, free territory. And while your empire is back to square one, trying to keep their land intact, the other empire that you tried to push to their foothold just regains its ground.
In the very end, this will result in a very small area of combat, while the rest of the continent remains silent for ages, with only some combat every few weeks, before everything collapes again.

No footholds + Global lattience and sanctuarys? Well, now every piece of land can really be taken. ;)

[ichebu]

I am already disappointed with the closed mindedness of so many who haven't played the game yet.

QFT - I'm getting very tied of these "*random thing* is broken!" posts when they haven't even touched the game. It's one thing to speculate, it's another to make wild claims based on hearsay.

[MrBloodworth]

2. Squad spawning is the exact same mechanic as the old Hart + Drop pod. Its just the same without recalling and waiting for the hart. In fact, the sanc recall hart thing was more powerful, as you could send a entire PLATOON, no, AN ENTIRE CONTINENT WORTH OF PEOPLE bloddy EVERYWHERE. At ANY time, without ANY restrictions. Squad spawning wont allow that.

I'm not going to respond to everything, because its your opinion. But I do think you have missed the jist of my post. That many of the decisions, and the thrust of the game design is not one fitting a War game, it has to many session based design points in it.

I do want to correct you here though. Its my understanding, and experience that the HART was the same for all empires. It was a reinforcement mechanic, not a spawn mechanic. What is meant by that is, HART drops all happened at the same time, regardless of empire. That's why you would occasionally see other empires dropping right next to you. It also had a long timer in between launches. Its not anywhere near the same functionality of individually timed personal drop pods.

As for bailing, no, there was a delay, especially on ground units due to the nature of the Exit/Enter animations. Air had the restriction of malfunctions, and that whole pesky falling damage thing. This ties into the pacing problem.

[basti]

I'm not going to respond to everything, because its your opinion. But I do think you have missed the jist of my post. That many of the decisions, and the thrust of the game design is not one fitting a War game, it has to many session based design points in it.

I do want to correct you here though. Its my understanding, and experience that the HART was the same for all empires. It was a reinforcement mechanic, not a spawn mechanic. What is meant by that is, HART drops all happened at the same time, regardless of empire. That's why you would occasionally see other empires dropping right next to you. It also had a long timer in between launches. Its not anywhere near the same functionality of individually timed personal drop pods.

As for bailing, no, there was a delay, especially on ground units due to the nature of the Exit/Enter animations. Air had the restriction of malfunctions, and that whole pesky falling damage thing. This ties into the pacing problem.


Did you ever play planetside? Because it doesnt seems like it.


Yes, Those harts were on the same timer for all 3 empires. about 4 minutes. And it was a spawnign mechanic. When dead, you could directly spawn at the Sanc, do a quick jog to the hart, and just wait for it, board it, and drop wherever you want.
And heres the thing: squad spawning is more restricted. You can only drop on your squad leader or a squad mate if your squad leader got the certifications for squad spawning, and maybe he even needs to sacrifice some equipment to allow squad spawning! Not just that, theres even a timer! While we dont know the timer yet, im certain it wont be possible to just drop an entire squad somewhere.


As for bailing, no, there was no delay. Not for air units (falling damage? What falling damage? Where was no falling damage in planetside!) and also not for ground units. True, you had the exit animation, but only if you didnt know how to avoid the exit animation. And yes, that was possible.

[Raymac]

You wont even get near a enemys foothold, because the more territory you take into their direction, the harder it gets for you to keep pushing. As you take more and more of their ground, they have less ground to defend, and the third empire is just going to attack you with everything they got, because your empire has no chance to keep everything secure. All they need to do is open a lot of fronts, hack into a lot of different spots, and then just defend that one you didnt manage to resecure. Bang, free territory. And while your empire is back to square one, trying to keep their land intact, the other empire that you tried to push to their foothold just regains its ground.
In the very end, this will result in a very small area of combat, while the rest of the continent remains silent for ages, with only some combat every few weeks, before everything collapes again.


I'm just not really buying this because we saw major ebbs and flows in Planetside 1. In fact, I think it will even be possible for an empire to capture all the territory on a continent. It will be difficult, but so was Sanc locking an empire in PS1 and it happened.

The footholds just insure that no matter what empire you are on, you will have access to any of the continents at any time. You won't be locked out. It doesn't guarantee that your empire will have equal numbers on a continent, just that you can go there. I fail to see how this will break the game. What I do see is veterans clinging to a lame mechanic because it's what they know.

[Biohazard]

As far as the foot holds go, I think that for now it is a good idea because there are only 3 continents. I hope that after the game is released, and the devs have had a chance to observe how battles flow around, they may revise the footholds . Right now if we had one foothold per empire, it would be possible to push an entire empire back and corner them.

[MrBloodworth]

Did you ever play planetside? Because it doesnt seems like it.

Sure did. 5+ years. I Do also expect a bit different line of discussion from a mod. And yes, the HART is whats known as a Reinforcement Mechanic, meaning a larger group of individuals on the same timer. Spawn mechanics are relating to individuals.

Any way, I wanted to express my disappointment with what the current direction of the overall design seems to be going. You are free to agree or disagree.

The footholds just insure that no matter what empire you are on, you will have access to any of the continents at any time. You won't be locked out. It doesn't guarantee that your empire will have equal numbers on a continent, just that you can go there.

This is the problem with it. You can not loose, witch seems to be a guiding design point for this version of the game. Opening up a new continents and creating a foothold is one of the staples of the original game. In planetside 2, you will never have this experience, all continents will always be open to you. No loss. Your foothold is already established. You can never be locked out ( on the Empire/Territory levels ), this is an aspect of War games. Denial.

[Envenom]

Becoming disappointed with a game that is in pre-beta development stages and is 99.9% subject to total change before release. hummmmmmmmmm

[Raymac]

This is the problem with it. You can not loose, witch seems to be a guiding design point for this version of the game. Opening up a new continents and creating a foothold is one of the staples of the original game. In planetside 2, you will never have this experience, all continents will always be open to you. No loss. Your foothold is already established. You can never be locked out ( on the Empire/Territory levels ), this is an aspect of War games. Denial.

You win and lose all the freaking time. It's a persistant world so you can't ever really "lose" just like Planetside 1. But you win and lose territory. You win and lose bases. You win and lose firefights. There will be vast amounts of winning and losing. Just get your mind away from the idea that the ONLY way someone wins or loses is by locking a continent. It was lame and accounted for most of the downtime in Planetside 1, and I'm glad to see that mechanic go in Planetside 2.

It is absolutely ridiculous and narrowminded to say "you can't lose".

[Turdicus]

Honestly though in a neverending war where soldiers never really die and vehicles can be constructed out of thin air I think comparing planetside 2 to a war game is sort of missing the mark.

[Duddy]

This is the problem with it. You can not loose, witch seems to be a guiding design point for this version of the game. Opening up a new continents and creating a foothold is one of the staples of the original game. In planetside 2, you will never have this experience, all continents will always be open to you. No loss. Your foothold is already established. You can never be locked out ( on the Empire/Territory levels ), this is an aspect of War games. Denial.

I'm seeing this again, calling what was one of the more tedious parts of the game a "staple" of the gameplay.

Opening a new continent was tiresome, because more often than not:

You'd be met with little to no opposition, so it was boring
You'd be met with completely overwhelming opposition, you'd lose almost instantly, again boring


Sure you'd get those cases where you got a good fight, but that was the exception for the most part.

That aside, getting sanc locked was not fun. It wasn't fun for the empire that couldn't go anywhere or do anything and it usually wasn't much fun to sit around a warpgate trying to kill the few people that dared to try leave.

Besides, denial still exists. You deny them resources when you own areas instead of the enemy and if you do manage to push them back to their foothold then you can have all the fun you want trying to camp it.

Seems a bit of a misguided/unfounded concern to me.

[Raymac]

I'm seeing this again, calling what was one of the more tedious parts of the game a "staple" of the gameplay.

Opening a new continent was tiresome, because more often than not:

You'd be met with little to no opposition, so it was boring
You'd be met with completely overwhelming opposition, you'd lose almost instantly, again boring


Sure you'd get those cases where you got a good fight, but that was the exception for the most part.

That aside, getting sanc locked was not fun. It wasn't fun for the empire that couldn't go anywhere or do anything and it usually wasn't much fun to sit around a warpgate trying to kill the few people that dared to try leave.

Besides, denial still exists. You deny them resources when you own areas instead of the enemy and if you do manage to push them back to their foothold then you can have all the fun you want trying to camp it.

Seems a bit of a misguided/unfounded concern to me.

VERY WELL SAID. I've tried to express this point a number of times, but you did it much more clearly than I ever have. Thank you.

[Masahiko]

Im pretty sure we can point to games and say we dont like X implementation and thus it wont work here. However, i find it hard to believe people are truly losing interest. If you were indeed losing interest you wouldn't be on a forum for a game where the devs post/read/ask questions. You would have moved and said thats not for me. The mere fact you posted what you dont like here, shows that you want this game to do well and are in fact not actually disappointed but more hopeful that things that you dont feel fit the game are changed.

We havent seen anything about logistics and how battles will be won using the new systems other than how they play out in our heads (or on dev battles which are mostly for show). We all see things and say wow X is broken and can never go in without understand how X works and what we dont get by using X. As devoted players we latch on to things we like both from PS1 and other games and make them sacrosanct.

All we can do now is have these discussions about how we think things work now (under the current build) and how it will effect the live release game (while comparing it to the old game). As the game is currently going to be in constant flux theres no real reason to be disappointed, at least until the lock down the code for release.

[basti]

I'm just not really buying this because we saw major ebbs and flows in Planetside 1. In fact, I think it will even be possible for an empire to capture all the territory on a continent. It will be difficult, but so was Sanc locking an empire in PS1 and it happened.

The footholds just insure that no matter what empire you are on, you will have access to any of the continents at any time. You won't be locked out. It doesn't guarantee that your empire will have equal numbers on a continent, just that you can go there. I fail to see how this will break the game. What I do see is veterans clinging to a lame mechanic because it's what they know.

Sancing happend, and it wasnt easy, true. But do you know how it happend?

Back in the prime days, it happend because one empire had about 45% or more global pop, and a lot of outfits just did some extra gaming hours to get the thing done.
This was only possible because you had the space for all those people, and could attack different continents. The enemy simply didnt have enough people to stop you.
In Planetside 2, there wont be that space. If a continent is full, its full, done deal.
Still, late night, it will very well be possible to push one empire back into its foothold. Yet it will be pretty much as hard as sanc locking back in the day, and only happen very rarley.
Means you fight over those areas near the enemy foothold only once every few months, and thats the problem.


And Ray, this is not a vets opinion on a new mechanic, this is a leaders POV of what will happen. I simply have loads of expirience leading large groups, being GOTRs TO for a while (555th 4tw!), as well as a CR5 for many many years. I still have my notes here about various tactics for every continent, telling me how stuff played out in the past, what worked and what not. And as i look at them, i see the same pattern over and over: Every time you got equal pop on a continent, the fight started to stand still. Every push into one direction resulted in a strong coutner-Push, as well as the third empire attacking your flanks. Every Push resulted in your empire being pushed back to where it was, or sometimes even further back. Kicking an empire out of a continent while all 3 empires got a poplock on said continent was pretty much impossible, and done rarley. If it was done, then only because the third empire didnt disrupt you kicking the second empire out of its last base, but instead took your based behind your back. Exactly the same will happen in Planetside 2, but even whorse. With the Territory system, you will loose more ground more quickly, as the enemy can not just take only 1 - 3 bases at a time, but a whole lot of different hexes. And if they are really cruel, they just put a hack on every of your hexes. Have fun trying to resecure them all in time, you wont manage that, because they will defend those hexes. And while you are busy trying to keep your crap together, the second empire will just push back, wanting revenge. Suddenly, you are getting pushed back to your foothold, until the other two empires attack each other again.

The only way to avoid that is to not push to fast, but let the enemy push. Keep your ground secure, and let them go after each other. Then strike. With a bit of luck (enemy doesnt push you back), you kicked one empire out (in PS1), and could then deal with the remaining empire. In Planetside 2, you cannot kick them out.

Sooner or later, all of those who lead their empires will realize this, and stop pushing, but rather wait till the enemys push onto each other. But if everyone realized whats going to happen, nobody will do the first strike, and combat will result at around the same areas for days.





For those vets who dont get it: Cyssorside. Think Mukuru, Leza, Tore Nzame Quad, its a perfect example. Whoever got Tore just fotified (its an Interlink, taking it against a enemy poplock was almost impossible, and needed time), and just defended it till the fight happens at Mukuru. THen they quickly grab Leza, clear out Mukuru, and fight for Nzame.

ANother example would be the Baal Dagon Akkan triangle on Ishundar. One got Baal, one got Dagon, one got Akkan. Wait at Akkan till they took each other out at Baal and Dagon, then just grab baal. If you got Dagon, abadon it till the Baal guys go for it, and then let the Akkan guys take Baal. Then retake Dagon and push for Baal.


I could go on. ;)

[Gonefshn]

To say it's a war game is fair but in real war there is loads of down time.

Would it be fun to play a game where after a battle you sit around for a day or two waiting for supplies??? I think the word Game says it all.

The current design is taking the interesting exciting aspects of war and taking away the boring non combat aspects of it. It's a game. They don't want you to feel forced out of combat and "gameplay" at any time. The option to go behind your own lines into safe areas, strategize, gather your troops and plan combined arms attacks that will have significant impact is still totally possible.

Things like enter/exit animations and whatever have little to do with the Planetside experience in my mind. To me the game was at it's best when you made plans and saw them put in motion. This is all entirely possible here. Gal drops, max crashes, HUGE tank battalions. STRATEGIES. These things will all still be in the game. How is Battlefield anything like this new design??? Nothing like PS2 exists right now. Combining the sleek feel of Modern AAA shooters with the sandbox world with little limitation on war assets and tools. Nothing is stopping you from planning and strategizing in this game. The spirit of the first game remains for me :)

I simply have loads of expirience leading large groups, being GOTRs TO for a while (555th 4tw!)

I was GOTR but in Phantom Guard! Rolled with 555th a few times. AWESOME times.

[Envenom]

Higby said himself in the recent live stream, why lock players out of the experience they (the devs) have tried to create? They spent all this time making these play areas and they're meant to be used. How does taking them away from players encourage anything positive?

[MrBloodworth]

Holy crap. I didn't really expect to see this kind of aggressive commenting for giving my opinion and perspective of the game in this stage of development.

I thought that's why we were here. My bad. Thanks to all who responded civilly.

[Raymac]

Ol' Dirti Basti. I respect you and your opinions, but I think you are missing the mark a bit on this one. While I agree that having the same side of a continent all the time will lead to fighting in the same general area over the long run, I don't think it will be as stagnant as it was in PS1.

The main reason is the lattice in PS1 meant you had to fight over a very small spot in order to advance. The hex system opens up many many more options.

Instead of removing the footholds will just open up the issue of locking people out of a continent. I believe making the footholds dynamic, switching which empire has which, is a much more simple solution to the problem you address.

[Turdicus]

heh, blood, It gets intense does't it =P The OP had negative language in it so I guess people see it as an attack. Your concerns are valid, personally I dont share them

[Eyeklops]

8. You always could bail instantly from anything in Planetside, so whats the problem?


I am not sure about all tanks, but for the driver of a Magrider to get out the speedo had to read 0 km/h. I can't tell you how many times I mashed the shit out of the exit button only to get exploded right before the mag stopped. That was one of the main reasons I remapped the brake to the spacebar. So in some sense...yes, there was a delay to exiting certain vehicles depending upon what seat you sat in.

*You could still exit the Mag if it was rotating.

[MrBloodworth]

Haha, yeah man it happens here. You are definitely right with your comment regarding lacking overall War gameplay but I think that is simply by design. Makes good business sense to appeal to the gameplay CoD and BF guys are used to.

Yes. I'm not disagreeing, we all want PS to be financially Viable. My concern is how far its going, IMO. I feel its loosing things that made PS great, and unique, and straying from the War game aspects it needs to keep.

[Xaine]

Have to say, the OP bring up a lot of concerns I have myself.

Primarily not being able to kick an empire off cont.

[MrBloodworth]

interest

Intrest != Disappointed.

[MrBloodworth]

heh, blood, It gets intense does't it =P The OP had negative language in it so I guess people see it as an attack. Your concerns are valid, personally I dont share them

Thanks, I don't have a problem with your position.

[Raymac]

I hold on to hope thinking this game might actually make it beyond 3 cont launch an introduce some meta-game objectives after that. But I give the CoD guys more credit than SOE and some of you do. They will see through this veil of commonality in effort to generate revenue, lose interest then go back to next rev of their known game.

Can't you have a meta game without locking out continents?

Also, as we've all felt it, once you are bit by the MMOFPS bug, it's not easy to go back to the same old arena shooter. There will likely be players that prefer the arena type games, but having more people exposed to Planetside 2 will make it vastly more successful than the original.

[GreatMazinkaise]

There's no meta because what you do on one continent has virtually no effect on what happens on another (apart from shunting populations around).

[Zekeen]

This game makes me disappointed all the time... then it's like Higby pops out of nowhere with a giant bandaid and everything is better again if not improved!

I even accept shields now!

[Snipefrag]

Now that's some optimism I LIKE, but - people claim that with all "hand design" of the continents going on here, won't that be a major change requiring a lot of work and therefore, would require nothing less than a united community rebel yell to get changed?

And what would we replace it with?

Like Basti I honestly don't think the staging areas will last that long, they dont seem like a great long term game mechanic. I think they're only there because we have so few continents. The devs don't want people to get locked out of good fights with so few options. A way you could keep the gates and the staging areas and allow a 'continent' endgame is this:

When we have 8-10 continents the devs could do a meta game patch (like they did with the lattice system in the original) that amongst other things allowed you to take down the warp gates by attacking strategic points.. Or purely from bombarding it with loads of artillery fired from all the bases you own (kind of like Titan mode in BF2142). Think how epic that would look. This artillery bombardment could take resources or something, to limit how often command attempts it. It could be a consensus vote or something from commanders on the continent to invoke. You would only have the option to attempt a WG assault when you own the majority of bases on the continent. Think of it sort of similar to how continent capitals work in PS1.

When the defending factions warpgate is taken down then the staging area can be attacked. It would be a race against time to secure it before the warpgate comes back up, if the attackers fail then it would act like a captial shield coming up in PS1 for the enemies inside.. (they get turned to jelly :D).

If its secured by the attackers. The defenders would then be locked out of the continent until it repairs itself (say an hour and a half). The attacking faction could 'attune' itself to the gate (similar to hacking, but all alien tech like) so they can enter and defend it in the future when it comes back up. The defenders retain a permanent attunement, and when they take back the holding area the attackers attunement is purged from the warpgates system. One thing that would have to change to make this viable is having the ability to warp into continents with vehicles. So like in the original game you could form up a massive raid and then invade a continent, otherwise it gives the people defending the locked continent too much of an advantage as the attackers would be foot zerging.

And yeah... i know, before you guys say it.. Pipe dream/arm chair development, but i like the idea !

[KTNApollo]

I am already disappointed with the closed mindedness of so many who haven't played the game yet.

This. This. This. You can't judge a game based on video. You have to play it. /thread

[neonlazer]

This. This. This. You can't judge a game based on video. You have to play it. /thread

x2 Half the threads in this section are based on stuff that will be fixed before or in public beta. ;)

[MrBloodworth]

This. This. This. You can't judge a game based on video. You have to play it. /thread

Lets lock the forums down then.

[Raymac]

It's quite simple I think. There needs to be a clearly defined win/lose objective. On the CoD scale it's a matter of a small map win/lose objective. On a PS2 scale it should be a matter of cont win/lose. Simply grinding map regions to facilitate continuously doing the same thing over and over will not suffice. I am bored myself already thinking about it.

That's based on the premise that "winning" in Planetside came ONLY from locking a continent. It was an artificial win to begin with, and accounted for most of the downtime in the game.

Plus you never permenantly "won" a continent. You'd be fighting for the same continent again the very next day, or even just a couple hours later. By your rationale, "continuously doing the same thing over and over" was exactly what was done in PS1. So many people are stuck in this PS1 "cont locking is the only win" type of thinking. Get out of that rut. Continent locking sucked.

[MrBloodworth]

Pushing an empire off a continent was one of many "win" conditions of the game. Its not the only one. No one is saying that.

You can win a 1 on 1, you can "win" in Squad VS Squad, you can "win" a base, you can "win" a Continent, you can "win" the game ( Sanctuary lock ).

Just like there are many levels of loosing. You can "loose" a 1 on 1, you can "loose" in Squad VS Squad, you can "loose" a continent, you can "loose" the game.

With permanent impenetrable footholds, one of those options goes away. That also means the joy of winning, also goes away. And everyone likes to be the winning underdog that was there when a Continent was opened and won.

[SGTalon]

If i wanted a game that i can "Win" i will play Diablo or BF3. Did you ever "WIN" Everquest or WoW?

There is no "win" in a 3 sided persistent MMO. If someone wins that means someone loses. If 2/3 of the players lose and can't play people are going to quit.

Do you guys not remember the times that you got locked out and couldn't leave sanc? Was that fun? No when things like that started is when i started looking for another game.

I think eliminating the ability to lock a team out of playing is a smart move.

As to the certs and abilities things? It is just game mechanics. This IS the future. You don't think there will be the ability to get little nanobots out there to repair your tank or plane? As long as it stops when you get hit, and can't over-regen incoming damage i don't see why it is an issue.

The issue about getting rewarded for taking and holding ground does not seem like a problem to me either. As long as it doesn't end up with a pull 50 tanks thing like someone mentioned, i can't see it as an obstacle.

[Raymac]

You lose a goal, but you improve the gameplay. The gameplay around a cont locked sucked because it was boring downtime. Yeah, the map changed color, but it was surrounded by an hour of 9:1 troop advantage gameplay. Then some more bickering in command chat about where to go next. Then the downtime of slowly starting a new front. The gameplay part of cont locks was one of the worst parts of the game.

On the other hand, we gain a new game goal - winning territory. Before we only fought over bases and skipped all the land. NOW we get to fight over the land between the bases. That is much better gameplay. I'd consider that a net gain by a longshot.

[Gonefshn]

With permanent impenetrable footholds, one of those options goes away. That also means the joy of winning, also goes away. And everyone likes to be the winning underdog that was there when a Continent was opened and won.

How does taking away one of those options take away the joy of winning? When i kill someone I will rejoice with the joy of winning.

Also you forget that with the hex system your adding in another layer of winning to the game, so removing 1 (cont locks) is supplemented with another new mechanic thats actually adding more win conditions.

It's not a question of win conditions it's a question of game play and flow.
The question to ask is not, can I win, but how will having footholds affect moment to moment play. By there very nature its going to make it hard to push very far into enemy territory assuming even pops. that's the only real concern I see. Will we have battle lines that stay pretty much stagnant without much variation.

[MrBloodworth]

If i wanted a game that i can "Win" i will play Diablo or BF3.

I think you misinterpret what people are saying. Not one single person is asking for the game to end, and reset, or have an overall win condition.

However, you can't have darkness with out light. and you can not have Glory with out someone loosing. Taking a continent is part of many ways to "win" over the opposition. Its removal is another step backwards in what is supposed to be a war game.

To counter your Sanclock comment. I assume you were not part of the retaking then, so did not feel the accomplishment of coming back. Not saying Sanclocking was the best thing ever ( It had flaws as to options when it happens for the loosing side ), but to remove it completely is the wrong approach.

[MrBloodworth]

How does taking away one of those options take away the joy of winning? When i kill someone I will rejoice with the joy of winning.

That's only one forum of "win" among many. For some, its enough, for others, they need more, perhaps at a higher level. Hexes are great. But I do not recall many armies stopping at just one town.

How about instead of impenetrable footholds, The Capital bases are brought back.

[TrenchcoatNinja]

Isn't winning a crossover from the "session-based" gameplay that's mentioned frequently around here? And from single-player games before that of course.

It seems that this game is forward thinking for not having a traditional win condition, and rather letting emergent gameplay declare those conditions.

[MooK]

Lets lock the forums down then.

This is pretty much why I've stopped replying in threads like this. It's usually a few people voicing their concerns, and then a bunch of people either unruly and defensive or pushing that it's unacceptable to talk about anything negative until the game comes out.

All of the concerns you voiced are concerns I have. This is a discussion forum, we should be able to discuss them without people challenging whether we've played planetside, or whether the game is out yet. If the devs want to elaborate on our concerns, that's great; but it is not and will never be the place of another player to downplay your concerns simply because they disagree with them.

Back on topic a bit:

I am glad that a lot of things I had concerns about (infiltrators, base designs and the like) were elaborated on. Unfortunately, the concerns you've listed (locking down a continent: TotalBiscuit was spot on with his immediate counter during the vid) definitely make me wonder if I'll enjoy the game (I'm not a fan of newer CoD/BF games.)

[MrBloodworth]

Isn't winning a crossover from the "session-based" gameplay that's mentioned frequently around here? And from single-player games before that of course.

It seems that this game is forward thinking for not having a traditional win condition, and rather letting emergent gameplay declare those conditions.

Again. I do not think anyone is asking for a end game win condition ( Credits! ), just not to take away the win milestones. Even a Sanc lock did not end the game, it simply changed the game play you needed to do to move forward.

[SGTalon]

I think you misinterpret what people are saying. Not one single person is asking for the game to end, and reset, or have an overall win condition.

However, you can't have darkness with out light. and you can not have Glory with out someone loosing. Taking a continent is part of many ways to "win" over the opposition. Its removal is another step backwards in what is supposed to be a war game.

To counter your Sanclock comment. I assume you were not part of the retaking then, so did not feel the accomplishment of coming back. Not saying Sanclocking was the best thing ever ( It had flaws as to options when it happens for the loosing side ), but to remove it completely is the wrong approach.

You are right, I never was involved with the retaking. After sitting in sanc for 2 hours on my game night and not able to get on to the pop locked continent that was the only place to go, i decided to go play something else.

There will be plenty of "win" moments in this game. Personally i see something like a sanclock as a broken aspect of a game. If you are denying the ability for someone to play the game you are shooting yourself in the foot as a game designer.

[MooK]

You are right, I never was involved with the retaking. After sitting in sanc for 2 hours on my game night and not able to get on to the pop locked continent that was the only place to go, i decided to go play something else.

There will be plenty of "win" moments in this game. Personally i see something like a sanclock as a broken aspect of a game. If you are denying the ability for someone to play the game you are shooting yourself in the foot as a game designer.

If we were ever poplocked out of a continent, we would make our own battles somewhere else. PlanetSide was about more than just running and gunning, so I actually found a lot of fun in draining bases, establishing a defense and making a push. In the cases when we would break open a continent, it felt great.

[MrBloodworth]

If we were ever poplocked out of a continent, we would make our own battles somewhere else. PlanetSide was about more than just running and gunning, so I actually found a lot of fun in draining bases, establishing a defense and making a push. In the cases when we would break open a continent, it felt great.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2034/2457102497_81fd86ee1c.jpg

[Gonefshn]

That's only one forum of "win" among many. For some, its enough, for others, they need more, perhaps at a higher level. Hexes are great. But I do not recall many armies stopping at just one town.

You made my own point. I was trying to point out that there are more than one ways to "win"

Who said the army will stop after taking a hex?

I just think it's the wrong argument being had here. Talking about a feeling of satisfaction is so subjective and really the only change here is scale. Taking a continent is no different than take a base really. It's all just "success" in a different coat. If you thought capping continents gave satisfaction in PS1 why can't taking a base, which should be harder in this game, especially near footholds give a similar satisfaction?

I share some of your concerns but it's more about how footholds will change the gameplay and make it more stagnant and repetitive. I have no concerns about feeling satisfied with a "victory" so long as the current design allows you to push around the map succesfully.

[The Janitor]

Man, there are going to be SO many of these threads from now until the game comes out... Hell, maybe even after it comes out, too!

Of course, by then they may change to "auto-repair isn't good enough" at which point I will laugh and link to this post cause I so called it.

[Tigersmith]

I really do not like the Auto repair and auto Re-supply. There are invisible walls over land. People get resources automatically every once in a while, just because ( Everyone is special? ). You can switch seats with a key press, you can enter any vehicle from any angle. You can't kick an empire completely off a continent, they have an impenetrable base. You can bail instantly from anything. One man tanks/gunners other than the lightning. No Enter/exit animations, makes the game feel cheap and disassociated. You can spawn on squad leaders. There is no way to deny opposition any equipment ( you spawn fully equipped ). They have power increases in my Planetside.

This isn't a post that "Battlefield did it" but a post about none of the above fits a WAR game.

I thought this was a War game. War games have elements of logistics/denial in it, required teamwork, and you can loose. Most of the above is great for session based shooters where it does not matter after the timer/tickets expire. Session based shooters are DESIGNED to remove reliance on others, it does not discourage teamwork, but its not required.

I personally do not mind that aspects of PS1 have changed. It always needed things like better net code, and more refined shooting mechanics and such. Also, the engine is stellar so far, and the art wonderful ( The VS max is a bit silly ). The team themselves very open, and very much appreciated for all the work to even bring Planetside into 2012.

I just do not understand the push to remove required teamwork to this degree, or aspects that are found in war games. It seems more and more like its becoming imposable to fail in this game, other than death, for a second. Not for a title that is supposed to be a strategic war game at its core. Not for a game that one of its core rules was no player was better than another because of time played. Not for a game that has such a grip on many people IF it got you. I feel many of those PS moments are being removed. I feel like the baby is being tossed out with the bathwater in many areas.

2c

PS: before it comes up. I like the Battlefield series. They are great games. But they are not war games. They are Battle games. Two different types of Shooters. Just like Quake is an arena shooter. Battlefield is a Battle shooter. Planetside is a War shooter. Different designs, different focuses, different game play.

Fantastic Post. I agree with you in every single one of these areas..But I have no hope any of this stuff will get taken out. Believe it or not. they want the game to be for casual players..And that is it.

[Xyntech]

Considering how this thread is largely opinion, I'm going to respond in kind.

I am not becoming disappointed.

In fact I am more excited every time we see more footage/info.

The game will get some things wrong that will need to be fixed in beta. The game will also surprise many of us, with certain things we thought would never work, actually turning out to be perfect.

I'm much more interested in ideas for alternative solutions at this point, because anyone who claims to know what will work or fail in 90% of these discussions is at least partially talking out their ass. They may be right, but there are a lot of changes from PS1 to PS2, and even more differences between PS2 and any other shooter (no matter how much the game takes from BF3). We can propose ways we think will work better, but most times we really can't know if they will be better.

So be disappointed if you want. It's your call if you want to be depressed. But really, there is still a huge opportunity to fix anything that's broken in beta. So why get bummed now, when you haven't even had the chance to see if you are right or wrong?

[Raymac]

So what do you propose a win condition should be in PS2? From what it looks like to me all that matter is K/D?

There are many types of winning, like you said. 1v1, taking a hex, taking a base, taking a large number of resources. But it's a persistant world, so there is not going to be a total "win". Let me say it again, persistant warfare. If you want to win rounds, there are plenty of games that provide that.

[Duddy]

Again. I do not think anyone is asking for a end game win condition ( Credits! ), just not to take away the win milestones. Even a Sanc lock did not end the game, it simply changed the game play you needed to do to move forward.

I don't understand how you can really fault the new implementation over the old.

The new implementation is exactly the same as the previous one, whereby you are pushed all the way back to the warpgate, except that it removes the worst part about it.

By which I mean, it removes the part where you have to keep returning to sanctuary to form up an offensive. It was terrible when people would go get their own vehicle and try one by one (not always one by one, but the same concept) to push out and they'd die, go back to sanctuary and try again. This led forces fragmented and generally inefficient.

Of course you could organise a singular large push from sanctuary, but it still meant calling people off of the cont you wanted to gather up and then going back again.

All the current implementation does is removes the middle-man steps in the process and make it easier for actual gameplay to resume.

The only conclusions I can come to as to why the old system was better is that either making the enemy players have reduced enjoyment from the game because they lost, or to make holding onto the stuff you already won so much easier for the defenders.

Either of which doesn't make much sense to me.

[MrBloodworth]

I just think it's the wrong argument being had here.

Well, its also not the Crux of my posting. Its just another aspect, or example of my overall point.

[meiam]

I think being worried about certain aspect of the game is the perfect attitude to take into beta, as long as it's a real beta and not glorified demo. The dev seems pretty pen minded about player feed back so lots could change.

I really doubt they'll remove the foothold on every continent, like someone said there's just too few continent to lock people out of them. I also doubt we'll ever see more than maybe 5 continent up at the same time, too much continent just spread the pop.

I'll agree that some sort of win condition would add a lot to the game, like the carrot on the stick. In wow you have the new gear, it force player to always go to new area if they want it, where new stuff in PS2 can be earned by doing just the same things over and over again. Now I don't think there should be a reset, but some sort of really long term win would be cool, someone posted something like build a spaceship (I would love it if every part would be manufactured on certain hex only and then you'd need to escort them back to the main base for assembling the whole things) and then once the ship is done it give temporary bonus, or maybe just some cool stuff, like exclusive camo or w/e.

As for switching seat on the fly, they could probably implement something where you need to keep a certain key held down for like 1.5 sec, during which you can't control the vehicule.

[Gonefshn]

Well, its also not the Crux of my posting. Its just another aspect, or example of my overall point.

truth.

I'll just say everything I keep finding out about this game gets me more pumped and that's my opinion.

[MrBloodworth]

I don't understand how you can really fault the new implementation over the old.

The new implementation is exactly the same as the previous one, whereby you are pushed all the way back to the warpgate, except that it removes the worst part about it.

By which I mean, it removes the part where you have to keep returning to sanctuary to form up an offensive. It was terrible when people would go get their own vehicle and try one by one (not always one by one, but the same concept) to push out and they'd die, go back to sanctuary and try again. This led forces fragmented and generally inefficient.

Of course you could organise a singular large push from sanctuary, but it still meant calling people off of the cont you wanted to gather up and then going back again.

All the current implementation does is removes the middle-man steps in the process and make it easier for actual gameplay to resume.

The only conclusions I can come to as to why the old system was better is that either making the enemy players have reduced enjoyment from the game because they lost, or to make holding onto the stuff you already won so much easier for the defenders.

Either of which doesn't make much sense to me.

See, I do not see the recourse you talk about as bad things. In a war game.

Fall back your troops? Ok.
Lone guys getting mowed down? That's OK too.

If you come from the idea this is a team based war game, the lone wolves ( Zerg ) are irrelevant, they should have known they had no chance before hand to Rambo a continent. The other, regrouping, is not out of the question to do. I don't see why it would be, its a war game. For many, it was enjoyable, and seeing a major offensive mount up like that was epic, and park of the stickyness for many I am sure.

Part of my problem with a good deal of the overall thrust of this version of Plantside is this seeming need to be in action, all the time, 24/7 now now now! Couple this with removing the need to think beforehand on what to bring, what troops to muster, how to advance, coordinating with others.

It seems like the major design point for the impenetrable bases is so... and please excuse me. Its so that no ones feelings can be hurt. You are always going to be within feet of combat. No sting. No reward.

Its as if the ZERG is the Target group for the game, and they need to be protected from themselves. But I digress.

Am I saying we need ARMA level of game play? Hell no.

As it stand now, it seems there will always be a three way on every content, the only way to see another continent will be by clicking a different spawn point. Instead of you must now change your strategy, because you lost it. I can't really see any of the three ever not having three ways constantly. I can't see any movement in forces, why would they? They have a foothold on each. Its basically picking what server to play on. Where are the fronts on the global scale? I can't see there will be any. Part of the beauty of the Sanc system, and the lattice is, there were not just fronts on each content, but also the world.

[MrBloodworth]

truth.

I'll just say everything I keep finding out about this game gets me more pumped and that's my opinion.

I would not be posting if I didn't give a shit :) I'm not all doom and gloom!

[LegioX]

If they have auto-repair on vehicles, they need it taken out ASAP. Worst component to any game, and severely downgrades the games.

Also DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO REPAIR IN THE AIR!! God i still have nightmares in BF 3 where 2 engineers in a helo can keep it in the air the entire map. No matter how many times you shot missiles at it.

[Gonefshn]

If they have auto-repair on vehicles, they need it taken out ASAP. Worst component to any game, and severely downgrades the games.

I actually think that if tanks are going to take far less shots to destroy then they did in PS1 that auto-healing will help facilitate the type of tank gameplay I loved in PS1. Part of what made it fun in PS1 was your ability to bail out of a fight and stay alive if you chose to. In a game like BF3 it's annoying because your limited in the number of tanks and the game has rounds.

In PS1 however part of the fun was choosing whether you would run when low health or stay and die while attempting to get a few last kills.

Unless they increase the TTK on MBTs id love to have auto healing so I can remain in the fight longer like in the original.

And yes you could say repairing it yourself will do the same thing but with lower TTK youd have to do that WAY more often and thats taking something already not too fun and making it worse.

[QuantumMechanic]

Agreed. Autoregeneration of vehicle health is bad, unlimited ammo is bad <snip>

Wait... unlimited ammo? This is the first I've heard of that. They intend to have a class be able to drop ammo boxes ala BF series... is that what you meant?

Unlimited ammo for infantry or vehicles would cheapen gameplay, I'd be quite surprised if they put that in. Maybe they just don't have a system for re-arming yet (other than going and changing classes at the equipment terminal).

[Bittermen]

I am already disappointed with the closed mindedness of so many who haven't played the game yet.

Yep. So sad.

[Hmr85]

I'm not disappointed in the game. I fully intend to still play it and throw my support behind it 100%. I'm just slightly annoyed with some of the decisions/paths that SOE has chosen in the game design.

List of annoyances below

1.Boarders for one is my hot button right now. I feel like it takes away from the more tactical style of play and ruins the immersion. There is a thread on this.

2. My last slight annoyance with the game is how tanks are setup right now. As I favor a dedicated driver/gunner. Not the current setup they have atm.

[LegioX]

They really need to force the player to have a gunner or make it extremely difficult to drive/shoot at sametime.

[Synapse]

I am more excited about this game than I have been about any game in almost 10 years. That means I'll be working hard to make it better in beta. I'll be honest, here are the things I intend to complain about (after testing to be sure) in beta:

I'm not listing specific things, but i'll rather list abilities one should have and let game designers go from there.
1) Territory warfare for bases needs to be meaningful
-They get resources passively anyway, I'm not sure reducing their ability to buy tanks by 5% really makes much impact

2) Territory warfare beyond bases needs to be meaningful
-Needs to be worth pushing for continent scale, people want that, it makes great stories. Doesnt mean I dont like footholds but should be sure that pushing out of one is hard. I'd be fine if the foothold only worked if you had one other base, for example, meaning you'd have to assault over water to get back onto a continent.

3) Improvements in armor models
-I don't see any reason we can't pick a crucial few and get higher quality versions

4) Exploration
-I dont like the boundary but for different reasons. Having one makes the map feel small. It says "yeah you have a whole continent, but right now you can only work in this part" You might as well just instance if you take that approach, right?

Even if NONE of these are fixed I'll probably still play anyway, but I'll be trying to push the game from "I'll play for a year" to "I'll play for the next decade" Planetside has that in reach if we can help it get there.

[AshOck]

I really do not like the Auto repair and auto Re-supply. There are invisible walls over land. People get resources automatically every once in a while, just because ( Everyone is special? ). You can switch seats with a key press, you can enter any vehicle from any angle. You can't kick an empire completely off a continent, they have an impenetrable base. You can bail instantly from anything. One man tanks/gunners other than the lightning. No Enter/exit animations, makes the game feel cheap and disassociated. You can spawn on squad leaders. There is no way to deny opposition any equipment ( you spawn fully equipped ). They have power increases in my Planetside.

This isn't a post that "Battlefield did it" but a post about none of the above fits a WAR game.

I thought this was a War game. War games have elements of logistics/denial in it, required teamwork, and you can loose. Most of the above is great for session based shooters where it does not matter after the timer/tickets expire. Session based shooters are DESIGNED to remove reliance on others, it does not discourage teamwork, but its not required.

I personally do not mind that aspects of PS1 have changed. It always needed things like better net code, and more refined shooting mechanics and such. Also, the engine is stellar so far, and the art wonderful ( The VS max is a bit silly ). The team themselves very open, and very much appreciated for all the work to even bring Planetside into 2012.

I just do not understand the push to remove required teamwork to this degree, or aspects that are found in war games. It seems more and more like its becoming imposable to fail in this game, other than death, for a second. Not for a title that is supposed to be a strategic war game at its core. Not for a game that one of its core rules was no player was better than another because of time played. Not for a game that has such a grip on many people IF it got you. I feel many of those PS moments are being removed. I feel like the baby is being tossed out with the bathwater in many areas.

2c

PS: before it comes up. I like the Battlefield series. They are great games. But they are not war games. They are Battle games. Two different types of Shooters. Just like Quake is an arena shooter. Battlefield is a Battle shooter. Planetside is a War shooter. Different designs, different focuses, different game play.

I couldn't agree more. But this is about the gamers, not the game.
The game will be shaped into what SOE perceives people will want to play. Shaped into what the instant gratification generation wants.

Why land and repair your gal if you can have a game mechanic that instantly does it for you?

Why Exit the vehicle to enter a different gunner position if you can have a game mechanic that instantly transports you at the press of a key?

And who has time to play tetris mini games with their inventory when all they want to do is shoot people?

And, of course, losing is a big no no too. Can't have that in a war game. Oh and lets lower the ttk so even the worst players manage to get some kills and can feel good about themselves.

[Malorn]

I don't understand how people are seeing the recent videos and walking away disappointed. All the TotalBiscuit content has been awesome. Sure we all have some concerns but for the most part the game is looking incredibly impressive, especially given the relative short development time they've had on it.

[Xyntech]

I don't understand how people are seeing the recent videos and walking away disappointed. All the TotalBiscuit content has been awesome. Sure we all have some concerns but for the most part the game is looking incredibly impressive, especially given the relative short development time they've had on it.

I think this is what gets me.

I can easily understand getting frustrated with where parts of the game are going, or being disappointed to hear some of the information being different than how we might prefer, but "Becoming Disappointed?"

It's understandable that we are generally going to talk longer and harder about stuff that we don't like. Stuff we like we just cheer about for a little while, praise the devs, and move on. It doesn't keep getting brought up again and again and again.

But that's just human nature. That can't be helped. But I tend to temper that with the understanding that, even though the positive stuff doesn't always get talked about as frequently, there is still a lot of appreciation for the tons of good stuff we've seen in the game.

It doesn't surprise me that a video as informative as the most recent one would spark a lot of heated discussions and debates, and raise a lot of concerns, but there was so much goodness and awesomeness as well, that it perplexes me how some people take "becoming disappointed" away from that.

[AshOck]

It doesn't surprise me that a video as informative as the most recent one would spark a lot of heated discussions and debates, and raise a lot of concerns, but there was so much goodness and awesomeness as well, that it perplexes me how some people take "becoming disappointed" away from that.

I can only really speak for myself when I say that what a game looks like is, generally, a smaller part of what makes it fun for me to play. Being able to compete is a lot more engaging and interesting to me.

So, naturally, when it seems like certain elements of competition that I liked are not being included in ps2 I am disappointed. I think that should be pretty simple to understand :)

[Serpent]

@ OP, I could slap you over the internet and write a huge flame post... but I won't.

I do understand that you are upset about the fact that there are auto repair/ auto heal, etc.

But really? Things like "There's no animation for entering / exiting vehicles, and you can get through seats in a vehicle by the press of a button."

^THAT is too picky. First off, if you claim you want it to be a "War Game" then you imply you want it to be more or less realistic, as that is what it seems you are going for.

So, since when has going into an APC, getting out, then getting back in to change places with someone in the real world ever worked? No... Granted, sometimes it may be unrealistic to actually be able to not get out and back in, but really? Galaxies are NOT going to have people get out and get back in while in mid flight. Sunderers, big as they are, WILL be large enough for people to climb around inside to switch seats. They are bigger than tanks, ffs.

Another point to make: You CANNOT get out of any air vehicle and survive. That is a Cert you need to have, mosquitos / reavers / scythes won't be used as 1 man transports anymore unless you want to risk being shot at while using your bailing seat. (It's called something like that). And believe me, everyone (especially snipers) will LOVE taking shots at your head, they're not stupid-- you have nowhere to go if you're falling down from the sky. It's also pretty obvious to see a huge explosion of an airplane and then a little man pop out with a seat/jetpack on.

:huh:

A few things I agree on, however. I don't like the VS MAX suit, it could definitely be better.

In all honesty, the thing I'm worried about most is performance, as the TotalHalibut video recently had something like 4 or 5 crashes (which is a lot for an hour of gameplay) Though I think they can pull it off, this worries me much more than most of your points. I'd rather worry about being able to play the game... than worry about whether or not someone is going to regenerate health with a 15 second delay.

/end rant, didn't mean to be too obnoxious :P

[captainkapautz]

I'm still confused where people keep pulling the "OMG UNLIMITED AMMO HERP DERP" from.

O.o

[cellinaire]

To the OP and few people here :

Am I becoming disappointed? No.

Am I getting over-impressed? No.

Want discussion? Yes.

Can a game satisfy everyone? No.

Do we want this game to succeed? Yes.

Expressing personal opinions and concerns? Cool with that.

The possibility that OP is right on his arguments? Of course there is some.

Does the act of stating opinions guarantee that you're absolutely right? No.

Have we played this game at least once? No.

Can you be really sure you're not overestimating the cons and underestimating the pros? Nope.


=)

[Hermes]

And yes you could say repairing it yourself will do the same thing but with lower TTK youd have to do that WAY more often and thats taking something already not too fun and making it worse.

I think there's a place for an auto repair module.

.. but I'm disagreeing with your final sentence. Repairing your own vehicle was fun for a lot of people :)

- I've sniped drivers getting out of their vehicles to repair.
- I've felt a 'connection' to my sundy when I patch her up by hand. /poetic
- I've felt the rush of tearing away from a fight in my damaged vehicle, wondering how far I should drive and where to look for a space to patch her up.

Because repairing a vehicle by hand made you feel vulnerable, exposed. Going through these actions made the game feel more real, and my vehicle more real because of it.


On the scale of doom and gloom, where Mr OP is this gloomy:


|-----------------------------------------------------------|
'I'm disappointed in you game'


I'm more like:

|--|
'For all the great things added, we might lose the I-Was-There factor'


Cutting everything down to just shooting is not going to produce the same epic tales. When the OP mentions war logistics there is a grain of truth there.

When I tell people an epic PS1 story, it's not a shot by shot account. It's about being low on supply, scavenging ammo, the careful approach, plotting a dramatic escape in a hacked vehicle. Pacing is what makes a game operatic, and stories are made on the ground level not from the empire tactical map.


Disclaimer: I love a lot of what has been done, in no way am I disappointed. See above doom and gloom bar.

[EVILoHOMER]

Well fuck off then.

Just sick of all the elitist whining, the game looks amazing and SOE are putting in features to make the game modern. Guess what, millions of people love BF3 and COD, I find BF3 amazingly fun, people can be elitist all they want but the fact is more people are playing and enjoying these games than ever before.

[Toppopia]

Just sick of all the elitist whining, the game looks amazing and SOE are putting in features to make the game modern. Guess what, millions of people love BF3 and COD, I find BF3 amazingly fun, people can be elitist all they want but the fact is more people are playing and enjoying these games than ever before.

Its interesting to see people with so many different views on everything, some like COD, some don't, some like BF3 and COD. I like those games. But i don't find them fun unless i am playing with my friends being tactical or messing around. Because community is what makes a game great. So even though Planetside 2 will have good gameplay, it won't be fun for a long time unless you have fun playing with friends. Else you are just 1 insignificant person amongst 1999 other people fighting. And to you, all you are doing is killing people, because being alone you can't do anything meaningful, like capture bases or towers. You have to rely on random people, and we all know how that turns out. ;)

[MrBloodworth]

I don't understand how people are seeing the recent videos and walking away disappointed.

I think I was really clear. I'm disappointed in parts of the current design. I'm not disappointed in many other areas like graphics or that there even will be a PS2. I'm disappointed with the war game aspects being removed or marginalized.

[Xyntech]

I think I was really clear. I'm disappointed in parts of the current design. I'm not disappointed in many other areas like graphics or that there even will be a PS2. I'm disappointed with the war game aspects being removed or marginalized.

Things are being changed up, but I think the E3 footage (bad players aside) proves that there is still a heavy role for team play and the large scale war aspects.

Doubtless a lot of things will need to be tweaked, but I strongly believe that the framework is still there.

There really isn't a lot to compare the game to other than the first Planetside, so I can understand how changes are going to be seen as diminishing the game, but I think a lot of these things can be handled equally well in different ways.

I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised once you and some friends/outfit mates get into beta and have a chance to put it to practice. It will be a new learning experience, but I think it will hold true to the core spirit of the first game.

[basti]

I think I was really clear. I'm disappointed in parts of the current design. I'm not disappointed in many other areas like graphics or that there even will be a PS2. I'm disappointed with the war game aspects being removed or marginalized.

Dude, srsly, wait till beta. Stop guessing stuff, you have as much information as we do. We simply dont know jack shit till beta.

[Mackenz]

I have never considered this to be a 'war game'. Not even close, no way, no how. No publicly available (computer) based game out there is as a 'war game'.

I came from the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader board game series, and the rules are a pretty hefty volume. You don't want that here.

Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS, not a 'war game'.

On the positive side, you make make some good points. But never confuse this with a 'war game'.

[MrBloodworth]

Dude, srsly, wait till beta. Stop guessing stuff, you have as much information as we do. We simply dont know jack shit till beta.

I'm not sure how to take this.

Are you upset that I am expressing my views or that they do not align with your own? Waite till beta is no excuse. The forums are here to discuss things. That's what I am doing.

I fully plan on participating in beta and giving my feedback as well. Why do you, as a mod, feel we need to shut down discussion?

Its not that hard to notice that may War game aspects are being removed or side-steped due to the current mantra of "Speed it up". The topic is about how far its going, and what impact this has.

Where am I going wrong here in expressing, and discussing that. How close are you to giving me an infraction for participating? You and another mod have been becoming extremely threatening with people who express negative views on some things.

Should I be worried?

[MrBloodworth]

Things are being changed up, but I think the E3 footage (bad players aside) proves that there is still a heavy role for team play and the large scale war aspects.

Doubtless a lot of things will need to be tweaked, but I strongly believe that the framework is still there.

There really isn't a lot to compare the game to other than the first Planetside, so I can understand how changes are going to be seen as diminishing the game, but I think a lot of these things can be handled equally well in different ways.

I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised once you and some friends/outfit mates get into beta and have a chance to put it to practice. It will be a new learning experience, but I think it will hold true to the core spirit of the first game.

I agree, the framework is still here, but there are many items going on where they are more session based, and removing aspects of that larger war Planetside was built for.

I'm currently very please about a number of things, but I like to discuss points where I am not. I look forward to beta, but I think part of what I bring up is about the larger philosophy of design, something not really able to be changed in beta.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I have never considered this to be a 'war game'. Not even close, no way, no how. No publicly available (computer) based game out there is as a 'war game'.

I came from the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader board game series, and the rules are a pretty hefty volume. You don't want that here.

Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS, not a 'war game'.

On the positive side, you make make some good points. But never confuse this with a 'war game'.

War game no, but it should continue to be a strategic arcade shooter, like its predecessor. If there's no grand strategic considerations, then it's just a massive multiplayer meat grinder.

[Landtank]

While I agree with you on very few points, this game was never intended to be a War game.

There are fronts, and soldiers, and tanks yes, but this is an FPS, one that requires teamwork and strategy. What allows the strategy is the size of these maps. If you shrink down the maps, then you get what we see in the livestreams, COD and BF3 and every other mainstream fps out there.

However, if you make the map 64km^2, then you have a whole new ballgame. You can actually arranged for tank battles, CAS, etc. So I'm not worried at all about how this will pan out, because once people can start implementing their own individual strategies, the game truly shines.

That's the beauty of Planetside: the players make the game what it is. The developers make a game that enables the player, instead of confining them like every other shooter.

[basti]

I'm not sure how to take this.

Are you upset that I am expressing my views or that they do not align with your own? Waite till beta is no excuse. The forums are here to discuss things. That's what I am doing.

I fully plan on participating in beta and giving my feedback as well. Why do you, as a mod, feel we need to shut down discussion?

Its not that hard to notice that may War game aspects are being removed or side-steped due to the current mantra of "Speed it up". The topic is about how far its going, and what impact this has.

Where am I going wrong here in expressing, and discussing that. How close are you to giving me an infraction for participating? You and another mod have been becoming extremely threatening with people who express negative views on some things.

Should I be worried?


BAN! :D


Sorry bout that, ment it different.

What i actually mean: We really dont know yet what exactly is part of the special E3 build and what not. In any way, we gotta wait till beta and see ourself, and then direct the feedback for most of the stuff.

Right now, theres just almost nothing left that makes sense to be changed without having it seen ingame ourself first.

[Haro]

A few points:

1. As people have said in tons of threads, lot's of features were deliberately messed up because logistics isn't very good for 10-15 minute demos. Rules were changed, context was warped, etc. The invisible walls will be gone, as will the easy resources (they actually said they wanted to put in a surplus so everyone could get a feel for vehicles.)

2. Second, are you sure it was auto-regen you saw, and not some dropped ammo packs, health packs, armor repair, etc? I saw plenty of people run out of ammo, and I don't think I saw any health regen. I saw armor/shield regen, but I don't see how that actually makes this any less of a "war" game. There will still be plenty of logistics, you have several classes dedicated to the roles. If anything, with resources, upgrades, and no more medkits, I think the full game actually has more logistics than the old.

Frankly, I can understand if maybe you're upset because the game is not what you expected, but I feel a lot of your concerns are a bit overblown or not really adding up fully. I'm not trying to chastise or put you down, but I sincerely ask that you keep an open mind to the changes, at least until beta.

[MrBloodworth]

Thank you for the clarification basti.

The point you make is true, and one I am already aware of. This post was also started before E3 stuff came out, but much of what I had seen in the E3 Stuff did not really change my views of the 10,000 foot view (http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/10000-foot-view).

[Xyntech]

I agree, the framework is still here, but there are many items going on where they are more session based, and removing aspects of that larger war Planetside was built for.

I'm currently very please about a number of things, but I like to discuss points where I am not. I look forward to beta, but I think part of what I bring up is about the larger philosophy of design, something not really able to be changed in beta.

Just a heads up, politics suck but can be a very important tool. If you make threads like this that just seem to be generally more negative, it makes threads about rebinding B to V as the default binding seem that much more aggressive.

I think a lot of what they are doing is placating session based shooter fans, not catering to them. Planetside had a lot of shit that was obscenely underpowered such as the health regeneration implant. I think they are leveling the playing field on things like that, so that new players will feel more at home, so that they can be eased into the broader team based warfare.

So while the core element is that they are giving options to these transplanted players from session based shooters, the real issue is the details. Whether the nitty gritty balance makes them want to continue playing it as a solo session based shooter forever, or if it at least encourages them to have that much more fun by immersing themselves in the deeper elements.

There are very few core elements that I have seen that I have a problem with, because most of them have enough room that they could be balanced to fit into the game in multiple ways. The devs have been pretty open to taking suggestions from the fans and seem committed to working on balance in earnest once beta starts, so combining those two factors, I'm positive that we will be able to hammer out the details in a way that's best for the Planetside experience, while still having it be inviting to new players.

[CutterJohn]

7. Those footholds wont stay for long, trust me. Devs just didnt have a chance yet to see what they really do to the territory system. But beta will show. :)

They are absolutely no different than the broadcast warpgates.

The only thing you would do by making them simple gates and adding a sanc is add a loading screen between reinforcements. You can't get rid of the gates, so you can't stop people from spawning into the map and going for a base.

[Mackenz]

War game no, but it should continue to be a strategic arcade shooter, like its predecessor. If there's no grand strategic considerations, then it's just a massive multiplayer meat grinder.

Philosophically, there are no 'grand strategic considerations' since there is no end game.

I know what you are trying to say. I am really looking forward to the strategic aspects (what I consider the MMO part) of the game along with the FPS aspects. That synthesis of the two is what has a lot of folks excited.

But what I am saying is don't confuse this for some kind of war game or a 'grand strategic' simulator, and don't label stuff as necessary to support that kind of game when it is not that kind of game in the first place.

[MrBloodworth]

They are absolutely no different than the broadcast warpgates.

They are in terms of scope, that's why I brought them up. Not every content in PS1 had links to sanctuary, also Broadcast only worked if the content was already opened, IE: you made a foothold.

Broadcast warpgate (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Broadcast_warpgate)

Considered an upgrade from a normal warpgate, broadcast warpgates help Empires shorten the length of travel to the battlefront by allowing forces to teleport from one warpgate to another along the Galactic Lattice and Continental Lattice.

These gates are actived by a locked continent or an Empire's Sanctuary. Any warpgate physically linked to this continent becomes broadcast-capable.

If no broadcast link is available, entering the warpgate beam will simply transport you to the continent that gate is hard-linked to.

If Plantside is about global scale war, this foothold system turns contents into server selections in practice.

To quote myself from a thread that got closed for no reason:

Not seeing how the GLOBAL war will progress across the WORLD. IE: The Planet.....Side.

As it stands, with an impenetrable foothold on each continent, picking a Continent is more like simply picking a server to play on. This may also explain why they have mixed temperate zones per content, instead of each having its own like the original.

Am I missing the WAR game elements here? How can you have a Global front(s) if everyone has an impenetrable base on each continent? Isn't this more like a Session based shooter system? IE: Pick a map.

If I am misunderstanding something, let me know. Thoughts?

The Difference is simple, and huge. Empire movement will not be ACROSS the world, but only across each content in parallel. We won't see an empire move forces across three contents.

[basti]

They are absolutely no different than the broadcast warpgates.

The only thing you would do by making them simple gates and adding a sanc is add a loading screen between reinforcements. You can't get rid of the gates, so you can't stop people from spawning into the map and going for a base.

Thats the thing, you can.

John, just trust me there, i got expirience. Few years of being a CR5 that actually cares did teach me some stuff about how large group of players behave. But we will see during beta. :)

[raidyr]

My concerns as a Planetside 1 player and general MMOFPS/teamwork based FPS fan:

Does it look fun?
Yep, it looks fun.

[Sturmhardt]

For many points it is too early for me to tell if its good or bad, but one thing is really important about the OPs post: You have to be able to fail. You should have PROBLEMS. Problems like "omg, im nearly dead, I need someone to heal me" or "my vehicle is nearly broken, plz someone fix it" or something like that. If you can do everything on your own its not really teambased anymore and I rally loved that about PS1. I hope a lot of these teamplay-supporting mechanics return.

[The Janitor]

I don't care if we can't kick people off the continents; I kinda want to play Europa Universalis: Planetside Edition. Let's spread the pretty colors across the map while killing people! :D

[jakerhodges]

Completely agree with your initial statement. They are essentially dumbing the game down for the instant gratification generation where an "instant fix" where they cant fail is all they will play. Yes the new game is pretty but does it have heart.

[The Kush]

Yep. We will see LOTS of zerglings of many different languages, ages, and boobs size. You really have to approach PS2 like a new game, like PS1 never happened.

Easy to say for someone who has never played PS lol..

I for one hope the majority of the population is 21+ but you can only hope.

[Nephilimuk]

this is a great troll right?

If not then with respect wait to play the game you moaning git.

[Aurmanite]

Bloodworth is a troll. He's a very good one because up until earlier today, he had been doing a fantastic job of concealing it.

[Attackmack]

this is a great troll right?

If not then with respect wait to play the game you moaning git.

There is nothing wrong with complaining about features that you can see and think does not belong in the game. Squadrespawn, for instance, does have nothing with how the game "feels to play" and if someone finds it a stupid idea they have all the right to complain.


And whoever compared squadrespawn with hartdropping...come on, you can squadspawn in a matter of seconds, recalling to hartdrop takes severa minutes at best.l

[Envenom]

Easy to say for someone who has never played PS lol..

I for one hope the majority of the population is 21+ but you can only hope.

It's a FREE game. You will get EVERY age and walk of life in here, particularly the broke ass youngsters.

[Nasher]

It does feel like the game is being dumbed down some for the CoD/BF crowd. But on the up side it's focusing more on what made PS good, which was massive battles.

It feels like a lot of the teamwork requirements are being removed though :(

I'll miss the nice little touches like the animations on entering/exiting a vehicle as well.

[EVILoHOMER]

It's a FREE game. You will get EVERY age and walk of life in here, particularly the broke ass youngsters.

Besides you want people of all ages playing to keep the game alive. If these elitists get their way then the game will have like 10,000 "hardcore" players and the game wont be making any money to warrant development like Planetside.

Nothing that I have seen has suggested the game is worse than Planetside. Instead it seems like they've made a modern FPS with why we loved Planetside, the big battles. Planetside was never a good FPS, the mechanics were horrible and it wasn't a fun game to play unless you had massive amounts of people playing because the core shooting was broken. Now hopefully we'll never get to see Planetside 2 with small scale battles, however making it a more modern shooter isn't a bad thing.

[Aurmanite]

It does feel like the game is being dumbed down for the CoD crowd.

I'll miss the nice little touches like the animations on entering/exiting a vehicle as well. It does feel like things are going backwards slightly :(

Name 2 things that are dumbed down. Support your arguments.

In reality, almost everything is more complex, honed, and refined.

Enter/exit animations are nifty, but they are hardly core principles of the game.

[EVILoHOMER]

It does feel like the game is being dumbed down for the CoD crowd.

I'll miss the nice little touches like the animations on entering/exiting a vehicle as well. It does feel like things are going backwards slightly :(

How was seeing the same animation over and over again while getting shot good? People make some weird argument about it being more realistic but in real life you can defend yourself when getting out of a vehicle.

Having no vehicle animation exit/enter animation brings it closer to realism than having them.

[EVILoHOMER]

Name 2 things that are dumbed down. Support your arguments.

In reality, almost everything is more complex, honed, and refined.

Enter/exit animations are nifty, but they are hardly core principles of the game.

I don't think back to Planetside and say "Them Animations made that game".....


They just got tedious to watch.

[Aurmanite]

I don't think back to Planetside and say "Them Animations made that game".....


They just got tedious to watch.

Exactly.

It makes me wonder if the people who are so vocal about the lack of enter/exit animations spent the majority of their time playing the game, or just hung out socialized with their outfits.

I was there for the M D K.

[GuyFawkes]

A slight case of chicken little and the sky falling in here.

I had reservations at first and similar gut reactions ,then it dawned on me : I'm an old(er) ps1 vet who played the original and the experiences I had 8yrs ago will always be imprinted on my memory with rose-tinted glasses forever. Time to let the new generation have its turn and, you know what? I may learn something ;)

I'm sure all the horse and cart fanatics had the same crisis of conscience when those noisy new-fangled ,smelly automobiles started littering the streets , and wished for a return to sweeping up horse shit .

[Envenom]

I can tell you one thing that is going to be brought up very quickly after launch. And I am flogging a dead horse I know and I don't want to get into another lengthy discussion about it but the lack of win condition will be a hot topic. How quickly they can come up with a solution for it will determine the game's shelf life. Basically it's a race to more than 3 conts and at least giving a cont win. Mark my words. I'll bow out of this thread cause it always ends up badly. Speed up the game to attract players who have been used to "winning" for years and lacking a clear solution to that will be paramount to resolve quickly.

Journey, not destination.

[diLLa]

I'd say you are "winning" if your faction possess the most areas.

Locking a continent is fun, but this system isn't so different actually as you could just warp onto a locked continent anyway.

[Aurmanite]

I can tell you one thing that is going to be brought up very quickly after launch. And I am flogging a dead horse I know and I don't want to get into another lengthy discussion about it but the lack of win condition will be a hot topic. How quickly they can come up with a solution for it will determine the game's shelf life. Basically it's a race to more than 3 conts and at least giving a cont win. Mark my words. I'll bow out of this thread cause it always ends up badly. Speed up the game to attract players who have been used to "winning" for years and lacking a clear solution to that will be paramount to resolve quickly.

Capturing a base is a win condition.

There were no real win conditions in Planetside. Locking a continent meant that you had to wait an hour (or more) for another decent fight to get going. Those were the most tedious and boring parts of the game.

[Raymac]

Capturing a base is a win condition.

There were no real win conditions in Planetside. Locking a continent meant that you had to wait an hour (or more) for another decent fight to get going. Those were the most tedious and boring parts of the game.

^ This

[Zekeen]

Capturing a base is a win condition.

There were no real win conditions in Planetside. Locking a continent meant that you had to wait an hour (or more) for another decent fight to get going. Those were the most tedious and boring parts of the game.

I'm sure they'll figure something out on the scale of continent locking without the problem with it at some point. In the meantime, we can just go keep shooting at each other till the sun goes down and the moon comes up and back again!

[Blackwolf]

You people are so transparent.

You're just bitching about the exact same stuff you've BEEN bitching about since you first learned about them. Do the rest of us a favor and stfu. Seriously the "I'm surprised drivers are their own gunners!" act is idiotic.

[GuyFawkes]

Capturing a base is a win condition.

There were no real win conditions in Planetside. Locking a continent meant that you had to wait an hour (or more) for another decent fight to get going. Those were the most tedious and boring parts of the game.

I digress , the flow of battle from continent to continent in the early days of the lattice made the game refreshing. I remember one or 2 members of my outfit logging on and saying, ''ffs, not cyssor again! fuck this, I'm off to play something else''
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out , and how long 3 continents can pacify people .I know techically most of the time in ps1 the reality was fighting was only on 1 or 2 continents , but you always had the opportunity to look for greener grass elsewhere.

[diLLa]

On the other hand, the continents don't have a set tileset and characteristics. So even on the continent itself you will find lots of variety. So now you might find a flow of battle from region to region

[Aurmanite]

I digress , the flow of battle from continent to continent in the early days of the lattice made the game refreshing. I remember one or 2 members of my outfit logging on and saying, ''ffs, not cyssor again! fuck this, I'm off to play something else''
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out , and how long 3 continents can pacify people .I know techically most of the time in ps1 the reality was fighting was only on 1 or 2 continents , but you always had the opportunity to look for greener grass elsewhere.

Most of this was caused by the number of people playing the game. There just weren't enough.

For a short time (relatively speaking), it wasn't uncommon to have 3 large battles poplocking 3 continents, and a number of smaller skirmishes spread across the rest. Unfortunately when populations started to dip it became "cyssor again", which was actually my favorite continent. There was only one real good battle on the go. This was problem that intensified when one side would eventually "win" and the fight would be over.

I actually dig the Sanctuary and lattice, but I think what they're trying to do in #2 will actually play out better.

[Blackwolf]

I still think each empire should have their own continent, having 3 land holds is, imo, a bit much.

Increasing the size of the land hold's shield would cut down on the possibility of surrounding and "blockading" it. And it would also help solve the over crowding potential with everyone logging into the same base.

It would also give a sense of accomplishment for battling across an enemies continent rather then more or less neutral territory.

[Troscus]

Yeah especially with this Ritalin infested generation that has the attention span of a retarded monkey in heat. :lol:

Jesus, does ANYONE born in the 80's have anything to do with their time other than bash anyone under 21? Off topic, I know, but I've been running into this crap everywhere.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Jesus, does ANYONE born in the 80's have anything to do with their time other than bash anyone under 21? Off topic, I know, but I've been running into this crap everywhere.

I know I sure don't... anything under the age of 24 should be viewed with suspicion, and anyone under the age of 21 is a child.

I also have an irrational hatred of children.

[dsi]

Name 2 things that are dumbed down. Support your arguments.

In reality, almost everything is more complex, honed, and refined.

Enter/exit animations are nifty, but they are hardly core principles of the game.

1: You do not have to put any thought into your vehicle and how you use it besides which weapon you want, no teamwork in tanks, no supply management, no stopping to hop out, repair, and grab more glue out of the trunk that you put there just in case, all of this while your gunner keeps an eye out so you have time to hop back in because now you magically teleport into and out of everything, your vehicle has infinite ammo, you can shoot everything and even switch to the small weapon freely to pretend that thing is useful, and the tank even repairs itself.

2: Providing ammunition to allies is just throwing down your magical ass-pack of ammunition that provides ammo for every weapon, even rockets that are larger than the damn thing.

In reality it's an extra shiny Battlefield with the playercount increased significantly, as well as glorified timers for everything via the resources.

[Burnzblood]

If you don't like what you see, get out of our community.

Game looks great! Cant wait to get that beta going!

[Red Beard]

I still think each empire should have their own continent, having 3 land holds is, imo, a bit much.

This.

Footholds on every continent will be too much I think...There's no reason you couldn't have a home continent with the foothold and just remove the continent locking...None that I can see anyway.

[Synapse]

Tbh I believe the answer to this lies somewhere in the outfit construction work they intend for the far future.

Higby talks about havign people build their own outposts and their own bases...where are they going to build that? Not on the already crowded handcrafted continents existing today.

My bet is there will be new territory for that system, which will bring new mechanics and a better "conquer more than just bases" gameplay.

[MrBloodworth]

Tbh I believe the answer to this lies somewhere in the outfit construction work they intend for the far future.

Higby talks about havign people build their own outposts and their own bases...where are they going to build that? Not on the already crowded handcrafted continents existing today.

My bet is there will be new territory for that system, which will bring new mechanics and a better "conquer more than just bases" gameplay.

While that may make for a neat feature in the future. It doesn't really address what I am talking about.


Unrelated: Its also very funny to see the usual suspects replying with out reading anything, and making assumptions in their head, and then attacking those assumptions. And obviously, I, am the troll.