Developer Paradigm

[amblingalong]

So it seems to me that the design decisions that are being made- particularly in terms of changes from PS1- largely follow a single pattern. In general, it seems like there are tradeoffs between meta- and strategy-level gameplay, like trying to lock a continent, and pure FPS play, that is, shooting at people. For example, low TTK and respawn times (arguably) make shooting more satisfying, because you kill people more quickly and get back in the fight more quickly, but also make long-term gains difficult to realize, and make it extremely difficult to plan coherent strategy for winning battles.

It seems the devs have largely chosen to emphasize the immediate FPS gameplay experience at the expense the larger strategy experience. Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls). That's not inherently good or bad, but it seems to be a common theme in many of the most controversial changes.

I really don't intend for this to turn into a rehash of things people hate or love or to extend endless debates over TTK or footholds- there are other threads for that- but I am interested to hear if people think this accurately summarizes the design decisions being made.

[Sturmhardt]

I really don't intend for this to turn into a rehash of things people hate or love or to extend endless debates over TTK or footholds- there are other threads for that- but I am interested to hear if people think this accurately summarizes the design decisions being made.

Yes, I agree. Its not that hidden though ;)

[Rivenshield]

Yeah. And frankly it sucks. One of the things that made PS great was logistics and supply. You had to park the AMS as close to the action as you could so people could top off on ammo; you had to make ANT runs. Now we have healing grenades and teleport-out-of-thin-air spawning on top of your SL. Oh, and we get to bound through the air on magical trampolines a la Tribes. I'm not sure why that rubs me the wrong way. It just fucking does.

No mixing/matching certs, no Spitfires, no hacking.... I can't do any of the things I did TEN YEARS AGO, and that's taken the wind out of my sails. I'm more or less in passive-waiting mode, seeing what SOE is going to come up with *this* time.

[CutterJohn]

Every coin has a flip side.

Base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting, for instance. Yes, it makes offense easier. But, it makes defense harder. You can't just line up and spam the choke point anymore. So how can you argue that its all to make things easier?

Also, I'd love to see exactly when and where people used coherent strategies in PS1 on a continent level. They did not. You will never, ever, ever, ever get strategic/coordinated play in pubs. It does not happen. If you want that kind of experience, you join an outfit that caters to like minded people. This has always been true.

As for footholds, stop bringing it up. You cannot eliminate an empires spawn points, else.. How could anyone spawn on the continent? Its an absurd argument, like asking how to shut down the warpgates in PS1. You can't.

[ArmedZealot]

So it seems to me that the design decisions that are being made- particularly in terms of changes from PS1- largely follow a single pattern. In general, it seems like there are tradeoffs between meta- and strategy-level gameplay, like trying to lock a continent, and pure FPS play, that is, shooting at people. For example, low TTK and respawn times (arguably) make shooting more satisfying, because you kill people more quickly and get back in the fight more quickly, but also make long-term gains difficult to realize, and make it extremely difficult to plan coherent strategy for winning battles.

I like how you are stating your opinion as fact here. You have no idea how a shorter TTK will affect strategic or tactical gameplay since PS2 will be for quite some time the only MMOFPS in existence with a BF3/BC/COD style TTK and you haven't even played it yet.

Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls).

These are all things that PS1 emphasized as well, except for the rapid TTK part. What is your point? I fail to see how these contribute to the devs seeming to focus on immeadiate FPS gameplay over larger goals for your specified reasons.

I don't disagree. We all know why they are focusing on the FPS experience. It was the biggest things lacking in PS1 and hurt it's sales when compared to other FPS's.

[amblingalong]

I like how you are stating your opinion as fact here

"Arguably" was the key word.

These are all things that PS1 emphasized as well,

Uhhh... what? PS1 was on the other extreme, with base fights in corridors which led to AOE spam and (IMO) boring gameplay. I'm a big fan of opening things up.

[Luieburger]

Oh, and we get to bound through the air on magical trampolines a la Tribes. I'm not sure why that rubs me the wrong way. It just fucking does.


Oh yea... it bothers me too. I hope they get rid of those.

[Malorn]

From what I've seen the developer intent is to..

1) build on what was great about PlanetSide
2) remove what sucked
3) "modernize" the shooter experience.

You can see all three of those goals in the game today. The rub, as always, is perception on what each of those things are.

Some things were removed that people liked, but they were removed with a reason - like sanctuaries. The slow pace of Planetside was perceived as something that sucked and so they have attempted to speed things up, including logistical. Sanctuary + Broadcast Warpgate - loading screen = Foothold. Instead of going back to sanc, getting a vehicle, going back to the gate, waiting to load/get into the continent, you can instead just do it at the gate directly. That's an optimization. It has other implications but that's the idea behind it.

Also people seem to widely vary on what "modernize" means, as people like different things about modern shooters.

Most concern I see is that the effort to modernize may be ripping the soul out of PlanetSide and their effort to remove some of the bad stuff is resulting in some babies getting thrown out with the bath water.

[Xeb]

and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls).
I have disagree here, It may have looked that way at E3 but only because they had made special spawn points for all the factions around the base...

To be spawning that close to a base you would need a gal, to get a gal that close you will need air superiority, to gain air superiority in a large battle you need AA and fighters to cover the area... etc etc Just getting to a base requires alot more coordination than it did in PS1... AMS was easymode :)

I don't want high walls and open courtyards back... they hardly glow with tactical opportunities...

[ArmedZealot]

"Arguably" was the key word.


There isn't even an arguably. That would imply that there is evidence to build an argument on. There isn't any here. Just building off false assumptions based on peoples anecdotes.

[amblingalong]

I think the idea that a rapid TTK/ quick respawn makes it harder to plan long-term strategy is entirely arguable, since it suggests that gains evaporate more quickly and losses are replaced more quickly.

If you don't think that it'll work out that way, fine, you might be right- we really don't know. But claiming there's no argument to be made here is just silly.

[CutterJohn]

I think the idea that a rapid TTK/ quick respawn makes it harder to plan long-term strategy is entirely arguable, since it suggests that gains evaporate more quickly and losses are replaced more quickly.

If you don't think that it'll work out that way, fine, you might be right- we really don't know. But claiming there's no argument to be made here is just silly.

My claim is it doesn't matter. Things were perfectly fine in PS1 when you'd wake up the next morning and find everything you fought over the night before gone to 3am hacks.


PS is an unwinnable game. The only viable long term strategy is to expect things to be stagnant, because that is all that will happen. Enjoy the fight for what it is. Figure out how to win tonight. Worry about tomorrow tomorrow.

[ArmedZealot]

I think the idea that a rapid TTK/ quick respawn makes it harder to plan long-term strategy is entirely arguable, since it suggests that gains evaporate more quickly and losses are replaced more quickly.

Players will come up with coordination and tactics independant of TTK in lieu of other gameplay mechanics. Revives become more important and commander skills with squad spawning are as well.

It's a sandbox, players will adapt and change tactics but that doesn't mean it is harder to do so.

[Synapse]

Congratulations, you've just found 3 points you can draw a line through and say its going somewhere. The evidence really isn't there.

Your pattern matching is overreaching on this one, and you need to reign it in. As others said you have no idea how the TTK will affect strategy (if that's even quantifiable after playing it...) and you've seen ONE base out of 70 on one of three continents?

We all like to make patterns, but you're grasping for one with this post, and it's not there.

They only did one thing to clearly affect strategic play and that's to remove continent lock. As someone who believes you shouldn't have to sacrifice fun for strategy (AKA: be stuck fighting on your base continent AGAIN), I think that's fine. Hopefully they do something else for bigger strategy play.

Lets see where else the devs go before we start drawing conclusions, eh?

[JPalmer]

Yeah. And frankly it sucks. One of the things that made PS great was logistics and supply. You had to park the AMS as close to the action as you could so people could top off on ammo; you had to make ANT runs. Now we have healing grenades and teleport-out-of-thin-air spawning on top of your SL. Oh, and we get to bound through the air on magical trampolines a la Tribes. I'm not sure why that rubs me the wrong way. It just fucking does.

No mixing/matching certs, no Spitfires, no hacking.... I can't do any of the things I did TEN YEARS AGO, and that's taken the wind out of my sails. I'm more or less in passive-waiting mode, seeing what SOE is going to come up with *this* time.

The Galaxy is now the AMS and will need to be parked and defended. It is huge which will require team work to defend. Squad spawn has its limits like there is a huge delay between squad spawns, the SL has to have the CERT, and you look like the damn human torch coming down.


The jump pads are so defending the base can be easier for the defenders as the bases are now way bigger or more open. The tech in Planetside allows for people to not die and respawn. I think you can accept some jump pads.

Healing nades. Logically make sense. It would be impossible to heal a group of 20 people in a reasonable amount of time. And you can still heal the old fashioned way too.

Oh and spitfires? Spitfires = A.I. They want everything player controlled and team work oriented. Is that not what you want? I find it funny you hate them adding things you think remove team play yet you want a A.I. turret that requires no team play.

[The Kush]

Yes you are exactly right and that is why old school vets like myself are somewhat dissapointed. The reason I loved PS1 so much is the amount of teamwork, coordination, planning, leadership, ect. was required to actually be successful and make a difference. I understand why the devs are changing this, because it makes the game more accessible for the casual player, but I for one will miss the old strategy based game instead of the free for all deathmatch.

Hopefully beta will put my fears to rest or these issues will be corrected in beta. As of now I am trying to stay positive.

[ArmedZealot]

As of now I am trying to stay positive.

Really? Wouldn't know it.

[Sirisian]

I think the problem isn't the developer's "paradigm", it's the community's overreaction to everything when it comes to balance and jumping to conclusion. If people took a more objective viewpoint toward new features and the TTK and understood none of it is set in stone then they'd realize the developers are simply testing out new ideas and concepts to make sure Planetside 2 can give players everything they want.

There's a huge reason why a vocal minority of vets keep commenting with "we'll see in beta" or "let's see it implemented and see if it works". They're understanding what the developers are attempting to do and why this alpha, and soon beta, testing is so critical to make sure things that are in work and to see if new ideas can work within the game. Sadly some players (as can be noticed from threads like these) would rather jump down their throats whenever something "new" is implemented. Especially when they do it in an irrational way without valid arguments. The developers are reading these forums and most of the comments have absolutely no justification to them.

On the comment of TTK. It's mostly just numbers. Something I'm sure the developers want to test and work out during beta and get feedback on. (Really they've already gotten more than enough feedback about it). If anything we as a community should try to limit our posts to just the core information to help the developers gather opinions and arguments.

Also listing off what you'd like to see goes a lot further in helping the developers than telling them simply that they are doing it wrong. Do you want more complicated bases with hallways and chokepoints?


It seems the devs have largely chosen to emphasize the immediate FPS gameplay experience at the expense the larger strategy experience. Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls).
Let's just be clear there's a huge difference between strategy and tactics. Permanent footholds are strategic gameplay elements. The TTK, base design, and how players fight for targets is tactical.

In Planetside 1 we have strategic systems like the lattice system and tech plant bonuses to unlock certain vehicles. In Planetside 2 we have a subjectively broken resource system to control strategic objectives. On top of that we have the mission system to control player movements strategically at the macroscale and voice comms for both tactical and strategic communication.

If you want strategy over tactics then start suggesting changes to the map layouts and the flow of combat between bases. Should there be bonuses for adjacent squares for certain bases? Should there be a clear lattice system?

If you want to discuss tactics that's fine, but realize that it's all up in the air still and arguing about the TTK with 100 players fighting versus 2K when the game launches is probably something the developers are aware of.

[Haro]

I think its the players, more than any real mechanics, that truly enabled the level of strategy and cooperation Planetside could reach. You can't really design strategy into the game, the dominance of zerg tactics in the original was proof of that (though it was technically a strategy... kinda.) As long as the game allowed large numbers of players into the same server (it does, now more than ever) and keeps the infrastructure of outfits, squads, and platoons that helped make coordination so much easier, players will provide the strategy. I think that will be stronger than ever, just because many of us have years of experience and practice to build off of, and it's almost guaranteed that more people will play Planetside 2 than the original ever saw, even at its peak.

But how many can argue that PS didn't need serious shooter reform. It's a nine year old game, and even in 2003, the ttk wasn't especially popular. Combine that with bugs, balancing issues, and a polarity between vehicles and infantry combat and I'd totally understand if people were put off by how it played. I think modernizing the system will help with popularity and provide a smoother and more fun experience. The overwhelmingly positive reaction to the game seems to point to the solid shooter mechanics even with a general lack of balancing.

It's really too soon to comment on strategy though, as no battles have really been fought on that large a scale. E3 was certainly no real model for it, given that it was designed in an uncharacteristic fashion for demo purposes.

[Madfish]

To be spawning that close to a base you would need a gal, to get a gal that close you will need air superiority, to gain air superiority in a large battle you need AA and fighters to cover the area... etc etc Just getting to a base requires alot more coordination than it did in PS1... AMS was easymode :)

I don't want high walls and open courtyards back... they hardly glow with tactical opportunities...

Here here, that's my take on the e3 demos - it demonstrated the core combat experience.

Games need to get the core repetitive experience right - and that's the Fps for PS. And to be frank ps1 didnt get that right!

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[p0intman]

Without logistical need there is no reason for coordinated strategy between bases. Without the ability to fully lock a continent, there is no global strategy. Without global strategy, ps2 is simply bf3 and cod with a planetside spin on larger maps.

I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love to see that there is potential for continental and intercontinental strategy. I haven't yet though. I'm afraid too much has been changed, this isn't what planetside is about so far. Like Malorn said, too many babies being tossed out with water. I'm afraid that too many new guys don't 'get' it and want it dumbed down.

I have disagree here, It may have looked that way at E3 but only because they had made special spawn points for all the factions around the base...

To be spawning that close to a base you would need a gal, to get a gal that close you will need air superiority, to gain air superiority in a large battle you need AA and fighters to cover the area... etc etc Just getting to a base requires alot more coordination than it did in PS1... AMS was easymode :)

I don't want high walls and open courtyards back... they hardly glow with tactical opportunities...

Have you ever driven an ams into a hotly contested area? Not easymode for the driver when he is just as likely to get shot or os'd upon deploying.

[Haro]

Another point I forgot to make: the devs are trying to go for more accessibility. I just glanced through a review of Planetside on IGN, and while I disagree with a lot of poorly made points made by the author, there was one thing I really couldn't contest with: the game wasn't fun if you didn't have an outfit. Even then, it wasn't always great if you had a group of friends to really organize with. The majority of players in the game's peak years were mostly zergers who didn't really get into a lot of the heavily organized stuff, a perspective we don't see anymore because only hardcore outfits remain after so long.

The game is striving to be more accessible with autojoin squads and hopefully a great way to introduce and integrate outfits and social structure to new players, because FPS games rarely have that. I think it may be easier now than in 2003, because clans have caught on more even in smaller fps games, but its still a very new and rpg-esque mechanic.

While I agree coordination and strategy are important for Planetside, the core experience needs to be better for people who don't have that.

[Xyntech]

Just imagine if PS2 was actually the first game, and launched with everything it currently has planned, and then they tried to release something like Planetside Next (PS1 with modern graphics) as the sequel.

People would be shitting themselves at some of the changes. Some because they were changing the style of the gunplay (longer TTK's and stuff like that), others because we were losing all sorts of awesome new features. I don't doubt people would be complaining about even some of the better systems from the first game, just because they were different and they didn't know how to deal with them yet.

My point being that PS2 is different, but there are a lot of good changes amongst the controversial. The game has to move forward or it will stagnate and die.

Players like p0intman ask for proof that some of the new systems won't fail miserably, but I ask for the opposite. I ask for proof that they will fail. I don't doubt that some things will need a little tweaking, but the bones of the new game seem solid enough to me. Prove me wrong. Gotta wait for beta for that. I certainly hope I'm not proved wrong in beta, but I doubt I will be.

[p0intman]

Players like p0intman ask for proof that some of the new systems won't fail miserably, but I ask for the opposite. I ask for proof that they will fail. I don't doubt that some things will need a little tweaking, but the bones of the new game seem solid enough to me. Prove me wrong. Gotta wait for beta for that. I certainly hope I'm not proved wrong in beta, but I doubt I will be.
:bitter vet:

I don't need to give you any, just look at SOE's track record.

[MedicDude]

The spawning system is going to need a lot of tweaking, this will get done in the beta. I'm also wary of the squad-spawn system, for the most part I feel it's simply not necessary, but maybe we can tweak it to make it work.

The drop podding inside bases will not make it through beta, it breaks so much tactical barriers and focuses all defense indoors, something from PS1 that PS2 would be wise NOT to repeat.

PS2 still needs chokepoints for strategy and to establish points of contention, but they need to be much wider than the 2 man corridors in PS1.

[BattsTR]

:bitter vet:

I don't need to give you any, just look at SOE's track record.

I echo this. I simply don't trust SOE. And some preliminary things I've seen on this game reinforce my opinion. Maybe beta will fix all my concerns? But i doubt it. For as many vets who are weary of some changes, there are people who are very quick to trust the Devs and "wait for beta", that's a great attitude to have I suppose but after the way they butchered the first game color me a skeptic.

[Xyntech]

:bitter vet:

I don't need to give you any, just look at SOE's track record.

You like PS1 well enough, don't you? :p

I think PS2 is going to be (almost) everything I loved about the original, with most of the annoying stuff fixed.

Doubtless SOE still has the potential to screw it up, especially post launch, but what I'm seeing from the developers themselves isn't worrying me at the moment.

I'd probably be more worried about some of the little sticking points if the developers were less open to feedback. But the core stuff like F2P and classes and heavy customization tiers are great. IMO, of course.

Anyhow, I could ask for examples of why the PS1 ways of doing stuff won't fail as well. Because that game certainly died a quick death, and to blame it on any one thing or the failings/tamperings of SOE corporate in general would be doing it's failure an injustice. Planetside failed on many levels, and would fail even harder in todays market.

I love Planetside and would play it, flaws and all, today, if it were like in the old days. But I would much rather play an improved version.

I guess I'm a bit of a bitter vet myself. Bitter at how the original game was such a flawed flop when it had so much potential.

The fact that it has loyal players playing it to this day is awesome, but it's a pale shadow if itself for me now. What it's become is just not for me. I think PS2 will bring a lot of people around once some of the minor issues are worked out in beta though. I definitely want it to be enjoyed by as many Planetside vets as possible.

I echo this. I simply don't trust SOE. And some preliminary things I've seen on this game reinforce my opinion. Maybe beta will fix all my concerns? But i doubt it. For as many vets who are weary of some changes, there are people who are very quick to trust the Devs and "wait for beta", that's a great attitude to have I suppose but after the way they butchered the first game color me a skeptic.

So ironic hearing people attack anything SOE as doomed to be terrible while defending an SOE game at the same time. Obviously we're all mad at the way the first game was screwed with as well, but clearly we all loved the first Planetside as a whole. I can understand suspecting that SOE will screw it up post launch like SW:G (and Planetside for that matter), but it seems like a lot of people think that company that put out Planetside isn't good enough to put out... Planetside. It makes no fucking sense. Especially considering how cool the devs have been about changing stuff that needs changing.

Some of the stuff hasn't been changed yet because the devs have a vision and want to actually test some of it out in beta before considering chucking it. Do you really think the devs who were so responsive with the kill cam shit will ignore mass outcry if something in beta is fundamentally broken? Maybe they know something we don't and some of their ideas are better than ours. I look forward to sorting the good from the bad.

And stuff like F2P isn't broken, it's essential. Diminishing populations from the first game is what was broken. F2P will fix more than it will break. I guarantee you that.

[Red Beard]

Without logistical need there is no reason for coordinated strategy between bases. Without the ability to fully lock a continent, there is no global strategy. Without global strategy, ps2 is simply bf3 and cod with a planetside spin on larger maps.

I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love to see that there is potential for continental and intercontinental strategy. I haven't yet though. I'm afraid too much has been changed, this isn't what planetside is about so far. Like Malorn said, too many babies being tossed out with water. I'm afraid that too many new guys don't 'get' it and want it dumbed down.



Have you ever driven an ams into a hotly contested area? Not easymode for the driver when he is just as likely to get shot or os'd upon deploying.

Without logistical need there is no reason for coordinated strategy between bases.

I see it simply as a matter of how much, not if, since on the larger scale, organized troops will win every time.

Without the ability to fully lock a continent, there is no global strategy. Without global strategy, ps2 is simply bf3 and cod with a planetside spin on larger maps.

While I think you're over-simplifying the issue, I do agree nonetheless. I'm more of a proponent of being able to kick factions off a continent, but intead of a lockout, various rewards for the achievement, with either little or no lockout time.

I take that angle because Higby has stated that they want to keep the content open to all the players, and I suspect that's a business-driven decision. I like the idea of neutral warp gates and continents, as I suspect the current approach of locking all three factions permanently within the conts have a tendency to stagnate front line movement too much. You are definitely right about the three continents essentially being cut off from each other. They might as well be different servers as far as I can tell...

Yeah I also think "modernization" needs to be a selective process, as there are a few changes in FPS's that have degraded game play, but since they've piggybacked onto popular games, they have been presumed to be improvements when they aren't.

[Red Beard]

Another point I forgot to make: the devs are trying to go for more accessibility. I just glanced through a review of Planetside on IGN, and while I disagree with a lot of poorly made points made by the author, there was one thing I really couldn't contest with: the game wasn't fun if you didn't have an outfit. Even then, it wasn't always great if you had a group of friends to really organize with. The majority of players in the game's peak years were mostly zergers who didn't really get into a lot of the heavily organized stuff, a perspective we don't see anymore because only hardcore outfits remain after so long.

The game is striving to be more accessible with autojoin squads and hopefully a great way to introduce and integrate outfits and social structure to new players, because FPS games rarely have that. I think it may be easier now than in 2003, because clans have caught on more even in smaller fps games, but its still a very new and rpg-esque mechanic.

While I agree coordination and strategy are important for Planetside, the core experience needs to be better for people who don't have that.

Paradoxically, though I am a big proponent of team play, a major portion of my time on PS1 was lone-wolfing in a reaver. And yeah; that dude is dead wrong about non being in an outfit. PS1 is my favourite game of all time, and somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of my time was spent following my own orders ;) It is true though that I was playing when player populations were quite high and poplocks were daily.

I really think the devs are too worried about giving access to everything all the time though...it makes people want something more when you tell them they can't have it, lol.

[Ratstomper]

Part of me feels similar, but I'm withholding judgment until I actually get hands on and see how I like it. If they implement things well, then I may wind up not missing some of the few things that the new planetside lacks.

[Red Beard]

I can understand suspecting that SOE will screw it up post launch like SW:G (and Planetside for that matter), but it seems like a lot of people think that company that put out Planetside isn't good enough to put out... Planetside. It makes no fucking sense.

Boy did you get that right... Schizophrenic fear and joy of anticipation I guess, lol

Part of me feels similar, but I'm withholding judgment until I actually get hands on and see how I like it. If they implement things well, then I may wind up not missing some of the few things that the new planetside lacks.

Agreed...it seems like theres this tension between people freaking out prematurely over things they might not like in the game, and then there's the opposite end of the spectrum where people freak out if you simply talk about what you'd like to see in the game, even if you're cool with it not being exactly how you envisioned it...You can feel it slowly build the closer beta gets! :lol:

[DSxGIIR]

Only thing I'm not liking is when your respawning. It seems to close to Battle Field, selecting a class your class while your're about to respond seems kind of "clonie" of the BF series. I mean I slike the old PS1 spawning, Spawn in a spawn tubes go to the equipment terminal select you custom load out and then your out the door. I'm guess they trying to make it more convenient in putting you back into the battle.

[BattsTR]

Only thing I'm not liking is when your respawning. It seems to close to Battle Field, selecting a class your class while your're about to respond seems kind of "clonie" of the BF series. I mean I slike the old PS1 spawning, Spawn in a spawn tubes go to the equipment terminal select you custom load out and then your out the door. I'm guess they trying to make it more convenient in putting you back into the battle.

Yea its all about that. I kinda liked the process in the original game of spawning, loadout etc. I felt like the long travel times gave the game some substance as well, whether it be using the warpgates or having to run an ant.

[super pretendo]

I can't understand instant respawn times. It just makes killing people decisively and patiently trivial. Think of it this way; how useful is a spy in tf2 on instant respawn servers? The answer is not at all, because they value being able to infiltrate, taking their time to position and survive, the the payoff is tiny since those three killed people are going to be there instantly while it took you 10 minutes total to pull off and live. A heavy could just do the same and die while taking 1 minute to do it, and he respawns instantly. So it really ruins Any decisive strategization that is more than just zerging. Another issue is people instantly being able to change roles to counter any possible strategy almost instantly. So while battles would otherwise be decide from long term thinking and a grand strategy, that is now irrelevant since meta weaknesses don't exist for more than a minute or two.

I will write a more in depth business analysis of the decision when i get home

[DSxGIIR]

Yea its all about that. I kinda liked the process in the original game of spawning, loadout etc. I felt like the long travel times gave the game some substance as well, whether it be using the warpgates or having to run an ant.

Another thing I'm not digging the how only the infiltrator the only class can hack, In all my load outs in PS1 I was always a Adv Hacker...now I have to spec into a specific class to do so. Things may change in beta but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

PS1 gave a lot of freedom on certs and the freedom of customization seems restricted. If I'm wrong please tell me. The game seems to be leaning toward tribes and BattleField.

[Xyntech]

One thing I could see them end up doing is allowing a lot of classes to heavily specialize themselves so that you can do something like heal as an Infiltrator or hack as a Light Assault.

What I don't see ever returning is being able to be an engi+medic+hacker+etc at the same time, and I think that's one of the best things to come out of the class system. They can make those roles be more powerful if they aren't worried about everyone having access to all of those things at once.

I do hope we see vehicle jacking return. I'm sure there are a lot of problems to address, but it was a lot of fun, even on the receiving end for me. Frustrating sometimes, but always in a fun way for me.