Complexity of the Game

[Deice]

I had introduced many friends to Planetside in the past. Not many stayed… When asked about the game, most liked it but had said that it was overly complex and level progression was slow. Being a new player was difficult though it actually kept me going! Will this deter new players in Planetside 2 even being free to play? How much is too much? Waiting to see how the mission system pans out.

[Otleaz]

No, they are designing the game to be as easy to understand as possible.

[NEWSKIS]

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

[Clonehunter]

Level Progression? I think I heard of that for PS1, but I wasn't sure about PS2. Is that going to be a feature for PS2?

[Deice]

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

I did enjoy the complextiy of PS1. I hope it's not just a dumbed down ver with updated graphics... Still looking forward to playing and searching every nook and cranny of the game and UI.

[NEWSKIS]

I did enjoy the complextiy of PS1. I hope it's not just a dumbed down ver with updated graphics... Still looking forward to playing and searching every nook and cranny of the game and UI.

The complexity was what gave you so many different things to do in the first game.

[amblingalong]

As excited as I am for this game, one of the saddest things for me has been the degree to which systems have been neutered or taken out entirely. In particular, the ability for a single really good infiltrator to turn the tide of entire battles by taking out generators, the cc, and spawn tubes while overcoming challenges like limited inventory (so you had to carefully plan your items and hack supply closets) and base pain modules/automated turrets with interlink.

I think PS2 will be awesome, but in terms of that type of super tactical gameplay, I don't expect much. The bases have explicitly an intentionally been designed to play like typical FPS maps, instead of a carefully crafted puzzle your team had to solve.

[amblingalong]

It's also worth noting that a huge amount of strategy surrounding radar/mosquito coverage/Interlink/audio amplifiers has been removed, partially because there are no longer automated turrets (whether you feel this is good or bad, it undeniably lessens the importance of information warfare to some degree) and partially because stamina (and thus implant management, surging, etc) isn't in the game.

Basically, PS2 will be a great experience, but much, much less complex. Some people will like that, some won't.

[Toppopia]

Don't you guys see? This is Higby's plan. He will make the game simple to draw in the BF3/COD crowd, then once they are hooked, ie, after 6 months to a year, he will start bringing in way more tactical stuff so that the BF3/COD people are used to a strategic game and don't immediately think "Oh my gosh, this game is too complex". And thus, i just revealed Higby's masterplan and he will most likely have me assassinated now. But please wait till i have played before you kill me. :p

[Deice]

As excited as I am for this game, one of the saddest things for me has been the degree to which systems have been neutered or taken out entirely. In particular, the ability for a single really good infiltrator to turn the tide of entire battles by taking out generators, the cc, and spawn tubes while overcoming challenges like limited inventory (so you had to carefully plan your items and hack supply closets) and base pain modules/automated turrets with interlink.

I think PS2 will be awesome, but in terms of that type of super tactical gameplay, I don't expect much. The bases have explicitly an intentionally been designed to play like typical FPS maps, instead of a carefully crafted puzzle your team had to solve.

Is there a happy medium? Are there in depth support/non combat rolls? Most cod/bf players are concerned abut K/D, No? Don't get me wrong... I look at it. I have been so pissed about it I would play a support roll for a while.

[amblingalong]

Is there a happy medium? Are there in depth support/non combat rolls? Most cod/bf players are concerned abut K/D, No? Don't get me wrong... I look at it. I have been so pissed about it I would play a support roll for a while.

Support roles are incredibly important in PS2. Engineers and medics are the classic examples, but also troop transport pilots, scouts and spotters, long range fire support from liberators or MBTs... Theres plenty to do.

K/D is kinda irrelevant in PS1, honestly. If you get no kills but take out the spawn tubes and generator of a base, you can accomplish way more than getting 200 kills that are immediately respawned.

[Toppopia]

Support roles are incredibly important in PS2. Engineers and medics are the classic examples, but also troop transport pilots, scouts and spotters, long range fire support from liberators or MBTs... Theres plenty to do.

K/D is kinda irrelevant in PS1, honestly. If you get no kills but take out the spawn tubes and generator of a base, you can accomplish way more than getting 200 kills that are immediately respawned.

My most played class probably will be the medic or Light Assault, because i like being a medic, and will they have any unique weapons?

And i will like LA for flanking enemies and getting into annoying spots.

And whichever class has a proper Light Machine gun, i will play as that, unless all guns can get a drum mag, then i will outfit my medic to be a suppressive medic.

So support classes will be important as you say, because who will transport/support our brave COD people that don't like using vehicles or playing support classes? Thats where we come in, the glorious team work orientated people.

[Littleman]

I'd say the complexity is actually deeper this time around...

First game, cert points paid for base equipment you couldn't do anything with but grab and use. The "complexity" came from setting up your inventory efficiently, and being properly equipped for the situations you weren't planning to find yourself in. EI, infantry bringing along a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle or both and a mid-range handgun (the AMP is pretty beast with proper tap-fire, actually) was generally a good idea if the fight was outdoors.

This game, we get all that right out the gate, but it's sectioned between classes, however now you get to modify it all with side grades.

I think complexity was the wrong word for PS1, it was more of a gap due to old, archaic systems, such as the network coding. Vets abused the code with ADAD. Newbs didn't quite understand that, especially as time went on and broadband became widely available, so the idea that the game is compensating for 56k was completely alien to them. Couple that with slow TTK's with anything but a heavy assault weapon, and not having the certifications to afford everything plus implants one needs to be prepared for a multitude of situations like most of the longer term players could, and it was just discouraging.

New people don't like dieing when they feel they should have won. This isn't a "get over it" scenario: a game NEEDS new blood to survive, especially one that relies on people for there to be a game. No one can force anyone to keep playing when they're not having fun. The words "it'll get better if you just commit" are empty and hollow: the game needs to be great the moment they hit "enter game."

As one noteworthy example, getting the jump on someone must equal a kill if one's aim is true, or it's bull$#!% worth quitting over. I almost did and I was coming back as a vet. I've spoken with real newbs and they did quit over that scenario. Their MA rifle should be able to KILL in less than half a magazine of well placed shots. Essentially, before the bastard they're shooting has time to turn around kill them MUCH faster with their better gun.

Part of what caused PS1's decline was the thick wall that was going from cannon fodder to someone who can perform half-way decently. NO ONE likes to die over and over and over and over and over again with few kills to show for it.

First impressions are everything. I was lucky enough to get to play Planetside when it first started, dazed and confused after a HART drop, only to solo down two NC as my Vanu despite how $#!%%& the pulsar was at the time, using a rock for cover (I was playing tactical before CoD 1 was even released.) I felt awesome, and proceeded to climb the hill and taking that tower right after that. Everyone was a newb back then.

8 years later, you have long time vets that have seen it all, know what strategies work, how the netcode operates, etc, smashing newbs to bits. There's no way to ease them in nicely, because vets don't know to nor how to hold back. They're prepared for anything and everything. The new guy is not.

So to reiterate, I think PS2 will actually be the more complex game this time around, but SOE knows they have to make the newb experience actually enjoyable for more than 10% - if that many - of the new players joining in some years down the road. So if the game feels "dumbed-down" to you, I can't convince you otherwise, but I can tell you it's so you'll always have a lot of people to shoot at, instead of the same few familiar faces you see in PS1 now, and not because they're doing anything to stand out from the crowd.

[amblingalong]

I think you're missing the point, which is that while plenty of FPS aspects have been improved, a ton of systems- especially with the bases- have been removed or changed to resemble typical FPS maps. Basically taking over a base now looks a lot like a large scale deathmatch, with the winner capturing the facility. In the original you could do things like take out generators/spawn tubes, you could install modules, you got lattice benefits, you had storage lockers that played a key role in infiltration... It's not inherently good or bad, it's just much more like a deathmatch as compared to the originals cerebral problem-solving elements.

[Littleman]

Not complex by any means, some of those I'd call common sense in taking a base with as little resistance as possible Especially at bio labs... Of course, by extension, they could also be called dick moves that ended fights fairly abruptly.

Regarding the locker and lattice bit. Those are unfortunate consequences of rendering them for the most part moot via hexes and no looting + spawning in with the load out of your choosing.

[Brusi]

Don't you guys see? This is Higby's plan. He will make the game simple to draw in the BF3/COD crowd, then once they are hooked, ie, after 6 months to a year, he will start bringing in way more tactical stuff so that the BF3/COD people are used to a strategic game and don't immediately think "Oh my gosh, this game is too complex". And thus, i just revealed Higby's masterplan and he will most likely have me assassinated now. But please wait till i have played before you kill me. :p

Core combat and Aftershock were complex...

[atheistunicycle]

The complexity was what gave you so many different things to do in the first game.

The original wasn't all that complex to begin with...

[Chronic]

PS1 was complex?

Games like ArmA, X3, and EVE are complex....

[Deice]

It's funny.:) Reading the replies has made me change my views a little. I was originally concerned about new players being turned off by an overly complex game where all they do is die over and over. New player frustration will be hard to overcome in a game setting like PS because of the persistent, and massive scale. How do you reward a player and keep them fighting, even if not doing very well? (K/D ratio) I'm not here to debate whether PS1 was too complex/difficult or not, because it will be different form player to player. There is nothing to compare it to. I've tried... What is important is how do you keep a new player, playing? Again, how much is to much? I like complexity and options. Let's hope it "feels" like Planetside.

[p0intman]

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

This. They're sacrificing the soul of the game to get more people to try it. Its shitty but there you go.

[Cufox]

Simple or complex. It is all what you make it. I am honestly getting tired of the "dumbed down" comments. FPS has evolved over the years. Some ideas work, others don't, but there is not a whole lot new under the sun.

Attention span is also decreasing for the populous. One recent study claimed it has dropped from 15 seconds to 5 for the average person. On that, who really finds ANT runs fun or waiting 15 min for a base to flip?

Even with more "streamlined" gameplay, this is a wargame. It can and will get extremely complex. The game doesn't end at point and shoot for some of us. Planning and simulating real action and watching how people react? Not simple, especially when the group you run with plays "smart" and enters in to a battle with a glut of chuckleheads.

[polywomple]

Long story short, you can MAKE it complicated however way you want.

Example outfits.

[Toppopia]

Long story short, you can MAKE it complicated however way you want.

Example outfits.

This ^

Because you will have people who like simple games and just log in everyday to see how many kills they get. Then log off.

But for hopefully most of us, we log on, see what bases are lost/gained, see where there could be a weakness, discuss with outfit, find a good target, work out a good attack strategy, get ready, then attack.

So as this guy said, it can be as simple or complex as we want, and can get more complex if the resource system is expanded upon like in that resource denial thread, some awesome ideas in there.

[Canaris]

PS1 was complex?

Games like ArmA, X3, and EVE are complex....

I was going to post something similar, thanks for taking care of it :)

[Sabot]

Yeah, the day we have to calculate transversal velocity for strafing around a target, optimal and falloff range for every type of ammunition in every type of gun, manage energy usage in vehicles and running passive/active shields to counter the different ammo types I'm prepared to call the game complex... :)

[diLLa]

Planetside 1 was complex?

What?

[ChipMHazard]

PS1 was complex?

Games like ArmA, X3, and EVE are complex....

Heh yeah, seems like a somewhat strange thing to call Planetside.

Also we have yet to see all content that will be included in the launch version, so I fail to see how people can already have labeld the game as being "simple". Perhaps reserving jugdement for when one has actually tried the launch build would be in order.

[maddoggg]

I really hope SOE makes the difference between dumbing down the game and making the game more accessible.
For example bf3 was a typical example of dumbing down the game to the point where it felt more like COD than bf.

Dumbing down the game means:lowering TTK,weapon recoil and making everything more spamable and spray and pray tacking beeing a valid option,removing team work features and creating meatgrinder maps.

Making the game more accessible means:Make many detailed video tutorials,make offline practise with bots or something like this,try to make it so that low ranked players would play against low ranked players and wont get bashed so hard.


From what i have seen so far from ps2 SOE actually seems to make that difference as the game seems more accesible,but not dumbed down(ofcourse i havent played ps1 so i could be rong).
In it's current state the game looks even more tactical and deep than even the very best of bf games for example.

[ThermalReaper]

Honestly, I mourn the loss of the inventory system even if I didn't play the original. That looks like an amazing mechanic.

[Pillar of Armor]

PS1 was complex?

Games like ArmA, X3, and EVE are complex....

This^

http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu203/nyotasol/newlearningcurve.jpg

On average there are 40k people playing it at any moment and the total player base is about 300k. It's not as high as WoW or anything, but it shows that people are willing to play complex games.

[Hyperz]

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

This might be a bit offtopic but, BF vets wouldn't have any problem with PS2 being as complex as PS1. The guys playing BF3 are mostly CoD players, and those guys probably wouldn't like something like PS1. But then again they probably won't like PS2 either. The "real" BF community is pretty similar to that of PS1 as far as I can tell (I'm an ex BF vet and I LOVE PS1/2).

[Knotz]

I think the most annoying thing about these forums is the CoD/BF3 hate :/ fucking elitists :/

[Littleman]

Dumbing down the game means:lowering TTK,weapon recoil and making everything more spamable and spray and pray tacking beeing a valid option,removing team work features and creating meatgrinder maps.

Eh... to be fair, all PS2 is getting is lower TTK's. Run and gun was more than a valid tactic in PS1 even in longer range fire fights as long as you fired in bursts. Sure the accuracy wasn't as good as being crouched, but it was still tight enough to score a good number of hits even at longer ranges.


Honestly, I mourn the loss of the inventory system even if I didn't play the original. That looks like an amazing mechanic.

Yes and no. The concept was cool, as it allowed us to ask how much ammo we can bring, medkits, a spare weapon, etc. In practice, most infantry donned heavy armor and attempted to fit in ammo and medkits, and near always packed a med tool, armor tool, and two weapons of their choosing, and occasionally a spare dumbfire bazooka. My bag rummaging days have taught me this is pretty much standard among infantry. The bazooka (devastator) being there was about the only real random element.

Free-form does not necessarily equal variety. People WILL find the most efficient path of least resistance when given the freedom to do so. It's why "customization" options in other MMO's typically get broken down to cookie cutter builds that are practically must haves. But generally, these options are strictly beneficial. It's also why Valve stuck to a linear path in Left4Dead instead of going open world like they had originally planned - play testers found a route they liked and ran it over and over anyway.

Weapon modifications in PS2 are a different beast though, since side grades tend to throw a wrench into the works and they effect the core of how a weapon works, not what weapons one brings with them, and everyone has a different opinion on how they want their rifle to feel when they pull the trigger.

As for teamwork aspects, I don't see how PS2 encourages solo play any more than Rexo/HA/AV/Med/Eng did in PS1...

[ThermalReaper]

Let's be honest, when was the last time you've seen someone not hate CoD when it's mentioned on a website? It's beating a dead horse.
"CoD sucks" "OMG WHAT A GOD"
EDIT: And thanks Littleman for explaining the inventory system. Still sounds awesome.

[basti]

I had introduced many friends to Planetside in the past. Not many stayed… When asked about the game, most liked it but had said that it was overly complex and level progression was slow. Being a new player was difficult though it actually kept me going! Will this deter new players in Planetside 2 even being free to play? How much is too much? Waiting to see how the mission system pans out.

So what are you those guys playing these days? Pac Man?

Planetside wasnt complex at all, it was simple if you opened you eyes.

And i do hope PS2 is more complex. Needs to be! :)

[GreatMazinkaise]

So what are you those guys playing these days? Pac Man?

Planetside wasnt complex at all, it was simple if you opened you eyes.

And i do hope PS2 is more complex. Needs to be! :)

It can be, but only three continents at the start throttles the level of complexity that can be implemented quite a bit at the macro level.

[ThermalReaper]

What do you have against pac man basti? Huh?!

Anyways, I believe that we are giving modern gamers too little credit. But at the same time, a good chunk of them are people who are turned off by complexity. So how do we solve that? I think Toppopia had a good idea in which they should gradually increase the complexity by updates until they are used to it.

[diLLa]

The complexity of a game is not always determined by the game mechanics, but usually by it's players.

Quake is as simple as it can be, but I dare you tell me it's an easy game. The players playing it made it to one of the most mechanically complex games ever.

As long as players playing it keep optimizing their own strategy and gameplay, the overall complexity of the game should go up.

[ChipMHazard]

I think the most annoying thing about these forums is the CoD/BF3 hate :/ fucking elitists :/

Aye, seems to be a running gag. A completely pointless one at that.

[Littleman]

It can be, but only three continents at the start throttles the level of complexity that can be implemented quite a bit at the macro level.

Even with 10 continents, there's currently nothing to encourage conquering one continent over the other. No benefits and no inter-continental links.

*Shrug*

Not that the plan is for any one continent to ever be conquered, especially not right now with only 3. Heck, it seems like when we get access to beta having even so many as 2 will be a surprise.

[bullet]

I don't see how Planetside was complex. You gain battle rank (levels), certify in veh/armor/weapons/etc, and go fight with the rest of your colored faction that is shooting 2 other different colored guys.

The game was pretty simple, but the fact that there wasn't much in the way of interactive tutorials other than the little info panels that pop-up. The 2 most common problems I would see people facing were, "Wheres the fight?" and "How do I get there?". One was solved by instant action, but it didn't give you a definite direction/objective. The second was solved later by certs being lowered on the ATVs and the Harasser but still left you with the first problem of "Wheres the fight?".

[Astrok]

Sadly they're trying to get the bf/cod communities into it so its not going to be as complex as the original.

I think u can't compare ps1 with ps2.

fps did change alot in the years.

[Jaegen]

I think people are not putting "complex" in the same category. PS1 was not that complex for the individual soldier, going around, blowing people up. The complexity came with the big picture work of outfits and commanders. Choosing what base to attack, defend, disable, etc. could be incredibly complex. To the individual soldier, it's just a base attack. To the commander, it's securing a key facility in a network, denying an opponent resources, or even creating a diversion from another plan. That's where I think PS1 was complex and I hope to see similar things in PS2.

[IgloGlass]

Honestly the first FPS I played seriously was CoD 4. I've never played BF but I'm extremely excited for PS2. Just because someone started of with other FPS games than Planetside does not mean that they aren't interested in a more complex form of games. The console players are an entirely different subject. They are the stereotypical CoD players at 12 years old whom only mind their K/D ratio. Holding any form of prejudice against "normal" FPS players on PC just seems ridicoulus to me.

[Littleman]

I didn't see much complexity in the old Planetside even at the outfit level. It was certainly more complex than the solo gig - which to be frank is what matters in a new blood's first impression - but the lattice system actually simplified a few things. Need to cut off their tank supply? Hit the tech plant and kill it's gen. Even if you can't take it, the enemy still has lost access to their heavy armor for the time being. It just demanded a fair amount of teamwork to hold that tiny little room for as long as possible.

And at any given point, there were at most 3 bases to choose to attack, and the zerg was hard to herd in the direction they didn't initially migrate towards.

PS2's hex system is fairly free form, flanks can happen and they matter. Resource denial is an actual strategy. Cutting the enemy off from the rest of their territories... actually we still need to see how well that works. However, admittedly there's no prize for conquering the continent entirely making the continent itself a tactical asset worth fighting over, but to be fair, we're only starting the game off with a planned 3 whole continents.

If the micro level of the game isn't hammered out and exciting from the start, the macro level will collapse right along with it.

[TeaLeaf]

Aye, seems to be a running gag. A completely pointless one at that.

CoD/BF3 Kiddies have basically become an urban legend in every FPS community outside of those two games. They are apparently gremlins that infiltrate every game and use magic powers to turn it into CoD. Their powers are not limited to FPS games, apparently RTS and RPG games are frequently dumbed down for CoD kiddies.

Did that sound ridiculous? It should have.

Anyyyyway. I didn't play PS1, so I may just be ignorant but the only place I see complexity being reduced is in the large scale map. There doesn't seem to be that many strategies you can try on a continent scale because all bases are just resource points for a different kind of resource. Beyond "We need some more of X, so lets attack Base Y" there doesn't seem to be much to consider for the major strategies.

[PredatorFour]

Dont get us started on what strategies are being dumbed down/ or viable now. That will be a new thread in the near future!:)

[Gandhi]

I don't think it was complex at all, but it was hard to get into. I think it was mostly the high TTK that made it hard for new players. I mean, you can suck pretty bad in BF3 but still manage to kill people fairly regularly. If you sucked in PS1 you were more likely to get steamrolled constantly, and that was mostly due to the sheer number of times you had to hit someone to kill him. If his aim was better than yours he'd probably win the fight, even if you had surprise on your side. Generally the higher the TTK the more influence a player's skill has on the outcome.

And I'm not saying this to hate on BF3. Lower TTK makes your game more accessible to people, and it can be fun too because it generally makes the game more hectic. I'm glad it's being lowered a bit this time around, but I'm still an advocate for slightly higher than normal.

[Littleman]

I don't think anyone here has called for CoD quick kills, heh. 1-2 shot kills are best kept to that game. I like that PS2 seems to look and feel more like Halo on legendary or 50% health and shield modifiers in multiplayer, only ADS is part of the gun play mechanics in this iteration. A few shots into the regenerative shield, then a few more into the target's actual health pool to drop them.

[wasdie]

The complexities of Planetside were actually due to the players way of using the relatively simple gameplay mechanics. There is nothing overly "complex" about Planetside, it's just a bit confusing because the tutorial is paper thin and the people all play the game in totally different ways than you interpret everything when you first start.

Once you learn the basic mechanics of how base captures work, the game becomes a very simple game to understand. Complexities come from how players using the mechanics together and in unique ways. It's only as complicated as a game of Battlefield, it's just that Battlefield is a lot easier to understand right out of the gate.

I'm thinking the same thing will happen with Planetside 2. Yes they have iron sights and a lower TTK, but these are modern conventions that gamers today expect in their FPSs. Planetside 2 is going to have a whole different set of strategies because of this. These strategies are what is going to make the game complex, just like in Planetside 1. They'll come together in unique ways and will change all of the time depending on how players counter the new strategies. It makes for very dynamic gameplay.

[Xyntech]

Yes, Planetside 1 was actually relatively simple, but still hard to get into. I think that PS2 will be easier to get into, but similarly simple, with the complexity again coming from the community.

I think PS2 will actually foster more complexity in a lot of areas this time around, and let's not forget that a lot of PS1's most important strategic features were added after launch, so PS2 if properly supported could grow into a rather ridiculously deep game.

I hope that they are able to end a lot of layers of depth time PS2, while keeping it easy to get into. I think that the mission system, quicker pacing and fun fluid gun play will keep it very inviting to new players, with F2P being the final barrier removed.

[wasdie]

Yes, Planetside 1 was actually relatively simple, but still hard to get into. I think that PS2 will be easier to get into, but similarly simple, with the complexity again coming from the community.

I think PS2 will actually foster more complexity in a lot of areas this time around, and let's not forget that a lot of PS1's most important strategic features were added after launch, so PS2 if properly supported could grow into a rather ridiculously deep game.

I hope that they are able to end a lot of layers of depth time PS2, while keeping it easy to get into. I think that the mission system, quicker pacing and fun fluid gun play will keep it very inviting to new players, with F2P being the final barrier removed.

I think the worst part of PS1 from a learning curve perspective was the disparity of weaponry between BR1 players and vets. You seem so pathetically useless at a low battle rank. Since the squad/outfit mechanics aren't explained, it's very difficult for a new player to understand how to capture bases and gain BEP.

It's also very frustrating to get killed almost instantly by a guy rocking the Heavy Assault and a REX suit even though you got the clear jump on them. This pisses off a lot of players causing them to rage quit and I think diminishes the importance of positioning in favor of heavy weapons.

So once a new player got to BR 10 or whatnot, there was still a lot of decisions to make as to how to spec your character. Often players would pair up certs that didn't work together well. This would then put them at a major disadvantage as they couldn't easily respec. Now in PS2 that *should* not be a factor.

I think people, especially the hardcore fans, misinterpret a very frustrating set of features as "complex". As other posters said, you can't just tell people to keep playing the game and eventually it will get fun. That's not the point of why we played games. That was acceptable 10 years ago when technology and design was so limited that poor gameplay mechanics were all we had and a new game didn't come out every week. Our standards are much higher and we have way to much variety now.

A F2P game that isn't easy to get into will die. Similarly, a F2P game that is to simple and doesn't have robust enough gameplay to keep you coming back is also going to die. Gotta find that mix.

[Smokingrabbit]

ps1 started out stratigic and simple. as they added expansions and patches it became less stratigic and more complicated. This is the reason i stopped playing after core combat came out like so many others.

[JPalmer]

Oh PC gamers how I wish I didn't know thee.

This thread is a fucking cesspool of people on high horses giving each other dutch runners.

[Gandhi]

Oh PC gamers how I wish I didn't know thee.

This thread is a fucking cesspool of people on high horses giving each other dutch runners.
It has nothing to do with horses, it's just the way it is. You wouldn't say EVE is as easy to get into as Tribes because it just isn't.

[ThermalReaper]

It has nothing to do with horses, it's just the way it is. You wouldn't say EVE is as easy to get into as Tribes because it just isn't.

That's like saying The original Top gear is much better than the American version. I have no idea why, but it's just is.

[The Degenatron]

I'd say the complexity is actually deeper this time around...

First game, cert points paid for base equipment you couldn't do anything with but grab and use. The "complexity" came from setting up your inventory efficiently, and being properly equipped for the situations you weren't planning to find yourself in. EI, infantry bringing along a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle or both and a mid-range handgun (the AMP is pretty beast with proper tap-fire, actually) was generally a good idea if the fight was outdoors.

This game, we get all that right out the gate, but it's sectioned between classes, however now you get to modify it all with side grades.

I think complexity was the wrong word for PS1, it was more of a gap due to old, archaic systems, such as the network coding. Vets abused the code with ADAD. Newbs didn't quite understand that, especially as time went on and broadband became widely available, so the idea that the game is compensating for 56k was completely alien to them. Couple that with slow TTK's with anything but a heavy assault weapon, and not having the certifications to afford everything plus implants one needs to be prepared for a multitude of situations like most of the longer term players could, and it was just discouraging.

New people don't like dieing when they feel they should have won. This isn't a "get over it" scenario: a game NEEDS new blood to survive, especially one that relies on people for there to be a game. No one can force anyone to keep playing when they're not having fun. The words "it'll get better if you just commit" are empty and hollow: the game needs to be great the moment they hit "enter game."

As one noteworthy example, getting the jump on someone must equal a kill if one's aim is true, or it's bull$#!% worth quitting over. I almost did and I was coming back as a vet. I've spoken with real newbs and they did quit over that scenario. Their MA rifle should be able to KILL in less than half a magazine of well placed shots. Essentially, before the bastard they're shooting has time to turn around kill them MUCH faster with their better gun.

Part of what caused PS1's decline was the thick wall that was going from cannon fodder to someone who can perform half-way decently. NO ONE likes to die over and over and over and over and over again with few kills to show for it.

First impressions are everything. I was lucky enough to get to play Planetside when it first started, dazed and confused after a HART drop, only to solo down two NC as my Vanu despite how $#!%%& the pulsar was at the time, using a rock for cover (I was playing tactical before CoD 1 was even released.) I felt awesome, and proceeded to climb the hill and taking that tower right after that. Everyone was a newb back then.

8 years later, you have long time vets that have seen it all, know what strategies work, how the netcode operates, etc, smashing newbs to bits. There's no way to ease them in nicely, because vets don't know to nor how to hold back. They're prepared for anything and everything. The new guy is not.

So to reiterate, I think PS2 will actually be the more complex game this time around, but SOE knows they have to make the newb experience actually enjoyable for more than 10% - if that many - of the new players joining in some years down the road. So if the game feels "dumbed-down" to you, I can't convince you otherwise, but I can tell you it's so you'll always have a lot of people to shoot at, instead of the same few familiar faces you see in PS1 now, and not because they're doing anything to stand out from the crowd.

+1

Game complexity should come from advanced squad based tactics, not from the basics of shooting a gun and using your soldiers equipment.

The game MUST be accessible at the granular level and increasingly complex the deeper it is investigated.

"A moment to learn, a lifetime to master."

[Smokingrabbit]

aand +1 for u degenatron well said

[proxy]

The hyperbole and strawman tactics in this thread are complex.

If you played Everquest, you'll remember feign death pulling, which allowed you to split groups of monsters. This was not a design feature. This was a discovery. An exploit that added depth to classes that could do it.

PS1 wasn't anymore complex than it was obtuse. The learning curve was steep because is was hard for a newb to understand as a result of obscurity. Tactics weren't baked in to the game, players had discover them. And if you didn't have a support system as a new player, well that was a big curve indeed.

Most of the other arguments mean nothing until we play. You might as well be Fox News or demand PS2's long form birth certificate.

[QuantumMechanic]

I think SOE's idea is to let the game be as complex as you want it to be. Point being the mission system.

As Higby has said, for the players who just want to log in and shoot people - you just grab a mission that orders you to take or defend a base. Have a blast!

For players who enjoy more strategy, you'll probably have certed leadership to a good degree and you can be creating said missions for players to take.

I do hope we see more options in this area though. Most likely more will be added over time post-launch.

[Shogun]

ps1 was in fact a pain in the ass to learn as a noob.
but it was incredible fun after the learning phase.

for what we know about ps2, it will make the noob-phase extremely easy as you can play like any other shooter out there and get easy to understand mission objectives smashed into your face.

what i would like to see is the full scale of complexibility that will count as "endgame content". like you can play the fungame right from the beginning, and when you are familiar with the basics, you can start to experiment with the deeper features of the game.

in ps1 you were screwed if you didn´t know anything about gendrop mechanics, the lattice, the hack-mechanics and so on. you could actually harm your empire by doing the wrong thing like dropping a gen after the spawns were already taken out and secured.
bad things like that will not happen in ps2 because of the mission system. it helps noobs and is still very useful for veterans.
so if you use the mission system, you are clear to play the game and have fun. but give us deeper tactical complexibility on top of that. noobs don´t have to cope with that, the pure fighting will be enough fun to get hooked up. but when the time comes where the fighting alone isn´t enough anymore, they can check the complex stuff and have more influence on the meta game.

i want a really deep certificationtree for engineers as an example.
with really useful stuff on the deep end of the tree. if placing whole towers makes it into the game, it should be an expensive cert at the end of the cert tree, so noobs will have enough time to see how it´s done right before they start doing it.

some lattice system would also be nice. just the guys setting up the missions would have to understand it, others can just take the missions and do what they are ordered.

[Kitsune]

Generally, I think that if the game at launch is too simple with kinda faceroll tactics and equipment, then later patches and updates will add more toys and more interesting strategies like electronic warfare.

[Shogun]

ps1 also got new stuff and options later after launch.

so we are comparing a game with years of evolution to a fresh stock game.

ps2 hopefully has years to evolve into something more complex as well.

[BattsTR]

I have the feeling that people in PS2 will care alot less about territory and "homeland" than they did in PS1. I think for the most part its gonna be a log, kill, log off game.

[LtHolmes]

There are a couple things that I would love to add to this forum topic after reading many responses. First I am a long time vet of PS1 from the launch. I love the game. There is no question about that and I have the highest hopes and think PS2 will do great.

First, we need to stop making broad stroke statements. I am also a BF3 fan and love playing that with a few of my friends. We are very strategic and love to plan our classes and the way we hold the line and cover strategic positions etc. So even BF3 can be a semi strategic short term game. No, it does not have as high as a ceiling as PS, not even close. But it ultimately rests on the people to make the game complex and fun. If I go into PS2 with this idea its not good or can't live up before giving it a fair chance than I will find things to not like based off my broad unwarranted negative attitude.

PS2 has some of the most intimate producer/developer relationship with its fan base that I have seen in a long time. In addition to them being up front and communicating with us they are also extremely passionate and in this to make a great game that will last. Put those two things together and this whole thread becomes a little more of a mute subject. We can trust that they are doing whatever possible to make this game both stick close to roots while making it succeed. PS1 was great but none of my friends would give it a long term chance.

I guess that is the main two points. I definitely think being observant and insightful are great but let's be careful to not be overly critical and make broad strokes about something we have little idea about. Plus these BF3/COD statements are getting old. Some of us gamers have a love for many games and come from different gaming backgrounds. It does not mean we are less of a gamer. We have a great community with PS, lets help it stay that way.