Don't dumb down PS2 [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Stew

2012-07-07, 06:32 PM

You dumb this down, SONY won't get a penny from me.

Signed, A very angry person who just bought the dumbed down Diablo 3.

I like playing support, cause playing frontal assault can get boring after a while.

My favorite unit in PS1 was the AMS. I liked scouting ahead, then setting up an AMS and defending it with mines and spitfires. While the CR5's were playing Rommel wannabe's I was out there setting up spawn points and actually directing the flow of the battle. Each player that spawned on my AMS was my little chess piece.

AMS kept getting OS'ed.

____________

I also liked playing anti-mine grenadier. I'd load up my rifle with EMP grenades (forgot the name of common rifle but it had a grenade launcher). When assaulting gates, usually the courtyard was full of mines, and I could simultaneously engage enemy infantry and take out mines with EMP grenades. It was a slow process but It still worked fine and I liked it.

Eventually everyone got CR and they just OS EMP the courtyard in every battle. So that playstyle was obsolete.

_____________

I also liked using delaying tactics. My last memory of playing PS1:

I decided to guard a back door from an attack. I strategically placed one mine behind each tree, so if an enemy were to take cover behind a tree opposite of where I placed myself, they would step on a mine. Then I'd put spitfires up in a crossfire pattern on the other side of trees facing me. Took me 10 minutes to setup and plan. It wasn't a very lethal setup, it was designed to slow the enemy down from accessing the back door. I place myself into defensive position.

15 minutes later a truck full of 5 enemies pulls up, they all hop out and I start shooting at them. They all take cover behind a tree, I hear 2 mines go off and grin a little. Nobody gets killed, but that's not my goal, my goal is to slow them down. I keep taking potshots at them, and I hear some of my spitfire turrets go off, and they destroy a couple of my spitfires.

Still no enemies dead, but that's not my goal, my goal is to delay them. They could have flanked my position and killed me, since my setup was pretty much at a 90 degree angle in between the trees and the back door. That was my weakness.

I delay them for a good 90 seconds until an EMP OS goes off and destroys everything. I exit the game and unsubscribe.

_____________________

This an anti-OS topic? Not really. I am interested in tactics, counter tactics, counter-counter tactics, counter-counter-counter tactics, counter-counter-counter-counter tactics... OS reduces tactics, it simplifies the game, it dumbs it down. I am against reducing tactics, like spawning on top of the squad leader (yuck).

.
.
.
.

This isn't about PS1, it's about Tactics and dumbing down PS2.

I can't really give PS2 examples since it's not a released game.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLL

Nothing as beeen (( dumb down )) in planetside 2 they have remoove some few vehicules to replace it by others who as the same roles it reduce the developpement cost and serve the same purpose ...

Also planetside 2 will be more action and front lines assault oriented Instead of having a (( hang around )) and Chill around gameplay some times

Planetside 2 isnt a pic nic like it was sometimes in Ps1

their will be more action more contestation over territory and Much more thing to do

Also down the road they will ad features vehicules etc.. depending on How much suport they have from the vast PC community !

All your post isnt about tactics since youll have a way more tactics and thing available to you in planetside 2

You talk about squad respawn ? This isnt tactical ? If i say i use Squad leader (( infiltrator )) who sneak up into a based and make their 9 squad member droping with pod on him this isnt a viable tactics ?

Sorry but all this dont make sens

Like i said to you in your previous post about the same topic also

Everything thats you said is FARRRRR for the actual reality try to learn what planetside 2 is all about before claming such wrong things

Planetside 2 will be more tactical and will have more options more custumisation more gameplay mechanics and more people to figth and conter ;)

So if you cant see thats and try to claim the COD clone arguments you are Biased and dont belong to be part of this game

You really seams to be in bad faith ;) just saying !

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 06:32 PM

How about spawn on squad, no AMS, no bombers, no flail, no multi-person vehicles, and "classes".

How will the mines be? One mine per person now?

Well there is galaxy-ams, the liberator has a bomber mob and multi-person vehicles exist.

Landtank

2012-07-07, 06:33 PM

How about spawn on squad, no AMS, no bombers, no flail, no multi-person vehicles, and "classes".

How will the mines be? One mine per person now?

There is an AMS, there are Bombers, Flails are gay as what, there are MANY multi person vehicles, and classes are way better than the jack-of-all trades infantry we have in PS1.

Stardouser

2012-07-07, 06:34 PM

How about spawn on squad, no AMS, no bombers, no flail, no multi-person vehicles, and "classes".

How will the mines be? One mine per person now?

These are called modern FPS features and are not "dumbing down". Dumbing down would be things like positional killcam, 3D spotting, etc, things that help unskilled players beat the skilled players.

An exception would of course be allowing one seat tanks, that's dumbing down, yes. Bombers is probably a balance issue and too many people cry about flails, but removing them isn't "dumbing down".

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 06:35 PM

Stew

2012-07-07, 06:36 PM

How about spawn on squad, no AMS, no bombers, no flail, no multi-person vehicles, and "classes".

How will the mines be? One mine per person now?

Sunderer (deployed ) and galaxies (deployed) have the respawn roles now

Also the liberator is now a hybrid with multi purpose SAME ROLES just less developpements costs and testing at launch !

They have Keep the (( others )) Vehicules purpose and integrate them in existing vehicles ! Like sunderer and galaxie and also liberator etc..

Sames roles different vehicules so where it hurt the tactics ? No F where !

Stardouser

2012-07-07, 06:38 PM

BF2142 had spawn on squad and spawn on that little device thing. I wasn't impressed. In fact it was obnoxious to have enemies pop up behind you after you cleared the area out.

COD is even more obnoxious with random spawning.

Then you didn't do your job. You left the squad leader alive. And the squad leader himself was already alive and behind you, so you obviously did not clear the area out. As for the spawn beacon, no, we don't need that.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 06:39 PM

These are called modern FPS features and are not "dumbing down". Dumbing down would be things like positional killcam, 3D spotting, etc, things that help unskilled players beat the skilled players.

An exception would of course be allowing one seat tanks, that's dumbing down, yes. Bombers is probably a balance issue and too many people cry about flails, but removing them isn't "dumbing down".

Modern FPS = Dumbed Down (Even Quake 1 MegaTF or CustomTF had more tactical richness than the modern FPS)

Diablo = Dumbed Down

WOW Wrath of Lich King = Dumbed Down

Star Wars Galaxies = Dumbed Down

WHY?!

Then you didn't do your job. You left the squad leader alive.

No. If I left the squad leader alive, than only he should still be behind the lines.

There is an AMS, there are Bombers, Flails are gay as what, there are MANY multi person vehicles, and classes are way better than the jack-of-all trades infantry we have in PS1.

Flails actually took coordination and planning, unlike the OS. And they follow realistic indirect artillery tactics.

They could have been balanced a little more.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 06:44 PM

Modern FPS = Dumbed Down (Even Quake 1 MegaTF or CustomTF had more tactical richness than the modern FPS)

Diablo = Dumbed Down

WOW Wrath of Lich King = Dumbed Down

Star Wars Galaxies = Dumbed Down

WHY?!

No. If I left the squad leader alive, than only he should still be behind the lines.

this sounds more like an issues where you fear change and look back on the past with rose colored glasses and ignore all the horrible mechanics that existed in some older games that have been removed or improved in newer games.

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 06:46 PM

this sounds more like an issues where you fear change and look back on the past with rose colored glasses and ignore all the horrible mechanics that existed in some older games that have been removed or improved in newer games.

Pretty much.

I used to think that PS2 was 'dumbed down', until I replayed PS1 and realised its so painfully dated.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 06:46 PM

this sounds more like an issues where you fear change and look back on the past with rose colored glasses and ignore all the horrible mechanics that existed in some older games that have been removed or improved in newer games.

That's what people are saying in the Diablo 3 forums, "Rose colored glasses."

Let's see what the user reviews are at now: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews 3.9? Wow that's horrible.

I'd like to see SONY pull a Diablo off with a no purchase, free to play game.

Pretty much.

I used to think that PS2 was 'dumbed down', until I replayed PS1 and realised its so painfully dated.

The graphics are dated, not gameplay mechanics.

Elude

2012-07-07, 06:48 PM

You dumb this down, SONY won't get a penny from me.

Signed, A very angry person who just bought the dumbed down Diablo 3.

Oh come on at least give them a PENNY for attempting a remake on a very unsuccessful prequel.

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 06:49 PM

The graphics are dated, not gameplay mechanics.

hehe heh he hahahahaa

As much as I still love PS1. heh

Quard

2012-07-07, 06:49 PM

Clearly we're all way too smart for video games.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 06:51 PM

That's what people are saying in the Diablo 3 forums, "Rose colored glasses."

Let's see what the user reviews are at now: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews 3.9? Wow that's horrible.

I'd like to see SONY pull a Diablo off with a no purchase, free to play game.

The graphics are dated, not gameplay mechanics.

And yet it was the fastest selling computer game in history, remains as one of the most watched games on streaming sites like twitch, and those people who bitch on metacritic still log on every day to play the game they supposedly hate.

Try again.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 06:52 PM

hehe heh he hahahahaa

As much as I still love PS1. heh

The graphics are affecting your judgement, no offense.

And yet it was the fastest selling computer game in history, remains as one of the most watched games on streaming sites like twitch, and those people who bitch on metacritic still log on every day to play the game they supposedly hate.

Try again.

Only because of the Diablo name. If it had been named anything else it would have been a huge fiscal failure.

And user reviews are the only thing to trust, not professional reviews that only look at graphics.

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 06:53 PM

The graphics are affecting your judgement, no offense.

What powers of insight you have.

I mostly play older games. Infact I'm playing Stronghold right now and loving every minute :D

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 06:58 PM

What powers of insight you have.

I mostly play older games. Infact I'm playing Stronghold right now and loving every minute :D

Try Medieval 2 Total War.

OnexBigxHebrew

2012-07-07, 06:58 PM

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 06:59 PM

Try Medieval 2 Total War.

I haven't played that in a couple years actually. It's funny you suggested that, I was tempted to redownload it, since Stronghold made me want to play it.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 06:59 PM

The graphics are affecting your judgement, no offense.

Only because of the Diablo name. If it had been named anything else it would have been a huge fiscal failure.

And user reviews are the only thing to trust, not professional reviews that only look at graphics.

IPs like star wars and final fantasy are huge names with huge fan bases and that didnt stop their games from failing.

Also metacritic reviews are lawl.

Fact remains diablo 3 was very successful. The only people pissed are the guys who want a diablo 2 clone with better graphics. Such will be the same in planetside 2. Those who want a PS1 clone will undoubtedly be disappointed.

This has nothing to do with "dumbing down" but more of "wah it was not like the last game that came out 10 years ago!"

ChipMHazard

2012-07-07, 07:00 PM

What is the point of this thread again? Is it about PS2 or is it about gaming evolution in general?:huh:

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:00 PM

Quoted for the most truthful post I've seen since joining this community.

*shakes head*

If you enjoy modern FPS so much, why aren't you playing one right now? 2 new ones are already out. COD and BF3. Did you like them?

ChipMHazard

2012-07-07, 07:02 PM

*shakes head*

If you enjoy modern FPS so much, why aren't you playing one right now? 2 new ones are already out. COD and BF3. Did you like them?

So unless you're playing modern FPS games literally 24/7 you don't like them? Are people not allowed to do other things without disliking said FPS games?
Am I the only one having trouble following the rationality in this thread?

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:03 PM

IPs like star wars and final fantasy are huge names with huge fan bases and that didnt stop their games from failing.

Also metacritic reviews are lawl.

Fact remains diablo 3 was very successful. The only people pissed are the guys who want a diablo 2 clone with better graphics. Such will be the same in planetside 2. Those who want a PS1 clone will undoubtedly be disappointed.

This has nothing to do with "dumbing down" but more of "wah it was not like the last game that came out 10 years ago!"

It is dumbing down across the board on all genres.

D3 was only a success because of D2, without D2, D3 wouldn't have existed.

user reviews are the only accurate reviews.

Stardouser

2012-07-07, 07:05 PM

*shakes head*

If you enjoy modern FPS so much, why aren't you playing one right now? 2 new ones are already out. COD and BF3. Did you like them?

"Modern FPS" means a lot of things. Games can appear appropriate on the surface but not be when you actually play them. BF3's gameplay, overall, is what a game needs to be, that is, aim down sight, sprinting, etc. But BF3 dumbs the game down in the ways that matter - 3D spotting, killcam, audiospotting, small meatgrind maps with no strategic or tactically deep play, teamwork tools removed, etc.

Littleman

2012-07-07, 07:08 PM

Either the OP hasn't really bothered to read much of the available info on PS2, or they're yet another bitter-vet that had hoped PS2 would be essentially PS1 with updated graphics and higher population counts.

I am so glad the game is actually being made more complicated. I felt PS1 was simplistic as hell. No depth to the certs. My cycler was always a cycler. I couldn't tune it into the cycler I wanted it to be. I basically picked what I liked and hit instant action, then performed the same as everyone else with it. I was choosing equipment or vehicle access, but really, that's about as deep as it got.

I had rexo/weapon/weapon/med/eng... just like everyone else.

Let's not forget the lattice system. Chee, if you want predictable! You knew where the enemy was going. It was practically pointed out for you with great big, bold lines! But between base A and base B, there was little point in combat unless the dead space between both points was a bridge (essentially, the only real choke point.)

Your enemies tactics included gal drops on the CC/gen (amp/tech and bio-lab, respectively) or on the back door. MAX crashes were a bit rarer, but you still expected them. And you KNEW there were vultures in the sky just picking off infantry left and right, because flying rocket spamming cameras are hard to work with, amiright? Don't get me started on the oh so interesting "dog fights." Coincidentally, they really did look like dog fights in the natural expectation of the term: two snarling, circling beasts snapping at each other.

Oh, and by the way, your aim need only be over the over-bloated hitbox of the avatar to do damage, and it didn't matter where on that hitbox your shots landed, they did a set amount of damage every time.

Oh yeah... PS2 is totally getting dumbed down... The limitations of the tech (and in some cases, vision like with base/tower design) at the time made PS1 dumbed down by default.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 07:10 PM

It is dumbing down across the board on all genres.

D3 was only a success because of D2, without D2, D3 wouldn't have existed.

user reviews are the only accurate reviews.

When D2 launched it attracted a lot of flak because it was not like D1 and received horrible user reviews as a result as well as from technical issues that occurred at the time. We all know how that panned out. Or when SC2 launched people said it sucked because it was not like brood war. Again we know how that went.

But if you truely believe ALL games are being dumbed down then you might as well quit now. This is how games are made and while I agree in certain areas they are not as good in others they are vastly improved.

And for the record I liked BF3, COD not so much because its a little bit fast for my taste.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:14 PM

So unless you're playing modern FPS games literally 24/7 you don't like them? Are people not allowed to do other things without disliking said FPS games?
Am I the only one having trouble following the rationality in this thread?

Do you like the new COD or BF3? Those are the modern shooters. Do you like them?

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 07:16 PM

I forgot how deep PS1 was with its ADADADAD netcode HA spam.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:16 PM

When D2 launched it attracted a lot of flak because it was not like D1 and received horrible user reviews as a result as well as from technical issues that occurred at the time. We all know how that panned out. Or when SC2 launched people said it sucked because it was not like brood war. Again we know how that went.

But if you truely believe ALL games are being dumbed down then you might as well quit now. This is how games are made and while I agree in certain areas they are not as good in others they are vastly improved.

And for the record I liked BF3, COD not so much because its a little bit fast for my taste.

When D2 launched it got very few horrible user reviews, most liked it allot, there were few to no technical issues.

When SC2 launched very few people said it sucked.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.

I forgot how deep PS1 was with its ADADADAD netcode HA spam.

Too bad the "modern shooter" never fixed that exploit.

Stardouser

2012-07-07, 07:19 PM

When D2 launched it got very few horrible user reviews, most liked it allot, there were few to no technical issues.

When SC2 launched very few people said it sucked.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.

Not liking BF3 has nothing to do with preferring PS1's dated gameplay. The basic gameplay of BF3 is correct, but the pacing and map size and other factors are too much like CoD. Those things can be corrected without changing the base gameplay.

50% of BF3's problem is small maps, and THAT will be corrected in PS2.

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 07:19 PM

guys remember how great the flight model was.

It wasn't totally just a floating camera with limited mobility.

Runlikethewind

2012-07-07, 07:20 PM

When I read this thread I thought of this article http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html/.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 07:22 PM

When D2 launched it got very few horrible user reviews, most liked it allot, there were few to no technical issues.

When SC2 launched very few people said it sucked.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.

Too bad the "modern shooter" never fixed that exploit.

Not to be a troll but this is the most fail logic I have ever seen, I was there for the launch of both games so I know.

Also the logic of "because you are posting here and not playing BF3 right this second means you dont like t!" is laughable at best. I guess since I am eating a sandwich at this moment and not pizza that means I must hate pizza as well right?

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:22 PM

Either the OP hasn't really bothered to read much of the available info on PS2, or they're yet another bitter-vet that had hoped PS2 would be essentially PS1 with updated graphics and higher population counts.

I'm all for improvement if it's not "diablo 3" style improvement.

I am so glad the game is actually being made more complicated. I felt PS1 was simplistic as hell. No depth to the certs. My cycler was always a cycler. I couldn't tune it into the cycler I wanted it to be. I basically picked what I liked and hit instant action, then performed the same as everyone else with it. I was choosing equipment or vehicle access, but really, that's about as deep as it got.

Tactical depth is more important than having more toys to play with.

I had rexo/weapon/weapon/med/eng... just like everyone else.

Let's not forget the lattice system. Chee, if you want predictable! You knew where the enemy was going. It was practically pointed out for you with great big, bold lines! But between base A and base B, there was little point in combat unless the dead space between both points was a bridge (essentially, the only real choke point.)

Well we all tried the no linky-no cappy in Planetside 1 and WWIIONLINE, it didn't turn out great.

Your enemies tactics included gal drops on the CC/gen (amp/tech and bio-lab, respectively) or on the back door. MAX crashes were a bit rarer, but you still expected them. And you KNEW there were vultures in the sky just picking off infantry left and right, because flying rocket spamming cameras are hard to work with, amiright? Don't get me started on the oh so interesting "dog fights." Coincidentally, they really did look like dog fights in the natural expectation of the term: two snarling, circling beasts snapping at each other.

That all could have been improved, instead of thrown out the window, like everything in D2 was thrown out the window for D3.

Oh, and by the way, your aim need only be over the over-bloated hitbox of the avatar to do damage, and it didn't matter where on that hitbox your shots landed, they did a set amount of damage every time.

Being good with the mouse does not improve tactical richness and depth.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:25 PM

Not to be a troll but this is the most fail logic I have ever seen, I was there for the launch of both games so I know.

Also the logic of "because you are posting here and not playing BF3 right this second means you dont like t!" is laughable at best. I guess since I am eating a sandwich at this moment and not pizza that means I must hate pizza as well right?

Makes perfect sense to me. If you were satisfied with the "modern shooter" than you would be playing a "modern shooter" and wouldn't even be thinking of Planetside 2.

But you are here so obviously you aren't satisfied with the "modern shooter", but still you want a "modern shooter". How logical is that?

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-07, 07:27 PM

Not liking BF3 has nothing to do with preferring PS1's dated gameplay. The basic gameplay of BF3 is correct, but the pacing and map size and other factors are too much like CoD. Those things can be corrected without changing the base gameplay.

50% of BF3's problem is small maps, and THAT will be corrected in PS2.

Not necessarily true, but the OP's post is too sweeping in its condemnation... ADS is still a hobbling mechanic designed to kill twitch gaming, but character customization can go a long way toward overcoming that handicap (which is a wonderful feature of the new paradigm).

The removal of the continental lattice system is in fact something that dumbs down the game at the macro level, but is also an unavoidable casualty of the meager continent count at launch (and Higby's misguided interest in removing losing conditions from the game). The resource system is certainly interesting, but it should've been added to the existing lattice system to increase the choices and complexity of the former.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:27 PM

http://i48.tinypic.com/11a8gme.png

Buggsy WWIIONLINE join date 2002.

Buggsy Planetside1 join date 2003.

Look me up in the PS1 forums, I told you guys the population would drop off if both OS wasn't deleted from the game.

ChipMHazard

2012-07-07, 07:30 PM

Do you like the new COD or BF3? Those are the modern shooters. Do you like them?

Which CoD? And yes I do like BF3.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 07:31 PM

Which CoD? And yes I do like BF3.

No you dont, because you are on a planetside forum so you don't like any other games!

Also this reminds me of the OP playing diablo 3 for the first time
NERD RAGE!!! - (Your Favorite Martian music video) - YouTube

OnexBigxHebrew

2012-07-07, 07:32 PM

Not liking BF3 has nothing to do with preferring PS1's dated gameplay. The basic gameplay of BF3 is correct, but the pacing and map size and other factors are too much like CoD. Those things can be corrected without changing the base gameplay.

50% of BF3's problem is small maps, and THAT will be corrected in PS2.

Almost all of BF3's maps (excluding Close Quartars) are 10x the size of CoD maps, what are you smoking? The games are alike in lore/setting only.

And for the record, I play a couple hours of BF3 almost every day and still post here waaaay too often. So anyone saying posting in a forum means you don't like modern games is a fucking derp.

I don't really care if PS2 is super-hardcore or not. I don't even have much riding on it being good, because my e-'claim to fame' isn't at stake here. But then again, I'm not the one who's afraid of my world coming crashing down if PS2 is more about fun. Let's not pretend this is a competitive series. It's just a bit of large-scale good times, and if you're worried about it being any more than that, you need to take a step back and look at your life.

It's a video game, not your life's work.

ChookWantan

2012-07-07, 07:34 PM

Remember how there werent projectile based physics and hit boxes? Invisible dice rolls were definitely a better mechanic. Remember the awesome empty spaces in between incredibly similar bases? Remember BFRs? ADADADAD? Remember the ubiquitousness of med packs, which helped foster lone wolves? Remember the subscription fee?

People who play smart and play together are still going to decimate their opponents, stop pretending the changes that are being made are going to break the game. I haven't heard one yet (besides footholds) that I am worried about.

BTW: I do enjoy BF3 but I can't wait for the scale and teamwork that will be found in PS2. Turns out you can like quake-style games and "modern shooters"! Crazy!

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:34 PM

- YouTube

No this is me playing D3

ChipMHazard

2012-07-07, 07:36 PM

No you dont, because you are on a planetside forum so you don't like any other games!

Also this reminds me of the OP playing diablo 3 for the first time

Aye, how dare I!?!

Seems about right:p

I'm going to have to go with elfailo's assessment on this.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 07:37 PM

- YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEyk63UaBI4)

No this is me playing D3

How true and fun none the less. However we all know thats not you because it said inferno. It makes no sense for you to spend the hours to make it to inferno on a game you hate right?

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:42 PM

How true and fun none the less. However we all know thats not you because it said inferno. It makes no sense for you to spend the hours to make it to inferno on a game you hate right?

I gave it a shot, didn't like it at all.

Remember how there werent projectile based physics and hit boxes? Invisible dice rolls were definitely a better mechanic. Remember the awesome empty spaces in between incredibly similar bases? Remember BFRs? ADADADAD? Remember the ubiquitousness of med packs, which helped foster lone wolves? Remember the subscription fee?

...which could have been improved upon, not gutted.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 07:51 PM

I gave it a shot, didn't like it at all.

You know its funny that you say that because I gave your mother a "shot" and she didn't seem to like it at all either.

Sorry but that was like the perfect set up and I couldn't control myself!

ChookWantan

2012-07-07, 07:52 PM

They DID improve upon it! A better netcode for the strafing, a hand-crafted map for the fighting, a F2P model for the money, a class system for the wolves, and a projectile-based gun mechanic. What about these solutions seems 'gutted' rather than 'improved?

NoDachi

2012-07-07, 07:52 PM

I'm kinda glad this guy won't be playing now.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:55 PM

I'll wait until Beta before I decide if I want to complain about it.

Yeah how'd that turn out in D3, SWG NGE.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 07:57 PM

You know its funny that you say that because I gave your mother a "shot" and she didn't seem to like it at all either.

Sorry but that was like the perfect set up and I couldn't control myself!

That's a pretty weak sexual innuendo, "shot", actually it's nonexistent.

*ignore list #1*

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 07:58 PM

That's a pretty weak sexual innuendo, "shot", actually it's nonexistent.

*ignore list #1*

First?!

Landtank

2012-07-07, 08:18 PM

Electrofreak

2012-07-07, 08:25 PM

How about spawn on squad, no AMS, no bombers, no flail, no multi-person vehicles, and "classes".

How will the mines be? One mine per person now?

Squad spawn will be limited, the set-it-and-forget it AMS has been replaced by a Galaxy that has to be deployed and defended or used to shuttle infantry from staging points, the Liberator bomber is in and has about eleventy-billion options for how to rain death on the enemy, the Flail was a PITA and we can do without, plenty of multiperson vehicles, and classes mean that not everyone will be running around with the same nanite gun, med gun, HA, and AV.

PlanetSide 2 has become simpler where it needed to be, and much more complex in others.

And as as others have said... Diablo 3? Really? You played the earlier games for their sophisticated game mechanics? I think if I introduced you to EVE Online, your head might explode.

TAA

2012-07-07, 08:26 PM

BF2142 had spawn on squad and spawn on that little device thing. I wasn't impressed. In fact it was obnoxious to have enemies pop up behind you after you cleared the area out.

That mechanic was incredibly important for helping friends play together as a squad. It meant that if you managed to protect your squad leader or the beacon, that you and your friends were always in the same area together rather than scattered all over the map.

I guess if one was playing alone that it may seem annoying.

You don't like BF3, COD, that's why you are here and not playing the "modern shooter". So obviously the "modern shooter" isn't all that great.

I have been playing FPS titles for as long as they have existed, and I think that some of the titles nowadays are amongst the best we have seen. BF3 is a great game. I may not like it as much as its predecessors, but it is still a fantastic game that I can sink endless hours into. COD I dont bother with, but I still think that COD4 was one of the best FPS titles ever made.

We are not here because we dont like the modern shooter. We are here because PS2 offers something we cant get from those shooters: massive scale and persistence. The changes that are being made are being made to appeal to us. We are the core demographic that this game is targeting. Not PS1 vets. Sure they will throw you a few scraps to keep you around, but lets face it - if the game population consisted of only PS1 vets every staff member involved in developing this game would get sacked.

Littleman

2012-07-07, 08:27 PM

*All opinion.*

Just don't bother playing PS2. People whom have already made up their minds if a game will suck often find it will suck (in their opinion) because they're too obsessed with looking for every reason to back up their claim.

If PS1 had good tactical depth, then PS2's will be great. It's not just about fighting over tiny monochrome bases with a standard courtyard and cramped tunnels for hallways like we are now in Planetside 1: the entire continent is worth taking, piece by piece, and every piece not only has value, it's hand crafted so you know it won't feel like it was generated.

On the micro level, you have squads to properly balance around your plan of attack/defense for maximum combat efficiency. New entry points to the bases to infiltrate/hot drop on. But you wouldn't ever consider any of this because it's different from what you know. You downplay the tactic of someone infiltrating a contested area, finding a good, high spot and summoning in reinforcements, if limited in number, and from there, clear the installation from above instead of below as expected of you.

If you don't agree PS2's mechanics will likely open up new strategies and tactics PS1 simply didn't have, I suggest going back to your Quake III arena. You'll only find disappointment here, or anywhere in the 21st century really.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 08:34 PM

So how does one "flank the enemy" if there is no frontline?

With galaxy spawning, and infantry spawning infantry, the frontline won't exist.

So toss out flanking as a valid tactic.

OnexBigxHebrew

2012-07-07, 08:34 PM

That mechanic was incredibly important for helping friends play together as a squad. It meant that if you managed to protect your squad leader or the beacon, that you and your friends were always in the same area together rather than scattered all over the map.

I guess if one was playing alone that it may seem annoying.

I have been playing FPS titles for as long as they have existed, and I think that some of the titles nowadays are amongst the best we have seen. BF3 is a great game. I may not like it as much as its predecessors, but it is still a fantastic game that I can sink endless hours into. COD I dont bother with, but I still think that COD4 was one of the best FPS titles ever made.

We are not here because we dont like the modern shooter. We are here because PS2 offers something we cant get from those shooters: massive scale and persistence. The changes that are being made are being made to appeal to us. We are the core demographic that this game is targeting. Not PS1 vets. Sure they will throw you a few scraps to keep you around, but lets face it - if the game population consisted of only PS1 vets every staff member involved in developing this game would get sacked.

Amen. Nailed it from a player and business standpoint!

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 08:35 PM

That mechanic was incredibly important for helping friends play together as a squad.

Who cares, it destroyed a whole bunch of valid tactics in the process.

We are the core demographic that this game is targeting. Not PS1 vets. Sure they will throw you a few scraps to keep you around, but lets face it - if the game population consisted of only PS1 vets every staff member involved in developing this game would get sacked.

The game is going to financially bomb then if SONY thinks it can cannibalize the BF3/COD players.

ChookWantan

2012-07-07, 08:35 PM

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 08:39 PM

Squad spawn will be limited, the set-it-and-forget it AMS has been replaced by a Galaxy

How can there be a frontline if the AMS can fly and infantry can spawn on infantry?

This isn't getting more complex it is dumbing down.

You've got to be trolling.

#3 ignore list

Electrofreak

2012-07-07, 08:41 PM

So how does one "flank the enemy" if there is no frontline?

With galaxy spawning, and infantry spawning infantry, the frontline won't exist.

So toss out flanking as a valid tactic.

The frontline is that Galaxy. Are you dense?

Did you play PS1? Did you notice how you fought over a tower, and then a short while later, you were spawning from an AMS at the back door? Where did the front line actually move when that AMS snuck up behind the enemy base and deployed? It didn't, it jumped forward to the nearest AMS, hidden in a cloaking bubble. When you actually have to move a highly visible Galaxy forward while defending it, and set up infantry to protect its LZ, there's much more of a front line. I also anticipate seeing the more frequent use of transport vehicles.

Face it, PlanetSide made battles easier by not requiring us to fight over land, but over the distance between the AMS and the Control Center or Gen Room. PS2 changes this for the better.

I was an AMS driver for a long time, and I'm glad to see it go.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 08:43 PM

You've got to be trolling.

That was made obvious when he started touting that anybody who post on here cant like any other "modern" game else we would be playing it and not posting here.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 08:45 PM

The frontline is that Galaxy. Are you dense?

No, a point in space only creates a perimeter, not a LINE. Not a FRONT LINE which has a REAR, FORWARD, and FLANKING positions. And since you can fly it, there is also no strategic line of battle either. Just fly it around to anywhere you want.

Did you play PS1? Did you notice how you fought over a tower, and then a short while later, you were spawning from an AMS at the back door? Where did the front line actually move when that AMS snuck up behind the enemy base and deployed? When you actually have to move a Galaxy forward while defending it, and set up infantry to protect its LZ, there's much more of a front line.

Now imagine if the AMS can fly, and infantry can spawn on infantry.

Face it, PlanetSide made battles easier by not requiring us to fight over land, but over the distance between the AMS and the Control Center or Gen Room.

Actually the AMS is much more easily destroyed enroute than the galaxy = no frontline for PS2.

Stardouser

2012-07-07, 08:45 PM

Almost all of BF3's maps (excluding Close Quartars) are 10x the size of CoD maps, what are you smoking? The games are alike in lore/setting only.

That is only a technicality. BF3 maps still aren't big enough, plus, the game is still designed to be very nearly as fast paced as CoD. As I say, it's a technicality, because the actual playable area of a BF3 map is a lot smaller than the overall map size. Sure, in some maps you can travel a good distance before you hit the out of bounds, but the flags are all packed in the middle of the map, so functionally, it doesn't matter. This is a big deal, seriously. When the flags are all stuck in the middle of the map it makes a difference. Also, BF3 is 64 players, CoD is not, that matters as well. Functionally -it is most definitely a fast pace meatgrind just like CoD.

Not necessarily true, but the OP's post is too sweeping in its condemnation... ADS is still a hobbling mechanic designed to kill twitch gaming, but character customization can go a long way toward overcoming that handicap (which is a wonderful feature of the new paradigm).

Did you mean strafing and jumpshooting gaming? Twitching your aim onto the target is just as important in ADS gameplay. In a technical sense,, ADS may "hobble" you by forcing you to stop/walk to get a good shot, but that shouldn't be taken as a negative, it's my firm belief that most people are not looking for the ability to fire while moving quickly. But as you say - character customization affects this, because things like MAXes will surely be able to fire while moving.

ChookWantan

2012-07-07, 08:47 PM

Now I'm on the ignore list too lolol

Littleman

2012-07-07, 08:47 PM

We are not here because we dont like the modern shooter. We are here because PS2 offers something we cant get from those shooters: massive scale and persistence. The changes that are being made are being made to appeal to us. We are the core demographic that this game is targeting. Not PS1 bitter-vets. Sure they will throw you a few scraps to keep you around, but lets face it - if the game population consisted of only PS1 vets every staff member involved in developing this game would get sacked.

FTFY and I 100% support this statement. I happen to be a vet, and am looking forward to the new modern shooter mechanics being introduced into Planetside. Unreal Tournament game play is fun... in a small arena setting. Planetside 2's gameplay isn't taking place in a small arena setting.

So how does one "flank the enemy" if there is no frontline?

With galaxy spawning, and infantry spawning infantry, the frontline won't exist.

So toss out flanking as a valid tactic.

Don't play ignorant, or are you really that incapable of thinking outside of PS1's game play? The frontline is precisely where the red meets blue, blue meets purple, purple meets red, OR where purple, blue, and red meet. Somewhere along that stretch, their is a weak defense ripe for punching through. Circle a force around to the flank of the enemies main forces and attack from two sides. On the micro level, this means moving in a way that negates your opponents cover while offering yourself cover.

Galaxy spawning is no different from AMS spawning, the mobile spawn just FLIES now. Try and wrap your head around that concept! I'll give you a few hours... And perhaps you should watch the skies those drop pods carrying the squad leads troops, much less the GALAXIES that could be dropping TWO whole squads on top of your base. I'm pretty sure the galaxy hot-drop concept isn't brand spanking new! I could be wrong though!

Let's take a step back and actually watch some videos and do some in depth searches into how things are expected to work before we make yet another thread on how PS2 is somehow even more dumbed down than PS1 ever was and that SOE should be catering to the 2 dozen veterans that DON'T like any of the changes instead of the potential thousands of players (needed for PS2 to succeed + the 2 dozen veterans) that would be fairly happy with the current model of FPS gaming in their MMOFPS.

OnexBigxHebrew

2012-07-07, 08:47 PM

That was made obvious when he started touting that anybody who post on here cant like any other "modern" game else we would be playing it and not posting here.

Yup!

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 08:50 PM

Now I'm on the ignore list too lolol

I was still first so ha!

ChookWantan

2012-07-07, 08:52 PM

I was still first so ha!

Pretty soon he won't be able to see any of the people posting on his own thread...

Actually, I hope that happens.

Stew

2012-07-07, 09:01 PM

*shakes head*

If you enjoy modern FPS so much, why aren't you playing one right now? 2 new ones are already out. COD and BF3. Did you like them?

Actually yes i like BF3 gameplay ;) and i play it

Also BF3 flaws are in comunication tools , No leaders tchat chanel or broadcasting , 3d spotting is anoying , confusing Compass on the Minimap , hit registering and netcode isnt perfect at all sometime its anoying and inconsistant but still better than a lots of games , Ghost hitmarkers anoying , kinda lag compensation as been ad within the last patches and i dont like it !

But the way you talk this let me think you have absolutly NO experience and Probably NO SKILLS in Modern FPS thats why you keep talking about crap like this Ps1 was far to have AMASING gunplay and gameplay mechanics even for a 2003 game ;)

2dspotting is good , Also guns mechanics and caracter moovement are good , the balistic is now better than it was at launch , graphics are stunning , vehicules controles are the best , sounds are awesome and no games have ever reach this level , You have Huges numbers of guns with B2K and CQ expansion each guns feel unique and are fully custumisable , etc..etc..etc..

So if you say BF3 is a poor and dumb down shooter in terms of GAMEPLAY MECHANICS i have to say your dead wrong !

BF3 to me is only dumb down on ones level = NO MORE LEADER , No more motar baterie that can be repair

But overall despite the flaws battlefield 3 in terms of gameplay and gunsplay is far superior to any others shooters out there !

If you dont like modern shooters its because your to lazy to learn to deal with new mechanics and chalenge ;)

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 09:03 PM

List of military tactics

Force concentration Nonexistant with OS

Force protection Nonexistant with OS

Deception Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry

Fortification I can't imagine minefields or spitfires being effective in a dumbed down COD/BF3 type of game

Reconnaissance Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry

Infiltration tactics Everybody is an infiltrator with infantry spawning infantry

Encirclement Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry and galaxy spawning

Flanking maneuver Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry and galaxy spawning

Indirect Fire Support No flails

Armoured spearhead Spearhead what? Infantry spawn points fly now, the AMS is the galaxy now.

Raiding Since there is no frontline because of the new spawn system, then there is also no such thing as "behind enemy lines".

Frontal assault The only thing that's left.

Frontal assault 24/7

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 09:05 PM

Actually yes i like BF3 gameplay ;) and i play it

Also BF3 flaws are in comunication tools , No leaders tchat chanel or broadcasting , 3d spotting is anoying , confusing Compass on the Minimap , hit registering and netcode isnt perfect at all sometime its anoying and inconsistant but still better than a lots of games , Ghost hitmarkers anoying , kinda lag compensation as been ad within the last patches and i dont like it !

But the way you talk this let me think you have absolutly NO experience and Probably NO SKILLS in Modern FPS thats why you keep talking about crap like this Ps1 was far to have AMASING gunplay and gameplay mechanics even for a 2003 game ;)

2dspotting is good , Also guns mechanics and caracter moovement are good , the balistic is now better than it was at launch , graphics are stunning , vehicules controles are the best , sounds are awesome and no games have ever reach this level , You have Huges numbers of guns with B2K and CQ expansion each guns feel unique and are fully custumisable , etc..etc..etc..

So if you say BF3 is a poor and dumb down shooter in terms of GAMEPLAY MECHANICS i have to say your dead wrong !

BF3 to me is only dumb down on ones level = NO MORE LEADER , No more motar baterie that can be repair

But overall despite the flaws battlefield 3 in terms of gameplay and gunsplay is far superior to any others shooters out there !

If you dont like modern shooters its because your to lazy to learn to deal with new mechanics and chalenge ;)

Stew my boy have you not been paying attention? OBVIOUSLY we all HATE other modern shooters otherwise we would spend every waking moment playing it and not be on PSU am I right?!

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 09:07 PM

Actually yes i like BF3 gameplay ;) and i play it

Also BF3 flaws are in comunication tools , No leaders tchat chanel or broadcasting , 3d spotting is anoying , confusing Compass on the Minimap , hit registering and netcode isnt perfect at all sometime its anoying and inconsistant but still better than a lots of games , Ghost hitmarkers anoying , kinda lag compensation as been ad within the last patches and i dont like it !

But the way you talk this let me think you have absolutly NO experience and Probably NO SKILLS in Modern FPS thats why you keep talking about crap like this Ps1 was far to have AMASING gunplay and gameplay mechanics even for a 2003 game ;)

2dspotting is good , Also guns mechanics and caracter moovement are good , the balistic is now better than it was at launch , graphics are stunning , vehicules controles are the best , sounds are awesome and no games have ever reach this level , You have Huges numbers of guns with B2K and CQ expansion each guns feel unique and are fully custumisable , etc..etc..etc..

So if you say BF3 is a poor and dumb down shooter in terms of GAMEPLAY MECHANICS i have to say your dead wrong !

BF3 to me is only dumb down on ones level = NO MORE LEADER , No more motar baterie that can be repair

But overall despite the flaws battlefield 3 in terms of gameplay and gunsplay is far superior to any others shooters out there !

If you dont like modern shooters its because your to lazy to learn to deal with new mechanics and chalenge ;)

So I'm too lazy to learn new mechanics huh? BF3 is no different than BF2. And BF1942 was actually better than BF2, hey you could actually drive battleships/subarines/aircraft carriers.

Actually the "modern shooter" is just more graphics fluff piled on top of older shooters, they haven't improved on what should be important: Tactics, Strategy, Depth.

Stardouser

2012-07-07, 09:09 PM

Deception Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry

Reconnaissance Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry

Infiltration tactics Everybody is an infiltrator with infantry spawning infantry

Encirclement Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry and galaxy spawning

Flanking maneuver Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry and galaxy spawning

Armoured spearhead Spearhead what? Infantry spawn points fly now, the AMS is the galaxy now.

Raiding Since there is no frontline because of the new spawn system, then there is also no such thing as "behind enemy lines".

Squad spawning hasn't even been tested yet. You, as well as all other opponents of it, can't possibly know until it is.

But based on what I do know of it from BF, an educated guess is that it will work just fine. Learn to kill squads, don't just expect to kill individuals and that they will be doomed to a long walkback.

So I'm too lazy to learn new mechanics huh? BF3 is no different than BF2. And BF1942 was actually better than BF2, hey you could actually drive battleships/subarines/aircraft carriers.

Actually the "modern shooter" is just more graphics fluff piled on top of older shooters, they haven't improved on what should be important: Tactics, Strategy, Depth.

If you think BF3 isn't different from BF2, then you're completely discredited. There is a lot of resistance to BF3 among BF2 vets. We had to deal with the changes(many are still futilely hoping DICE will take BF4 back to a proper BF style), I suppose there's a lesson in that somewhere. But regardless of that, there's a lot of people from BF2 who would stand up against you on that one.

Stew

2012-07-07, 09:09 PM

Stew my boy have you not been paying attention? OBVIOUSLY we all HATE other modern shooters otherwise we would spend every waking moment playing it and not be on PSU am I right?!

So you gonna hate PS2 so keep playing QUAKE 1 , DOOM , Conterstrike 1.6 and Planetside 1

BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HATE PLANETSIDE 2 SO QUIT RIGTH NOW AND DONT EVEN GIVE ANY TIME TO PLAY PLANETSIDE 2 BETA

Because the gameplay and guneplays of planetside 2 and battlefield 3 will be almost identical ;) and for the good of it Modern shooter have rock solid fps mechanics !

So go back to planetside 1 section and dont pay attention to any planetside 2 related tread because you gonna hate planetside 2 AND WE DONT NEED HATERS TO BUILD A AWESOME GAME !

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 09:13 PM

Don't play ignorant,

Don't play obtuse

or are you really that incapable of thinking outside of PS1's game play?

Actually my favorite MMOFPS is WWIIONLINE, it had more tactical depth than PS1.

The frontline is precisely where the red meets blue, blue meets purple, purple meets red, OR where purple, blue, and red meet. Somewhere along that stretch, their is a weak defense ripe for punching through. Circle a force around to the flank of the enemies main forces and attack from two sides. On the micro level, this means moving in a way that negates your opponents cover while offering yourself cover.

A frontline is suppose to have a rear, the front, and 2 flanks: lefto and righto.

Galaxy spawning is no different from AMS spawning, the mobile spawn just FLIES now.

I'd say that's a big difference.

Try and wrap your head around that concept!

Try to wrap your head around that one. That means people will be parking galaxies at 12 oclock, 3 oclock, 6 oclock, and 9 oclock around every single town; ergo there is no front line.

I'll give you a few hours... And perhaps you should watch the skies those drop pods carrying the squad leads troops, much less the GALAXIES that could be dropping TWO whole squads on top of your base. I'm pretty sure the galaxy hot-drop concept isn't brand spanking new! I could be wrong though!

What about it? I'm talking about spawn points not galaxy drops.

Let's take a step back and actually watch some videos and do some in depth searches into how things are expected to work before we make yet another thread on how PS2 is somehow even more dumbed down than PS1 ever was and that SOE should be catering to the 2 dozen veterans that DON'T like any of the changes instead of the potential thousands of players (needed for PS2 to succeed + the 2 dozen veterans) that would be fairly happy with the current model of FPS gaming in their MMOFPS.

It's going to financially bomb if SONY caters to the COD/BF3 players.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-07, 09:16 PM

So you gonna hate PS2 so keep playing QUAKE 1 , DOOM , Conterstrike 1.6 and Planetside 1

BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HATE PLANETSIDE 2 SO QUIT RIGTH NOW AND DONT EVEN GIVE ANY TIME TO PLAY PLANETSIDE 2 BETA

Because the gameplay and guneplays of planetside 2 and battlefield 3 will be almost identical ;) and for the good of it Modern shooter have rock solid fps mechanics !

So go back to planetside 1 section and dont pay attention to any planetside 2 related tread because you gonna hate planetside 2 AND WE DONT NEED HATERS TO BUILD A AWESOME GAME !

I hope PS2 will have global chat like the CR5s in PS1. Because the game will be worth playing for me just to see the global messages from stew!

He can even be a recruitment slogan for the NC! "join the NC, WE HAVE STEW!!!"

Littleman

2012-07-07, 09:16 PM

Actually the "modern shooter" is just more graphics fluff piled on top of older shooters, they haven't improved on what should be important: Tactics, Strategy, Depth.

I read this after reading this:

List of military tactics

Force concentration Nonexistant with OS

Force protection Nonexistant with OS

Deception Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry

Fortification I can't imagine minefields or spitfires being effective in a dumbed down COD/BF3 type of game

Reconnaissance Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry

Infiltration tactics Everybody is an infiltrator with infantry spawning infantry

Encirclement Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry and galaxy spawning

Flanking maneuver Nonexistant with infantry spawning infantry and galaxy spawning

Indirect Fire Support No flails

Armoured spearhead Spearhead what? Infantry spawn points fly now, the AMS is the galaxy now.

Raiding Since there is no frontline because of the new spawn system, then there is also no such thing as "behind enemy lines".

Frontal assault The only thing that's left.

Frontal assault 24/7

I think it's clear you're either trolling or just plain fear mongering or... hrm... not being very creative.

Just don't play and you won't be disappointed with your inability to come up with viable tactics. Problem solved.

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 09:17 PM

Squad spawning hasn't even been tested yet. You, as well as all other opponents of it, can't possibly know until it is.

Squad spawning is the same in every other game in the universe that has squad spawning, I don't need to test it to know exactly how it works.

But based on what I do know of it from BF, an educated guess is that it will work just fine.

Oh well that makes it all better, if you say it's going to be fine.

Learn to kill squads, don't just expect to kill individuals and that they will be doomed to a long walkback.

Oh boohoo, wouldn't want to make someone have to have to walk anywhere, hey let's just let everyone push a button and teleport anywhere they want to on the map. Would that be good for you?

If you think BF3 isn't different from BF2, then you're completely discredited.

BF3 has more blue saturation, and no commander position, otherwise it's same thing.

lawnmower

2012-07-07, 09:22 PM

Did you mean strafing and jumpshooting gaming? Twitching your aim onto the target is just as important in ADS gameplay.
and how is lowering the speed (often to 0), having a zoom, and having a wait before you can start shooting increasing the skill required?

it's my firm belief that most people are not looking for the ability to fire while moving quickly.
i doubt you have any meaningful source for that.
and most people are casuals who hasnt even known anything but the current feel.
its also easier which is in general just a good thing for them

I happen to be a vet, and am looking forward to the new modern shooter mechanics being introduced into Planetside. Unreal Tournament game play is fun... in a small arena setting. Planetside 2's gameplay isn't taking place in a small arena setting.
non-modern gameplay mechanics arent automatically arena type games

Stew

2012-07-07, 09:22 PM

Squad spawning hasn't even been tested yet. You, as well as all other opponents of it, can't possibly know until it is.

But based on what I do know of it from BF, an educated guess is that it will work just fine. Learn to kill squads, don't just expect to kill individuals and that they will be doomed to a long walkback.

If you think BF3 isn't different from BF2, then you're completely discredited. There is a lot of resistance to BF3 among BF2 vets. We had to deal with the changes(many are still futilely hoping DICE will take BF4 back to a proper BF style), I suppose there's a lesson in that somewhere. But regardless of that, there's a lot of people from BF2 who would stand up against you on that one.

bf3 FPS mechanics are better than BF2 caracter moovement are betters , vehicules controles are better etc..

everything related to the actual gameplays BF3 is better

Battlefield 2 was better on one level Mortar batteries that can be destroy / repairs and a Comanders who lead the team and call strategics strike

Battlefield 3 flaws are mainly on the comunnication tools and confusing compass around the minimaps ,

But mostly everything as been improove if you denied thats you are NO battlefield 2 vets and you know nothing about BF series ive play them all from bf1942 to vietnam to Bf2 + expansion to BF2MC To BfBC (xbox360) to BFBC2 (pc) to BF3 (pc)

So i know what iam talking about people who get mad at every gameplay mechanics changes are mostly Lazy oldschoolers who dont want change in their games

These people should Love call of duty series because this series as never change since MW1 each games are copy and pastes of the others so on and on and on and on !

Iam glad the BF series as a certain evolution in term of graphics and gameplay mechanics

But i dont like How the comunication sythem always depend on 3d spottong mainly ! I think a solid VOIP was needed and also a leadership roles to help to structure and guides peoples and to improove the team work

But other than that BF3 have solids maps solids FPS mechanics , graphics , sounds , caracter moovement , and and so on

If you denied that i cant help you buddy i simply cant !

Buggsy

2012-07-07, 09:24 PM

bf3 FPS mechanics are better than BF2 caracter moovement are betters , vehicules controles are better etc..

everything related to the actual gameplays BF3 is better

Battlefield 2 was better on one level Mortar batteries that can be destroy / repairs and a Comanders who lead the team and call strategics strike

Battlefield 3 flaws are mainly on the comunnication tools and confusing compass around the minimaps ,

But mostly everything as been improove if you denied thats you are NO battlefield 2 vets and you know nothing about BF series ive play them all from bf1942 to vietnam to Bf2 + expansion to BF2MC To BfBC (xbox360) to BFBC2 (pc) to BF3 (pc)

So i know what iam talking about people who get mad at every gameplay mechanics changes are mostly Lazy oldschoolers who dont want change in their games

These people should Love call of duty series because this series as never change since MW1 each games are copy and pastes of the others so on and on and on and on !

Iam glad the BF series as a certain evolution in term of graphics and gameplay mechanics

But i dont like How the comunication sythem always depend on 3d spottong mainly ! I think a solid VOIP was needed and also a leadership roles to help to structure and guides peoples and to improove the team work

But other than that BF3 have solids maps solids FPS mechanics , graphics , sounds , caracter moovement , and and so on

If you denied that i cant help you buddy i simply cant !

ignore list #4

Stew

2012-07-07, 09:24 PM

and how is lowering the speed (often to 0), having a zoom, and having a wait before you can start shooting increasing the skill required?

i doubt you have any meaningful source for that.
and most people are casuals who hasnt even known anything but the current feel.
its also easier which is in general just a good thing for them

BF3 conquest with Klito ,skoob and delta - YouTube

For you this isnt quick enough lol you make me laugh HARD :lol::rofl::lol::rofl:

TAA

2012-07-07, 09:30 PM

BF3 conquest with Klito ,skoob and delta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7s0JnJMqOo&list=UUuTiThRSnCLeSxGWCflI93w&index=2&feature=plcp)

I should have been playing this game in French all along! :cool:

ChookWantan

2012-07-07, 11:07 PM

How could you ignore Stew! :( Thats such a sad thought

SixShooter

2012-07-07, 11:16 PM

How could you ignore Stew! :( Thats such a sad thought

Buggsy is on a RAMPAGE today:evil:

lawnmower

2012-07-07, 11:20 PM

BF3 conquest with Klito ,skoob and delta - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7s0JnJMqOo&list=UUuTiThRSnCLeSxGWCflI93w&index=2&feature=plcp)

For you this isnt quick enough lol you make me laugh HARD :lol::rofl::lol::rofl:
you make me laugh hard if this is quick enough for you. that game is not quick, what are you talkinga bout.
also this was a comment about aiming down sights

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-07, 11:39 PM

Did you mean strafing and jumpshooting gaming? Twitching your aim onto the target is just as important in ADS gameplay. In a technical sense,, ADS may "hobble" you by forcing you to stop/walk to get a good shot, but that shouldn't be taken as a negative, it's my firm belief that most people are not looking for the ability to fire while moving quickly. But as you say - character customization affects this, because things like MAXes will surely be able to fire while moving.

You still can't fire while sprinting, so I hardly think that asking for effective non-ADS shooting while crawling along at regular speed is "firing while moving quickly", and obviously MAX units can fire while moving. I'm not asking for being able to make headshots across the SOI at some glowing triangle (which, as you pointed out, is a bad BF3/BC2 mechanic), but if I can see a toon and read its name I ought to be able to land most of my shots even while moving. The Sweeper's default CoF in PS1 should be what your crosshairs look like while at rest (with the proper certs/customizations).

Zebasiz

2012-07-07, 11:57 PM

On the subject of squad spawning:
While yes, the form of squad spawn I just saw in that BF video is VERY silly. Popping into existance right next to the guy, even indoors.
We already know and have video evidence that the PS2 squad spawn is VERY different. I don't know if the BF3 spawn has a timer, but I know PS2 does, of several minutes. Also the PS2 spawn can only be outdoors, nother improvement over BF3.
And probably most important: as mentioned, spawning in BF appears to be instant appearence. While PS2 involves big flaming drop-pods falling from the sky for all to see and landing with a visable and sizeable "explosion". So it doesn't seam to have much more stealth than a galaxy drop.

Also, again, I don't know the mechanics of other games, but we also don't know the full mechanics of PS2 squad spawn. Perhaps only 1 person in the squad will be "Squad spawnable" onto. So squadmates can't just spawn onto whoever has the cert. (again, don't know how it works in other games)

So it doesn't appear that squad spawning will be too much of a threat, Yes they could suprize attack a base with a group spawn onto an infiltrator, but that's just one squad. You can also rush a galaxy with more people and have similar advantage.
Also, do we even know if it's possible to do that? Can the squad just choose, while alive, to spawn somewhere far away? (where the spawn guy is) Or do they need to be close? Say within the SOI or within the Hex? Can the entire squad spawn at once? Or one at a time? These are the points I see making any difference. But other than that, Squad spawning looks nothing like what I saw in that BF3 video Stew just posted. (I'm aware Stew posted the video in reference to ADS, I'm just talking about what I saw in it.)

Reefpirate

2012-07-08, 12:14 AM

What is this thread? I mean... What? Ok it's about whining... But, huh?

somers

2012-07-08, 12:46 AM

OP I share your same fears,but this game is beyond dumbed down, and there's no changing it. This is what $OE wants they don't care about what us veterans want they are catering to the COD/BF kiddies since they have the $$.

Jesus Christ shut the fuck up, if you aren't going to be productive about the topic stop posting.

SOE obviously doesn't care much about money since it is a FREE-TO-PLAY game with a cash shop that will provide very little income. They have to cater to other fans or else the game will end up like PS1 where the fan base dropped a year after the game released, so they need lots of players for this to be a successful game. The game also hasn't been dumbed down; here's some EXAMPLES- actual bullet physics, better net-code, multiple hit-boxes, classes so you can't specialize in everything like in PS1, and CUSTOMIZATION...

ignore list #4

Coding inside Buggsy's brain- (logic opposite from my standpoint and comes from someone else = ignore them and be a pretentious douche)

Also Stew... even though your English is bad... I love you :D

Maticus

2012-07-08, 01:00 AM

Look unless planteside 2 is just simply planetside 1 re-released with NO updates this guy wont be happy, just let it go you won't change his mind

somers

2012-07-08, 01:01 AM

What is this thread? I mean... What? Ok it's about whining... But, huh?

Yeah I wouldn't even bother with reading it, it's quite stupid and the thread should be closed. P.S. OP is an angry person who joined today just to complain about how he thinks it is dumbed down, yet hasn't played it himself :lol:

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-08, 01:01 AM

What is this thread? I mean... What? Ok it's about whining... But, huh?

Its a troll thread. I mean its fairly obvious the OP is trolling(or an idiot but I give him the benefit of the doubt and say troll). His points are all over the place first ranting about D3 then saying that anybody who post on PSU automatically hates any "modern shooters" or else we would be playing them and not posting here. Then he goes off about how squad spawning and galaxies somehow negates every single possible infantry tactic and then he ignores anybody who disagrees with him.

I mean he ignored STEW! Stews post are like half the reason I read this forum. Only a troll would dare ignore him!

GLaDOS

2012-07-08, 01:14 AM

maradine

2012-07-08, 01:23 AM

My new go-to forum logic:

1. You're here on the forums instead of doing [THING]. (premise)
2. So [THING] obviously sucks. (from 1.)

I think I have just found my Internet Warrior Win Button.

Goldeh

2012-07-08, 02:36 AM

I'm I the only one that finds threads like these enjoyable to read?

Not because I agree with the OP but because he's so odd.

ratfusion

2012-07-08, 02:40 AM

Dunno what the OP was going on about, but spawn-on-squad is the fastest easiest solution to more teamplay in PUG squads. It works. It brings minor consequences to the table, but nothing that can't be solved without a few tank rounds.

Besides its not going to work inside a base (although I hope routers/teleport does).

ChookWantan

2012-07-08, 02:45 AM

I'm I the only one that finds threads like these enjoyable to read?

Not because I agree with the OP but because he's so odd.

I feel like everyone except the 1% of supervets finds these kind of threads funny. You aren't alone.

somers

2012-07-08, 03:12 AM

Look unless planteside 2 is just simply planetside 1 re-released with NO updates this guy wont be happy, just let it go you won't change his mind

Too true... As much as I love the games I played as a kid I do know they are pretty bad, and when I take off my rose-tinted glasses called nostalgia I see that today's games are much better.

super pretendo

2012-07-08, 03:20 AM

I was pretty underwhelmed by D3. It had good parts, like music and atmosphere, but the story was shit and everything was casualized.

Astrok

2012-07-08, 03:22 AM

Isn't it possible that bugssy himself is dumbed down?

Maticus

2012-07-08, 03:27 AM

Too true... As much as I love the games I played as a kid I do know they are pretty bad, and when I take off my rose-tinted glasses called nostalgia I see that today's games are much better.

Games evolve and for the better. I love planetside, but I've played it to death and its time to move on. Planetside 2 is a great way to revamp and have the epic scale battles that made planetside 1 great.

Isn't it possible that bugssy himself is dumbed down?

touche sir

Stew

2012-07-08, 03:32 AM

you make me laugh hard if this is quick enough for you. that game is not quick, what are you talkinga bout.
also this was a comment about aiming down sights

You have never play battlefield 3 rigth ? Am i rigth ?

Aming down the sigths if the sight isnt a snipers scope Yess its pretty quick and quick enough to react and kill you before you even realise it ;)

Also the iron sigth view is pretty much Instant , Holographics sigth are pretty quick and only sniper scopes take a little delay but its not even a second lol !

I think many people dont even know whats they are talking about Ive made this just for ya buddy ;) take a closer look

BF3 aiming down - YouTube

This proove everything enough said ;)

Too true... As much as I love the games I played as a kid I do know they are pretty bad, and when I take off my rose-tinted glasses called nostalgia I see that today's games are much better.

Exactly , todays games are much better in term of gameplay and games mechanics but sometimes fews features are miss but it seams its not really the case here with ps2 since the vehicules who as been remoove are replace in some way since some others vehicules will have the exact same purpose !

Iam also pretty sure thats down the road we will have much more vehicules and secondary objectives added ;)

Eyeklops

2012-07-08, 03:49 AM

LOL @ everybody raging over the obvious toll OP

Kran De Loy

2012-07-08, 04:10 AM

LOL at a community that can be so hyped yet so bored at the same time.

fod

2012-07-08, 04:33 AM

rTekku

2012-07-08, 04:43 AM

Today's games aren't always "better" depending on what you judge them by.

Smash Bros Melee > Brawl. Just sayin.

Troika

2012-07-08, 04:56 AM

I loved being an Engineer in PS1 and I did the exact same thing as Bugsy with the spitfires & explosives herding the enemy to killzones. I really miss spitfires and i hope you can upgrade your turrets to be autofiring so that i can set up a effective defensive grids as an engineer.

I find the "there is no front line" argument odd though, as it seems that this time around there really seems to be front lines in the game. Galaxies as spawn points are slow big targets which can be easily detected unlike AMS trucks. Galaxies require a strong defence to keep them alive. Objectives take longer time to hack when they are further away from the front line making the querilla hacking in enemy terroritory even more dfficult.

In PS1 lone Infiltrator could hack a terminal deep in enemy terroritory to spawn an AMS, drive it off the base and deploy it nearby. Cap a tower for a decoy and then proceed to cap the base. I don't see something like this being possible in PS2 as you just can't operate alone in enemy terroritory without hidden spawn point. Your op will be shut down pretty easily this time. You need a team to go with you, team big enough to defend the spawn (tower or Gal) and cap the base. This is an considerable improvement to combat the front line fragmentation problem.

IHateMMOs

2012-07-08, 05:23 AM

Its not dumbed down, its modernized to appeal to a bigger crowd. Anyone who thinks its dumbed down obviously can't see the big "2" next to Planetside.

sunzen

2012-07-08, 05:35 AM

Don't feed a troll or it will grow and troll you even more.

MrKWalmsley

2012-07-08, 06:35 AM

IPs like star wars and final fantasy are huge names with huge fan bases and that didnt stop their games from failing.

Got to call you out on that one. Star Wars games are irrelevant to the Star Wars logo since it is not in the same industry. I'm pretty sure if there was a shitty Diablo film it would fail.

The Star Wars prequels were absolute crap as most film critics will tell you, and yet they made a huge amount of money for them. Thus proving that your point is not necessarily the case. It was very weak of you to try and justify your claim by taking something from one medium and saying how much of a flop it is in another, whilst using it to back up your point regarding two things in the same medium.

The reason they flopped is because they didn't cross, and it is even more prevalent the other way around, when they try to turn games into movies rather than the other way around. So bringing up the difficult transition between the Star Wars franchise from movie to game is irrelevant when we are talking about an entity existing entirely in gaming.

Karrade

2012-07-08, 06:55 AM

The speeding up of life in general has been going on for many, many years. This is of course reflected in games being a subset of life.

We do lose detail from moments at a faster pace: In a game this is reflected in the mechanics not being as robust or as intricate as they were in games gone by, instead being faster paced, more intense in many ways. We used to have to generate the intensity ourselves through imagination/emotion etc.

Which is better?

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 07:23 AM

edit:

im sorry but even as a fellow mordorian i disagree
there is so many things wrong with BF3 that i cant agree with "50% of BF3's problem is small maps"
what about

regeneration?
vehicle disable?
3d spotting?
audio spotting?
auto spotting?
no commander?
supernova sun?
messed up unlocks?
clustered flags?

I say 50% because small map size spmetimes makes it so you can't even enjoy the game enough to sometimes even reach all the other problems. You're not wrong, all of those are problems.

SixShooter

2012-07-08, 07:34 AM

You have never play battlefield 3 rigth ? Am i rigth ?

Aming down the sigths if the sight isnt a snipers scope Yess its pretty quick and quick enough to react and kill you before you even realise it ;)

Also the iron sigth view is pretty much Instant , Holographics sigth are pretty quick and only sniper scopes take a little delay but its not even a second lol !

I think many people dont even know whats they are talking about Ive made this just for ya buddy ;) take a closer look

BF3 aiming down - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh-aqiAmaqw)

This proove everything enough said ;)

Exactly , todays games are much better in term of gameplay and games mechanics but sometimes fews features are miss but it seams its not really the case here with ps2 since the vehicules who as been remoove are replace in some way since some others vehicules will have the exact same purpose !

Iam also pretty sure thats down the road we will have much more vehicules and secondary objectives added ;)

LOL @ everybody raging over the obvious toll OP

LOL at a community that can be so hyped yet so bored at the same time.

i diddnt read every page but i do hope that PS2 doesnt turn into a BF3 MMO

the last few days playing PS1 with the huge popluations again has shown me that pretty much every modern FPS game is poop and if PS2 turns into a BF3 MMO i hope they keep the PS1 servers running because i could play for another 9 years (wont happen but i can wish)

edit:

im sorry but even as a fellow mordorian i disagree
there is so many things wrong with BF3 that i cant agree with "50% of BF3's problem is small maps"
what about

regeneration?
vehicle disable?
3d spotting?
audio spotting?
auto spotting?
no commander?
supernova sun?
messed up unlocks?
clustered flags?

theres probably more but i have happily forgotten about that POS of a game - i think the basic gameplay of BF3 is horrible theres pretty much nothing it does right imo

Stew - I have no idea on what you're trying to tell us :huh::huh::huh:

I'm totally down with the vehilcle reduction/combintion. The universe runs better when it's less fucked up. Fuck all 'yall because BF3 is fun. If you're hung up on bullshit and can't have fun then I think that is your own fault. Go find a game that makes you happy and quit yer bitchin.

I think Buggsy and whymad are the same angry troll. If not then I'm glad I I live in awesomness and don't have to deal with these fuckers in person (I'm so nerdy that it hurts to have to kill other nerds. I don't make the rules but I do have to enforce them);)

**edit**
I'm sorry, this was a very drunk posting...Going outside to watch the sunrise now:)

TAA

2012-07-08, 08:30 AM

regeneration?
vehicle disable?
3d spotting?
audio spotting?
auto spotting?
no commander?
supernova sun?
messed up unlocks?
clustered flags?

I actually agree with you on a lot of this stuff.

Regeneration - health regeneration for vehicles is an abomination. Health regeneration for players I can live with. Still this is a big reason why I only play HC mode.
Vehicle disable - do you mean the point at which they catch on fire, become hard to move and start steadily losing health? I dont see the problem with this.
3D spotting - I have no problems with 3D spotting in BF3. At least it lets you tell your team mates where the enemy are when they are beyond range of the mini map and without the use of voice. It is also much better than BFBC2 in that the 3D tag is not visible through any solid objects and rather requires LOS. In fact, my favorite way to play the game on a public server is in HC mode with 3D spotting turned on.
Audio Spotting - if someone fires their weapon without a silencer they should show up on the mini map. That is the advantage of a silenced weapon. If you want you can always play on servers with SHOW MINIMAP set to OFF.
Auto Spot - Are you talking about using a script to automatically spot enemies you mouse over for you? That is called cheating. If you are talking about using a macro to spot someone when you press the fire button then that is just useless. Spot becomes unresponsive for several seconds after a few presses. Furthermore if you are firing your weapon you should be aiming to kill the person you are firing at. Spotting is most useful to tell your team where a target is that you might not be able to kill (ie. beyond effective range for your weapon).
No Commander - I agree that this was a terrible change to the game. It used to be that the commander could talk to the squad leaders, and the squad leaders could talk to the commander. You would follow your squad leader and keep him alive because he was your spawn point and he was taking orders from on high to fit a greater plan. In BF3 normal mode you can spawn on anyone in your squad and there is no greater plan. In HC mode you can spawn on the squad leader, but he is just doing whatever he wants anyway so why bother? I understand why they removed commander mode though - it was a bit daunting for players at first and there was no way to learn it other than to be shoved into the role and to wear the abuse from everyone on your team for not knowing how to play the role.
Supernova Sun - who cares about the sun. What about the supernova flashlights?
Messed up unlocks - I dont know what you mean here.
Clustered flags - It does change the feel of the game but it is not that bad. The Back to Karkand expansion brought back 4 older maps, and they are not necessarily better than the new maps. There are plenty of servers available that use only the biggest maps and they might suit your style of playing better. I myself like the variety, even with the occasional round in Metro thrown into the mix.

Despite agreeing with you on a lot of this I would never say that BF3 is worse than its predecessors. Let me put it this way - if I thought it was worse I would still be playing the predecessors. Yes the game could be better than it is. It is still a fantastic game though.

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 08:35 AM

This thread is hilarious.

I got to tip my hat to bugsy, he sure knows how to troll.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 08:37 AM

I actually agree with you on a lot of this stuff.

Vehicle disable - do you mean the point at which they catch on fire, become hard to move and start steadily losing health? I dont see the problem with this.
3D spotting - I have no problems with 3D spotting in BF3. At least it lets you tell your team mates where the enemy are when they are beyond range of the mini map and without the use of voice. It is also much better than BFBC2 in that the 3D tag is not visible through any solid objects and rather requires LOS. In fact, my favorite way to play the game on a public server is in HC mode with 3D spotting turned on.
Audio Spotting - if someone fires their weapon without a silencer they should show up on the mini map. That is the advantage of a silenced weapon. If you want you can always play on servers with SHOW MINIMAP set to OFF.

Despite agreeing with you on a lot of this I would never say that BF3 is worse than its predecessors. Let me put it this way - if I thought it was worse I would still be playing the predecessors. Yes the game could be better than it is. It is still a fantastic game though.

Disabling is ridiculous. It totally waters down vehicle play, overpowers infantry against vehicles and makes vehicle play frustrating. And I stick to infantry most of the time myself, and even I can see this.

3D spotting is a major problem. If enemies are that far away, you shouldn't need to go beyond the mini map. It's an artificial aid that does all the work. It's 4th wall breaking aid from the game, not teamwork. It may be teammate triggered, but that's all. If you're worried about people THAT far away, you're not concentrating on objectives, and indeed this is another problem of 3D spotting, it helps encourage people to play Deathmatch even in Conquest, and people ignore the flags/objectives in favor of going hunting for kills. And I'm aware that it got changed from BC2, but it wasn't enough. All these problems still happen, the only thing that the changes stopped was that you can no longer blast people on the other side of a wall with an RPG since it disappears on the other side of a wall.

Audio spotting: Just no. This is why guns make sounds in the game, you should be required to use your ears to hear it. The fact that you can use a silencer to stop this does not make it right, all there is to it.

3D and audiospotting are two of the 3 biggest skill-removing/skill-equalizing features in the game, the third is positional killcam.

fod

2012-07-08, 08:44 AM

Audio spotting: Just no. This is why guns make sounds in the game, you should be required to use your ears to hear it. The fact that you can use a silencer to stop this does not make it right, all there is to it.

and this is one of the main reasons unlocks are fubar - it basically requires you to have a silencer at all times

and autospotting is when you have the enemy in your crosshairs long enough it 3d spots them for all to see without even pressing q, i heard this has been toned down but im guessing its still in there

TAA

2012-07-08, 08:51 AM

Disabling is ridiculous. It totally waters down vehicle play, overpowers infantry against vehicles and makes vehicle play frustrating. And I stick to infantry most of the time myself, and even I can see this.

3D spotting is a major problem. If enemies are that far away, you shouldn't need to go beyond the mini map. It's an artificial aid that does all the work. It's 4th wall breaking aid from the game, not teamwork. It may be teammate triggered, but that's all. If you're worried about people THAT far away, you're not concentrating on objectives, and indeed this is another problem of 3D spotting, it helps encourage people to play Deathmatch even in Conquest, and people ignore the flags/objectives in favor of going hunting for kills.

Audio spotting: Just no. This is why guns make sounds in the game, you should be required to use your ears to hear it. The fact that you can use a silencer to stop this does not make it right, all there is to it.

3D and audiospotting are two of the 3 biggest skill-removing/skill-equalizing features in the game, the third is positional killcam.

You are aware that the default settings for the game are chosen by developers to appeal to the vast majority of consumers right? It is part of developing a successful product.

Thankfully if you dont like default settings you do have the power to host servers and to change the settings to your own liking. Here are some settings you might like:

KILL CAM - off
SHOW ENEMY NAME TAGS - off
USE 3D SPOTTING - off
SHOW MINIMAP - off
REGENERATIVE HEALTH - off
3P VEHICLE CAM - off

Find servers that play the settings you like, encourage your clan to host those servers, host those servers yourself. Take charge of your gaming experience.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 08:54 AM

TAA

2012-07-08, 08:54 AM

and this is one of the main reasons unlocks are fubar - it basically requires you to have a silencer at all times

I never use a silencer in the game. It has a greater drop off in damage over range, which for most weapons and ranges will increase the # of bullets needed to kill a target. Yes I only play HC mode and yes even 1-2 bullets makes a huge difference.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 08:54 AM

Its not dumbed down, its modernized to appeal to a bigger crowd. Anyone who thinks its dumbed down obviously can't see the big "2" next to Planetside.

"DOOEEe I like to shoot things, DOOIEEEE."

It's dumbed down.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 08:57 AM

You are aware that the default settings for the game are chosen by developers to appeal to the vast majority of consumers right? It is part of developing a successful product.

Thankfully if you dont like default settings you do have the power to host servers and to change the settings to your own liking. Here are some settings you might like:

KILL CAM - off
SHOW ENEMY NAME TAGS - off
USE 3D SPOTTING - off
SHOW MINIMAP - off
REGENERATIVE HEALTH - off
3P VEHICLE CAM - off

Find servers that play the settings you like, encourage your clan to host those servers, host those servers yourself. Take charge of your gaming experience.

I think you are not aware of the realities of this or else don't care, either way, this response is what a lot of people say who like BF3 and could care less if others don't. My clan DID use these settings and had to change it back. You see, if you customize your server, your server goes to "Custom" settings on the server browser and custom servers do not receive quick matches, as well as the fact that most players only search for either normal or hardcore servers. This works against custom servers unfairly.

Also, DICE has ZERO proof that disabling or any individual feature is popular with the vast majority of gamers. Sales figures simply cannot be used to justify an individual feature. If the game is fun enough in other ways to compensate people will buy it and play but that is in no way proof of the popularity of an individual feature.

DICE chose a positional killcam for their default settings but SOE, because SOE actually has been engaging with the consumers and finding out what they want, learned that they need to design a killcam that does not show the killer's position. That is the difference between knowing what people want and guessing based on sales.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 08:58 AM

LOL @ everybody raging over the obvious toll OP

That's what the trolls like you said on the PS1 forums when I told them that if they didn't delete OS from the game then the population would drop to almost nothing. Population dropped to almost nothing.

Too true... As much as I love the games I played as a kid I do know they are pretty bad, and when I take off my rose-tinted glasses called nostalgia I see that today's games are much better.

That's what trolls in the D3 forums are saying, "rose tinted glasses", even though there are still more players playing D2 than D3.

Dunno what the OP was going on about, but spawn-on-squad is the fastest easiest solution to more teamplay in PUG squads. It works. It brings minor consequences to the table, but nothing that can't be solved without a few tank rounds.

Besides its not going to work inside a base (although I hope routers/teleport does).

I'm sure it works, I'm also sure giant floating battleships would work too. But it also turns the game into a COD "randomly shoot in any direction" game.

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 09:03 AM

Population dropped to almost nothing.

The way of all games I'm afraid.

Even one day, I will log on to Eve Online and only see 100 people in Jita.

EDIT: wow that's actually a creepy thought.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:03 AM

I'm sure it works, I'm also sure giant floating battleships would work too. But it also turns the game into a COD "randomly shoot in any direction" game.

First of all, no, and secondly, if you're going to talk about floating battleships, are you at least going to resist jump pads? I'm sure they work too...

NewSith

2012-07-08, 09:03 AM

if they didn't delete OS from the game then the population would drop to almost nothing. Population dropped to almost nothing.

LOL. That's like saying "my friend started smoking when he was young and died from cancer when he was 106"

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:04 AM

I feel a little pathetic for joining in on this, but I can't help myself:

So you're basically saying that squad spawning will ruin the game. Well, let's review what we know about squad spawning.

1. You will not be able to spawn on everyone in your squad, either only certed people or the squad leader.

2. You will squad spawn down in a noisy, partially flaming drop pod that reveals you and your squad mate's position.

3. There will be a several minute cooldown on squad spawning.

4. Absolutely s**t else.

1. Sounds like Battlefield games
2. ...you know where the squad leader sits around and hides all day cause they don't want to be shot
3. ....and that lame thing where you have enemies popping up all around you like they used a Star Trek teleport pad.
4 ...Or that BF2142 thing where nobody notices players spawning onto the frisbee because the frisbee is really high on the roof.

Yeah I wouldn't even bother with reading it, it's quite stupid and the thread should be closed. P.S. OP is an angry person who joined today just to complain about how he thinks it is dumbed down, yet hasn't played it himself :lol:

I don't need to play a WOW-clone to know it's a WOW-clone.

I don't need to play BF3 to know it's a BF2 clone.

Once you've been around long enough, kiddo, you can see something coming without needing to be hit by it.

Coding inside Buggsy's brain- (logic opposite from my standpoint and comes from someone else = ignore them and be a pretentious douche)

Also Stew... even though your English is bad... I love you :D

Ignore

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:08 AM

1. Sounds like Battlefield games
2. ...you know where the squad leader sits around and hides all day cause they don't want to be shot
3. ....and that lame thing where you have enemies popping up all around you like they used a Star Trek teleport pad.
4 ...Or that BF2142 thing where nobody notices players spawning onto the frisbee because the frisbee is really high on the roof.

1. Nothing wrong with BF mechanics per se.
2. Yes, right? If you're the spawn point you need to stay alive. And hanging back to stay alive helps enhance the creation of front lines.
4. There has been no indication of the inclusion of a squad beacon. But I suppose it helps your argument appear stronger to keep mentioning it.

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 09:10 AM

I think buggsy has a form of autism.

We should understand this, and not be mean to him.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:11 AM

1. Nothing wrong with BF mechanics per se.
2. Yes, right? If you're the spawn point you need to stay alive. And hanging back to stay alive helps enhance the creation of front lines.
4. There has been no indication of the inclusion of a squad beacon. But I suppose it helps your argument appear stronger to keep mentioning it.

I've seen a beta video, looks like squad beacon spawning to me. Someone puts it really high on a building, nobody notices the pod, just like in BF2142. And even if you did notice the pod, it wouldn't matter, it still destroys any logical semblence to afrontline with enemies randomly spawning all over the place.

BF mechanics are brainless, and it hasn't improved since the first game BF1942. Graphical fluff isn't an improvement.

LOL. That's like saying "my friend started smoking when he was young and died from cancer when he was 106"

Hows the PS1 OS wars going these days. Having fun? Good.

You and Bob over there, the only subscribers left.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:14 AM

I've seen a beta video, looks like squad beacon spawning to me. Someone puts it really high on a building, nobody notices the pod, just like in BF2142. And even if you did notice the pod, it wouldn't matter, it still destroys any logical semblence to afrontline with enemies randomly spawning all over the place.

BF mechanics are brainless, and it hasn't improved since the first game BF1942. Graphical fluff isn't an improvement.

You've pointed out exactly why you should spawn on the ground right next to your squad leader instead of drop pods. And that is no more ridiculous than an endless stream of soldiers that come running out of an AMS or Galaxy.

There is no spawn beacon in the PS2 videos. You probably are thinking this because the pods can be guided and therefore don't necessary land next to their squad leader.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:14 AM

First of all, no, and secondly, if you're going to talk about floating battleships, are you at least going to resist jump pads? I'm sure they work too...

Anything works, heck even transforming into Godzilla would work, but it would be pretty lame now wouldn't it.

You've pointed out exactly why you should spawn on the ground right next to your squad leader instead of drop pods. And that is no more ridiculous than an endless stream of soldiers that come running out of an AMS or Galaxy.

The AMS needs to be driven to the battle, that means it can be destroyed enroute and it can't randomly appear anywhere and everywhere, unlike squad spawning and the flying AMS galaxy.

There is no spawn beacon in the PS2 videos. You probably are thinking this because the pods can be guided and therefore don't necessary land next to their squad leader.

The effect is exactly the same, enemies randomly appearing all over the place, Ooh how fun.

NewSith

2012-07-08, 09:17 AM

Hows the PS1 OS wars going these days. Having fun? Good.

You and Bob over there, the only subscribers left.

OS Wars? What's that?

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:18 AM

OS Wars? What's that?

OS Wars is a game where everyone sits around and presses their I-win button, and don't do much of anything else.

fod

2012-07-08, 09:21 AM

i wonder if they will let you squad spawn drop within a bases SOI?
because if they dont then i think it can be fair - kind of like being able to HART drop anywhere like in PS1

NewSith

2012-07-08, 09:22 AM

OS Wars is a game where everyone sits around and presses their I-win button, and don't do much of anything else.

Hmmm... Never played it. Are you sure that you're talking about PlanetSide?

Also, don't you think that giving respawn ability to everyone is a dumbdown? Or being able to survive after 10 bullets in your knee? Or teleporting from continent to continent? Or creating vehicles out of empty air? Hmmm...

TAA

2012-07-08, 09:23 AM

DICE chose a positional killcam for their default settings but SOE, because SOE actually has been engaging with the consumers and finding out what they want, learned that they need to design a killcam that does not show the killer's position. That is the difference between knowing what people want and guessing based on sales.

I disagree. What SOE has been doing is listening to their hardcore player base. That is not a recipe for success. What they should be doing is pulling in casual gamers or non-gamers and asking them how they feel about the game. I hope that they havent done a botch up job with their tutorial. So many games dont put enough effort in it, yet it is the first point of contact between gamer and game.

Once the game goes live will be a real test for them. Random people will be downloading the game to check it out because it is free and they can. They will need a full team of coders on standby to enact changes to the game based on nothing but the usage data they collect. Feedback from us will not matter one bit, and it shouldnt. They are running a business.

As for killcam, I actually love it. The COD style killcam is perfect IMO (I dont like any others I have seen). I find it fun to see exactly what someone did to kill me. No it is not appropriate for a hardcore game. How will their average consumer feel about it? I dont know. Neither do you. It sure would suck to have the ability to do it coded into the game already and lose customers because it wasnt used.

You know what would be perfect actually - put killcam as an option in the cash store. No it wouldnt be something they would do at launch. I reckon they should wait six months until all the hardcore gamers have invested significant time and money into the game and become committed, and then do it to make even more money (along with the ability to buy certs).

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:24 AM

1 Anything works, heck even transforming into Godzilla would work, but it would be pretty lame now wouldn't it.

2 The AMS needs to be driven to the battle, that means it can be destroyed enroute and it can't randomly appear anywhere and everywhere, unlike squad spawning and the flying AMS galaxy.

3 The effect is exactly the same, enemies randomly appearing all over the place, Ooh how fun.

1. So, does that mean you recognize the silliness of jump pads or not?
2. And squad leaders can be killed as well.
3. I didn't say I agreed with the drop pods being guideable.

i wonder if they will let you squad spawn drop within a bases SOI?
because if they dont then i think it can be fair - kind of like being able to HART drop anywhere like in PS1

If you can't squad spawn within the base perimeter(do we yet have any idea how much further beyond the perimeter the SOI goes?), then there's no need for cooldowns or drop pods anyway.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:30 AM

Hmmm... Never played it. Are you sure that you're talking about PlanetSide?

Also, don't you think that giving respawn ability to everyone is a dumbdown? Or being able to survive after 10 bullets in your knee? Or teleporting from continent to continent? Or creating vehicles out of empty air? Hmmm...

No FPS has proper cover and concealment modeled where infantry can quickly duck behind and shoot. PS1 with larger hitpoints and slower kill time is better because it emulates that aspect, it makes shootouts more realistic by having unrealistic high hitpoints and ability to heal while behind cover.

I always enjoyed infantry on infantry shootouts in PS1 because of that.

Teleporting from one continent to another in PS1 doesn't destroy the concept of a front line.

1. So, does that mean you recognize the silliness of jump pads or not?
2. And squad leaders can be killed as well.
3. I didn't say I agreed with the drop pods being guideable.

Jumpads and infantry spawning infantry is silly, it means there is no front line. A frontline with a safe rear area, 2 flanks, and facing the enemy.

Squad leader spawning is no fun for the squad leader, they have to play hide and go seek, meh.

I disagree. What SOE has been doing is listening to their hardcore player base. That is not a recipe for success. What they should be doing is pulling in casual gamers or non-gamers and asking them how they feel about the game. I hope that they havent done a botch up job with their tutorial. So many games dont put enough effort in it, yet it is the first point of contact between gamer and game.

Once the game goes live will be a real test for them. Random people will be downloading the game to check it out because it is free and they can. They will need a full team of coders on standby to enact changes to the game based on nothing but the usage data they collect. Feedback from us will not matter one bit, and it shouldnt. They are running a business.

As for killcam, I actually love it. The COD style killcam is perfect IMO (I dont like any others I have seen). I find it fun to see exactly what someone did to kill me. No it is not appropriate for a hardcore game. How will their average consumer feel about it? I dont know. Neither do you. It sure would suck to have the ability to do it coded into the game already and lose customers because it wasnt used.

You know what would be perfect actually - put killcam as an option in the cash store. No it wouldnt be something they would do at launch. I reckon they should wait six months until all the hardcore gamers have invested significant time and money into the game and become committed, and then do it to make even more money (along with the ability to buy certs).

Killcams destroy the stealth tactic. There's another valid tactic out the window.

i wonder if they will let you squad spawn drop within a bases SOI?
because if they dont then i think it can be fair - kind of like being able to HART drop anywhere like in PS1

It doesn't matter how squad spawning is "balanced" it destroys the concept of having a front line.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:37 AM

I disagree. What SOE has been doing is listening to their hardcore player base. That is not a recipe for success. What they should be doing is pulling in casual gamers or non-gamers and asking them how they feel about the game. I hope that they havent done a botch up job with their tutorial. So many games dont put enough effort in it, yet it is the first point of contact between gamer and game.

Once the game goes live will be a real test for them. Random people will be downloading the game to check it out because it is free and they can. They will need a full team of coders on standby to enact changes to the game based on nothing but the usage data they collect. Feedback from us will not matter one bit, and it shouldnt. They are running a business.

As for killcam, I actually love it. The COD style killcam is perfect IMO (I dont like any others I have seen). I find it fun to see exactly what someone did to kill me. No it is not appropriate for a hardcore game. How will their average consumer feel about it? I dont know. Neither do you. It sure would suck to have the ability to do it coded into the game already and lose customers because it wasnt used.

You know what would be perfect actually - put killcam as an option in the cash store. No it wouldnt be something they would do at launch. I reckon they should wait six months until all the hardcore gamers have invested significant time and money into the game and become committed, and then do it to make even more money (along with the ability to buy certs).

One problem with claiming "hardcore" is, what does hardcore mean? To many people, hardcore is people who want realism. In THAT respect maybe realism lovers are against killcam, but people who want the game to be made into an extreme realism simulator are so few in number that there is no way that all the resistance to killcam can be coming just from them. On the other hand most people think of hardcore as simply people who play 10 hours a day. That kind of hardcore is not pre-disposed against killcam.

But you admit that you don't know what the average player thinks of no killcam, so there we are. But I believe there would be more players who leave over a positional killcam being in the game than would leave because there isn't one. You don't have to be a hardcore player to want skill to matter. When you have things like 3D spotting, positional killcam and all the other skill gap compensators in the game that allow the unskilled to have a better chance against the skilled, it converts the game into one big immersion cinematic where you're just along for the ride, much like a movie. That's an extreme embellishment, I admit of course, but it is indeed a step in that direction.

CoD's killcam is better than BF3's in this respect. It replays what the killer did but doesn't show where your killer is AFTER he killed you. It's not better than no killcam, but it is much better.

As for the idea of selling killcam in the cash shop, assuming you mean a positional killcam, that would indeed by pay2win.

It doesn't matter how squad spawning is "balanced" it destroys the concept of having a front line.

It actually enhances the concept of a front line, otherwise you have a constant stream of people walking back who are easily overwhelmed because they're not organized til they get back.

But hey, you're against jump pads and killcam(as am I), so at least you're being consistent!

NewSith

2012-07-08, 09:38 AM

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:40 AM

Qui tacet consentit, huh?

Where's my giant floating battleship?

2012, making the same arguments I made in 2005. Against probably the same trolls who can't see past their own noses.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:42 AM

Qui tacet consentit, huh?

Who remains silent consents(agrees), lol? Nice. Yea, respawning could be looked at as a dumbdown, or not dying in 1 hit, or vehicles appearing out of thin air(more than once, too).

But these things are necessary to make the game playable.

NewSith

2012-07-08, 09:44 AM

Who remains silent consents(agrees), lol? Nice. Yea, respawning could be looked at as a dumbdown, or not dying in 1 hit, or vehicles appearing out of thin air(more than once, too).

But these things are necessary to make the game playable.

Same for orbital strikes for instance. Or defenders will have no advantage over attackers, because of the very same (MOBILE) respawn ability.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 09:48 AM

Same for orbital strikes for instance. Or defenders will have no advantage over attackers, because of the very same (MOBILE) respawn ability.

OS is not an asymmetric breaker, it's symmetrical; the I-win button favors neither the attackers or defenders.

NewSith

2012-07-08, 09:51 AM

OS is not an asymmetric breaker, it's symmetrical; the I-win button favors neither the attackers or defenders.

You're saying it to an ams driver and an interlink farmer. I will simply not agree with you on the matter, because of the personal experience.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 09:51 AM

OS is not an asymmetric breaker, it's symmetrical; the I-win button favors neither the attackers or defenders.

That's not exactly true, defenders are much more likely to be indoors and thus ineligible to receive an OS compared to attackers.

TAA

2012-07-08, 10:00 AM

As for the idea of selling killcam in the cash shop, assuming you mean a positional killcam, that would indeed by pay2win.

Well I would certainly pay for a COD style killcam...

As for pay2win, I am afraid that sooner or later the game will go that way anyway. Sure if the game is popular they might stave off on it for a little bit longer, but the moment profits start to dip some meetings will be called and we might very well see pay2win being introduced. I do believe it will happen sooner or later, so really the way I look at it is that by having it done sooner they would save me time and/or money depending on what I decided to do with the game.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 10:14 AM

You're saying it to an ams driver and an interlink farmer. I will simply not agree with you on the matter, because of the personal experience.

I unsubbed about 5 years ago, I don't care how warped and screwed up the game has become these days. Probably worse than I'd ever imagined: OS, hacks and exploits. sounds fun.

That's not exactly true, defenders are much more likely to be indoors and thus ineligible to receive an OS compared to attackers.

OS is symmetrical.

Irish

2012-07-08, 10:22 AM

Where's my giant floating battleship?

2012, making the same arguments I made in 2005. Against probably the same trolls who can't see past their own noses.

so buggsy, .....can you just not play ps2, and go on your merry way?

..instead of assuming everyone who doesn't share your opinion proves your elite status in this world, cant you have your opinion and not troll the forums with your obvious arrogance and narcissism.

if i had to pick you out of a line up, based on how you convey your opinions, i would choose the 50 something guy who has been allowed to be self absorbed and condescending the majority of his life who is so far spiraled out of reality that they resort to hardcore gaming due to the detachment it creates from simple human interaction.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 10:25 AM

so buggsy, .....can you just not play ps2, and go on your merry way?

..instead of assuming everyone who doesn't share your opinion proves your elite status in this world, cant you have your opinion and not troll the forums with your obvious arrogance and narcissism.

if i had to pick you out of a line up, based on how you convey your opinions, i would choose the 50 something guy who has been allowed to be self absorbed and condescending the majority of his life who is so far spiraled out of reality that they resort to hardcore gaming due to the detachment it creates from simple human interaction.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but your not suppose to give the gamer everything they want. It's why:

In the game of Monopoly every place isn't boardwalk

In the game of Battleship every peg doesn't have a ship

In the game of cards every card isn't an ace of ******

In the game of Chess every piece isn't the queen.

In the game of Stratego every piece isn't a 1.

You get it? No, probably not.

ITOS

2012-07-08, 10:26 AM

After seeing footage of PS1 I have too say that the devs are just destroying what could have been a great predecessor to PS2. If they keep dumbing down PS1 I won't play it. No subscription money from me! In PS2 you have to fly in a huge Gal to set up a spawn and everyone can see it. Even when landed the enemy is over it in seconds so you actually have to pull you shit together and defend your spawn. That is tactics! But in PS1 you apparently have these small cars that are invisible when deployed and that just takes away all the strategy in setting up a spawn. You just roll up and deploy and maybe put sown some mines. Which reminds me: How can they be so stupid that they allow for up to 20 mines per character? Not to mention other deployables! In PS2 you actually have to coordinate with you team mates when you want to set up a mine field or base defence but in PS1 it looks like you can do that all by your self and everyone can do it too! As everyone can cert anything and just run around and heal and repair themselves. That is bullshit! In PS2 I know that if I take out a squads medic they actually loose the ability to heal or if I take out their AV guy I can then roll vehicles against the rest. That is strategy but the devs are removing all that in PS1 just so that people can run around and feel like Rambo. I love PS2 and want PS1 to be equally good but PS1 won't survive long like that. I also hear that they are going to add an immobile artillery piece that someone has too sit and pull the trigger in while your friends are out pointing at things you can't see. Big whoop-de-do in the strategy department there /sarcasm. How is it better than what we have now? You still point at a target but now at least you don't have a guy who have to spend his time shooting at clouds while his friends have fun at the front line. The only thing PS1 has going for it is that main tanks require gunners now but I hear they might add single seat versions of them if pops continues to drop. :(

Disclaimer: This post is sarcastic, highly exaggerated and mainly for laughs.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 10:32 AM

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 10:34 AM

The AMS had a cloak for a damn good reason: it was the best way to balance infantry vs. vehicles without totally nerfing vehicles like in Battlefield 2/3 games.

AMS = Infantry, it was their spawn point. And no the solution isn't to have COD random spawning.

Vehicles weren't nerfed in BF2, they were full rape machines.

As for BF3, vehicles were nerfed to cater to CoD infantry focus players.

What CoD game mode has random spawning that you are referring to?

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 10:40 AM

Why are people posting in this thread.

There are two possible outcomes for this.

1) He's just a brilliant troll, and all this is very entertaining.
2) He's pants shitting retarded. And eitherway you'll never be able up against a retard fuelled argument and win. He'll just ignore or flat out deny any valid points you make, while repeating the same broken logic with his.

But sure guys, carry on. This is all amusing.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 10:43 AM

Vehicles weren't nerfed in BF2, they were full rape machines.

No way. Before the AV buff/vehicle nerf infantry could take out vehicles just fine. Besides a tank that isn't a rape machine is just a glorified buggy.

As for BF3, vehicles were nerfed to cater to CoD infantry focus players.

Well the COD infantry players can go stuff it, they have no idea how their preferences make games even worse.

What CoD game mode has random spawning that you are referring to?

All of them. Guess you didn't notice how players spawn behind you in COD multiplayer games. The map is small enough as it is without enemies spawning in behind you and shooting you in the back.

Littleman

2012-07-08, 10:44 AM

Why are people posting in this thread.

There are too possible outcomes for this.

1) He's just a brilliant troll, and all this is very entertaining.
2) He's pants shitting retarded. And eitherway you'll never be able up against a retard fuelled argument and win. He'll just ignore or flat out deny any valid points you make, while repeating the same broken logic with his.

But sure guys, carry on. This is all amusing.

It's why I stopped responding, heh. Bickering back and forth with someone that will bullet point every single sentence and return fire with a paragraph response to each is only entertaining for a little while, then it just gets tiring because you soon realize every paragraph is the same exact topic rehashed with different words.

Only this time the guy doesn't bother with the long fluff paragraphs, just their bluntly obvious inability to see anything any other way than their way.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 10:45 AM

1. No way. Before the AV buff/vehicle nerf infantry could take out vehicles just fine. Besides a tank that isn't a rape machine is just a glorified buggy.

Well the COD infantry players can go stuff it, they have no idea how their preferences make games even worse.

2. All of them. Guess you didn't notice how players spawn behind you in COD multiplayer games. The map is small enough as it is without enemies spawning in behind you and shooting you in the back.

1. What BF2 nerf are you talking about? I've been playing it since 2005 and tanks rape in 2012 as much as ever.
2. Well, I don't play CoD, but does CoD even have any objective based modes that involve capturing flags/capture points similar to Conquest? If it does, and there's random spawning, yes, that's dumb. Note that squad spawning isn't random. But note also the CoD is mostly a deathmatch game even if it does have objective based modes, and deathmatch modes typically do focus on random spawn points.

ITOS

2012-07-08, 10:51 AM

The AMS had a cloak for a damn good reason: it was the best way to balance infantry vs. vehicles [snip]
Perhaps you missed the disclaimer?

It is my firm belief that most developments we've seen in new competitive games have both been removing old strategies and brought forth new ones. If one only see what is lost and not the possible gains, it is easy to regard a change as "dumbing down". That said, there are always shades of grey but no need to cry wolf before we see what players are actually capable of coming up with.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 10:52 AM

Combat Engineer build: Punisher, EMP grenades, Anti-Infantry bullets, Heavy Armor

When the game first came out, before everyone and their pet hamster had CR5, defenders would place a bunch of mines in the courtyard. It was hard to push through. In the middle of the battle usually it was cloak-miners, I use to do that too hehe.

So I'd arrive with my Combat Engineer setup, hide behind either the base walls or that barrier and lob EMP grenades from my Punisher into the ground. Occasionally I would see a cloaker die as their mines they layed blew them up. It was cool.

The bang-bus is not cool. The EMP OS is not cool. In fact they are pretty lame, dumbed down, boring.

Perhaps you missed the disclaimer?

It is my firm belief that most developments we've seen in new competitive games have both been removing old strategies and brought forth new ones.

Strategy involves what base to attack. Strategy is macro, tactics is micro.

If one only see what is lost and not the possible gains, it is easy to regard a change as "dumbing down". That said, there are always shades of grey but no need to cry wolf before we see what players are actually capable of coming up with.

No, it's dumbed down when the only valid tactic left is FRONTAL ASSAULT.

TheSaltySeagull

2012-07-08, 10:56 AM

Got to call you out on that one. Star Wars games are irrelevant to the Star Wars logo since it is not in the same industry. I'm pretty sure if there was a shitty Diablo film it would fail.

The Star Wars prequels were absolute crap as most film critics will tell you, and yet they made a huge amount of money for them. Thus proving that your point is not necessarily the case. It was very weak of you to try and justify your claim by taking something from one medium and saying how much of a flop it is in another, whilst using it to back up your point regarding two things in the same medium.

The reason they flopped is because they didn't cross, and it is even more prevalent the other way around, when they try to turn games into movies rather than the other way around. So bringing up the difficult transition between the Star Wars franchise from movie to game is irrelevant when we are talking about an entity existing entirely in gaming.

I also pointed out final fantasy which pretty makes all of what you said invalid as it is a video game franchise and not a movie. Thanks for playing tho.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 10:57 AM

1. What BF2 nerf are you talking about? I've been playing it since 2005 and tanks rape in 2012 as much as ever.
2. Well, I don't play CoD, but does CoD even have any objective based modes that involve capturing flags/capture points similar to Conquest? If it does, and there's random spawning, yes, that's dumb. Note that squad spawning isn't random. But note also the CoD is mostly a deathmatch game even if it does have objective based modes, and deathmatch modes typically do focus on random spawn points.

I was talking about the PS1 AV buff.

There's CTF in COD, and yes believe it or not your spawn points are chosen randomly by the server even if it's right next to an enemy flag. Pretty lame huh. Great graphics, cool physics, totally lame meta game.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 11:00 AM

I was talking about the PS1 AV buff.

There's CTF in COD, and yes believe it or not your spawn points are chosen randomly by the server even if it's right next to an enemy flag. Pretty lame huh. Great graphics, cool physics, totally lame meta game.

Ah, yes. I share your concern that tanks will be weaker against infantry than they should be. Too many lock on infantry AV weapons and too powerful.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 11:04 AM

No 3rd person camera, great news, see I'm not a total Negative Nelly.

Ah, yes. I share your concern that tanks will be weaker against infantry than they should be. Too many lock on infantry AV weapons and too powerful.

I use to enjoy playing AV, even before the AV buff. It was a challenge. It was especially enjoyable to bait heavy tanks into my minefields :)

Find some good cover, shoot them with AV, duck, shoot again, duck, they drive straight at you and run over 5 mines, BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM KABOOM!

The cloaked AMS behind me helps this infantry anti-vehicle setup.

TAA

2012-07-08, 11:08 AM

No, it's dumbed down when the only valid tactic left is FRONTAL ASSAULT.

This certainly wont be the case. Like all games with armor the general rule will apply - whoever controls the armor controls the game. Even though armor cant capture the bases, controlling enemy access to and use of armor will be very important. For example, if you can prevent an enemy from moving their tanks into the capture area then your tanks will rip their infantry to shreds.

You cant spawn tanks or aircraft on top of each other in the middle of nowhere. That is what really matters.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 11:15 AM

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 11:17 AM

No 3rd person camera, great news, see I'm not a total Negative Nelly.

I use to enjoy playing AV, even before the AV buff. It was a challenge. It was especially enjoyable to bait heavy tanks into my minefields :)

Find some good cover, shoot them with AV, duck, shoot again, duck, they drive straight at you and run over 5 mines, BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM KABOOM!

The cloaked AMS behind me helps this infantry anti-vehicle setup.

I think vehicles should be noticeably higher in the food chain than infantry, certainly on open ground, although cover should reverse it a bit. Being able to take cover should allow infantry to achieve a bit of separation from vehicles as well, especially aircraft, but if we have anything like 3D spotting that will allow aircraft to strafe even infantry who are under tree cover.

Now, if we had laser designation that allowed aircraft to drop missiles onto people who are in cover, guided by a friendly with a designator, sure, that's great, but 3D spotting letting everyone for 500 meters see and zerg fire, no thanks.

SgtMAD

2012-07-08, 11:21 AM

I liked PS1 ATV's, except for the part where I was always constantly dying to mines. 1 mine, BOOM. lol, there was always 1 mine somewhere.

This could have easily been fixed by allowing the ATV to be immune to mines.

Cloaking ATV, awesome. Running over a lone mine, not so awesome.

LOL , and this guy is worried about "dumbing down" PS2,as if making any veh immune to mines isn't dumbing the game down.

if you are dumb enough to run over a mine then you should die, its a simple idea that doesn't require nerfing someone else's game experience/playstyle.

GLaDOS

2012-07-08, 11:37 AM

EDIT: Screw what I said before, I'm just repeating someone else.

ANOTHER EDIT: I don't feel like making a new post, but it's worth it to point out that Buggsy's only arguments are pretty much "OMG SQUAD SPAWNING WILL MAKE PEOPLE BE EVERYWHERE AROUND ME AND IT'S COD OMG". We barely know what squad spawning will be like, and what we do know makes it severely limited compared to other games (like BF3). Furthermore, this could change a lot in the beta if people are unhappy.

Winfernal

2012-07-08, 11:37 AM

This thread is dumbed down...

Electrofreak

2012-07-08, 11:51 AM

Buggsy, you really need to quit whining and wait for the Beta. You're picking specific things to cry about, calling it "dumbed down" while completely ignoring all of the other complexity added to the game. Never mind the fact that none of this is anything that we've experienced firsthand, we're all arguing about pure speculation at this point.

If you're so convinced it will suck, just don't play. If you are willing to be objective, just do us all a favor and wait for Beta.

In general, once a person has convinced themself that something will be bad, no matter how good it ends up being, they will do everything they can to find something they don't like and complain about it, because otherwise it would require them to admit they've been wrong.

If PS2 ends up being too dumbed down, I have no problem admitting it. But I think it will remove some of the problems that existed in PS1 while fleshing out combat in other ways.

Ultimately, we want to play PlanetSide 2 because it provides us tactical opportunities that are almost impossible to find in any other FPS. I have no issues with some of the gameplay elements changing from the first PlanetSide provided I still have those tactical opportunities. I don't think that PS2 will turn into a really big game of BF or CoD, which seems to be everyone's fear.

Again, let's step back for a moment, take a look at how ridiculous this argument has become, and wait to try it out ourselves before we waste any more breath arguing over something none of us actually has any experience with.

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 11:55 AM

This thread is dumbed down...

haha zing

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 12:11 PM

Minecraft:

-1 guy programmed it

-Crappy 20 year old graphics

-Game of the Year

-Selected as one of the 80 games to be displayed at the Smithsonian Art Museum

-NINE MILLION PURCHASES

-34 million, read that again, THIRTY FOUR MILLION registered users.

Why? Because it allows the player to be creative, and your options are limitless.

Don't
Stifle
Player
Creativity

In general, once a person has convinced themself that something will be bad, no matter how good it ends up being, they will do everything they can to find something they don't like and complain about it, because otherwise it would require them to admit they've been wrong.

That's a copout

EDIT: Screw what I said before, I'm just repeating someone else.

ANOTHER EDIT: I don't feel like making a new post, but it's worth it to point out that Buggsy's only arguments are pretty much "OMG SQUAD SPAWNING WILL MAKE PEOPLE BE EVERYWHERE AROUND ME AND IT'S COD OMG". We barely know what squad spawning will be like, and what we do know makes it severely limited compared to other games (like BF3). Furthermore, this could change a lot in the beta if people are unhappy.

Squad Spawning + Flying AMS = Enemies randomly appearing everywhere, no front line.

LOL , and this guy is worried about "dumbing down" PS2,as if making any veh immune to mines isn't dumbing the game down.

if you are dumb enough to run over a mine then you should die, its a simple idea that doesn't require nerfing someone else's game experience/playstyle.

...than just delete the ATV from the game since nobody uses them.

Electrofreak

2012-07-08, 12:27 PM

That's a copout

For you maybe, personally I try to remain objective and admit when my preconceptions of something were wrong. Your posts don't seem to indicate any such disposition on your part, so I suspect you're just going to be whining on these forums all through Beta too.

Prove me wrong.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 12:32 PM

For you maybe, personally I try to remain objective and admit when my preconceptions of something were wrong. Your posts don't seem to indicate any such disposition on your part, so I suspect you're just going to be whining on these forums all through Beta too.

Prove me wrong.

It's easy to have preconceptions about games, since devs do a really good job of copying game mechanics.

Electrofreak

2012-07-08, 12:36 PM

It's easy to have preconceptions about games, since devs do a really good job of copying game mechanics.

:rolleyes:

Now that's a copout.

Winfernal

2012-07-08, 12:37 PM

It's easy to have preconceptions about games, since devs do a really good job of copying game mechanics.

What? Coyping? What is this sorcery?!

http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/4833/fps2a.jpg

http://img852.imageshack.us/img852/4833/fps2a.jpg

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 12:38 PM

:rolleyes:

Now that's a copout.

No it's a fact. If PS2 adopted Guild Wars wackamole skill bar, we'd all know exactly how it plays out even before playing the game.

Kalbuth

2012-07-08, 12:41 PM

No, it's dumbed down when the only valid tactic left is FRONTAL ASSAULT.
I though there was no front because of stupid spawning mecanisms?

How can the only tactic be frontal assault, when there is no front?

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 12:42 PM

I though there was no front because of stupid spawning mecanisms?

How can the only tactic be frontal assault, when there is no front?

Don't expect logic from this moron.

Electrofreak

2012-07-08, 12:46 PM

No it's a fact. If PS2 adopted Guild Wars wackamole skill bar, we'd all know exactly how it plays out even before playing the game.

Now I know you're just trolling. I'm done with this thread, what a waste of space.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 12:59 PM

Why I Stopped Playing Diablo 3 - YouTube

"I just can't pinpoint it, it's just a feeling"

"I can't pinpoint it."

Well I'm trying to pinpoint it. It is very hard to pinpoint one game mechanic, and say, "here is the problem", since one game mechanics effects another like a complex ecosystem. In an ecosystem if you kill off all the flies then waste builds up. Read up on Biosphere 2, the place was overrun by cockroaches.

Creating a complex ecosystem is hard as each component effects every other component.

Now I know you're just trolling. I'm done with this thread, what a waste of space.

Ignore

I though there was no front because of stupid spawning mecanisms?

How can the only tactic be frontal assault, when there is no front?

That's right, it's Frontal Assault without a logical front.

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 01:04 PM

maximum autism

Stew

2012-07-08, 01:19 PM

i diddnt read every page but i do hope that PS2 doesnt turn into a BF3 MMO

the last few days playing PS1 with the huge popluations again has shown me that pretty much every modern FPS game is poop and if PS2 turns into a BF3 MMO i hope they keep the PS1 servers running because i could play for another 9 years (wont happen but i can wish)

edit:

im sorry but even as a fellow mordorian i disagree
there is so many things wrong with BF3 that i cant agree with "50% of BF3's problem is small maps"
what about

regeneration?
vehicle disable?
3d spotting?
audio spotting?
auto spotting?
no commander?
supernova sun?
messed up unlocks?
clustered flags?

theres probably more but i have happily forgotten about that POS of a game - i think the basic gameplay of BF3 is horrible theres pretty much nothing it does right imo

The only thing that is actually a point in your Whole list in term of (( dumbing down )) is NO comanders

Anoying features like flashligths isnt a dumb down feature , its a anoying feature or over exagerated feature

As for the sun look at the sun direction with you own eye and let me know what it does ;)

;) yeah it will burn your eyes and will be far worst than BF3 lol

vehicules disable is kinda realistic and prevent people to moove properly and make the vehicules get damage overtime if its not repaired at 100 % , but this feature is good in some way but also anoying since its easyer for people to know when they have to bail out

But most all your point are irrevelant

Also they have made the B2K map pack the most played Bf2 maps so how those can be dumb down ?

Also the tactical destruction feature How can it be dumb down features as well ? campers cant camp to much since you can blow their cover ;) and so on

BF3 is far to be (( perfect )) but also far to be dumb down in term of map layout or gameplay mechanics

their is anoying stuff in evey games and i bet some design choice in Ps2 will be annoying as well but its part of the game developpement (( good / bad ))

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 01:36 PM

1. The only thing that is actually a point in your Whole list in term of (( dumbing down )) is NO comanders

2. As for the sun look at the sun direction with you own eye and let me know what it does ;)

3. vehicules disable is kinda realistic and prevent people to moove properly and make the vehicules get damage overtime if its not repaired at 100 % , but this feature is good in some way but also anoying since its easyer for people to know when they have to bail out

1. You think 3D spotting and audio spotting aren't dumbdown casualizations? They are, designed to rob from the skilled to give artificial chances to the unskilled.
2. So? Not looking for a realism sim, so the fact that the real sun is blinding doesn't support your case. Annoyances may be different from dumbdowns, but they still are problems.
3. Vehicle disable might technically be realistic, but it's a dumbdown because it's done to cater to CoD infantry-focus players to make vehicles a lot less powerful and challenging than they should be.

Landtank

2012-07-08, 01:45 PM

Ignore

Stop ignoring people who disagree with you, this is the second time you've done this.

Electrofreak always has constructive posts, including the one addressed to you, and you just ignore it.

The game will be better off without people who can't comprehend the fact that the game isn't finished, it's an extremely easy to understand concept.

@Stardouser: I agree with many of your points, but if the devs want a successful game then they have to cater to multiple crowds, including those who don't already play PS1. Some of those casualizations are a good thing, especially the vehicle disable. It allows for more dynamic gameplay instead of simple rock-paper-scissors gameplay, agree?

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 01:50 PM

Stop ignoring people who disagree with you, this is the second time you've done this.

Electrofreak always has constructive posts, including the one addressed to you, and you just ignore it.

The game will be better off without people who can't comprehend the fact that the game isn't finished, it's an extremely easy to understand concept.

@Stardouser: I agree with many of your points, but if the devs want a successful game then they have to cater to multiple crowds, including those who don't already play PS1. Some of those casualizations are a good thing, especially the vehicle disable. It allows for more dynamic gameplay instead of simple rock-paper-scissors gameplay, agree?
The actual purpose of it in BF3 was to nerf vehicles relative to infantry to cater to CoD infantry focus players, though, remember. That won't work in PS2.

Frustration from constant and persistent disabling isn't dynamic. It's routine. There's nothing dynamic about constantly being hit and forced to repair to move. Especially since in larger battles it's deadly, your engineer gets out to repair and he's dead due to the scale(there's always someone there to shoot him).

Now...there IS a way to do disabling that is dynamic. Compartmentalized damage: Meaning, to disable the movement, you have to hit the treads or the engine compartment, or if you hit the turret, it turns slower or can't fire, something different every time based on where you hit the enemy vehicle.

What do you think about that? Instead of a flat "Every time you hit 50% you're disabled", people have suggested that if you hit the treads(for example) there be a 25% chance to disable movement. That would be better wouldn't it? I don't want disabling either way, but to be fair, since you mention dynamicness, I thought I'd throw in compartmentalized damage.

GreatMazinkaise

2012-07-08, 01:51 PM

Vehicle disabling is most definitely not a good casualization... but I've seen zero evidence of it in the E3 footage. Adding a vehicle-breaking mechanic in a game where they're expensive and important would be moronic, especially since Planetside is big enough that vehicles actually prey on each other as well as infantry.

Reefpirate

2012-07-08, 02:15 PM

This thread is still happening? Really?

Littleman

2012-07-08, 02:23 PM

I think vehicles are fine as is. The dynamics to vehicle combat right now are making sure someone with ordinance isn't going to strike from your flank where you have less armor. There's going to be 2000 people on the field all over the place, with or without squad spawning and galaxy's. 1332 of them are your enemy.

Also, what the vehicle's on board weapon systems are comprised of play a factor as well, though I'm pretty sure the main cannon can't be turned into a colossal mini-gun.

roguy

2012-07-08, 02:35 PM

The actual purpose of it in BF3 was to nerf vehicles relative to infantry to cater to CoD infantry focus players, though, remember.

The COD straw man argument has gotten so old, tired and wrong it's not even remotely funny anymore. Thinking that a single argument holds the answer to everything, without any reasoning required, is also making you guys look like an unconstructive bunch of whining dumb-asses.

Jesus Christ! Find another argument already instead of quoting the hipster 12yo illiterates on Youtube. :mad:

BF3 tanks, for example, are incredibly more powerful than their counterparts in BF2 and BC2. Due to in part to map design that prevents flanking and killing the engineer repairing it mid-combat, lack of laser guided AT (in exchange for RPGs that are harder to aim or too easily dodgeable FAF Javelins), unlocks like IR, armor skirts and infantry radars, and a machine gunner seat that doesn't expose you to pistols. So no, you're wrong, try again or do it the proper way and take Activision to court for running over your dog.

On second thought, screw thinking, I'll just blame COD for this stupid thread.

So yeah, this thread is the dumbed-down casualised COD of the PSU forums.

/end rant.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 02:49 PM

The COD straw man argument has gotten so old, tired and wrong it's not even remotely funny anymore. Thinking that a single argument holds the answer to everything, without any reasoning required, is also making you guys look like an unconstructive bunch of whining dumb-asses.

Jesus Christ! Find another argument already instead of quoting the hipster 12yo illiterates on Youtube. :mad:

BF3 tanks, for example, are incredibly more powerful than their counterparts in BF2 and BC2. Due to in part to map design that prevents flanking and killing the engineer repairing it mid-combat, lack of laser guided AT (in exchange for RPGs that are harder to aim or too easily dodgeable FAF Javelins), unlocks like IR, armor skirts and infantry radars, and a machine gunner seat that doesn't expose you to pistols. So no, you're wrong, try again or do it the proper way and take Activision to court for running over your dog.

On second thought, screw thinking, I'll just blame COD for this stupid thread.

So yeah, this thread is the dumbed-down casualised COD of the PSU forums.

/end rant.

On paper your argument looks sound, actually playing BF3 shows it isn't; being a primarily infantry player I can attest to the fact that it's easier to kill tanks in BF3. The lack of wire guided AT may force me to get closer, but it's merely a change in tactics. You make it sound like disabling is one small change compared to a ton of empowering changes you list but you underestimate the effect disabling actually has. The things you list certainly don't make tanks more powerful, best case scenario, everything you listed breaks even with disabling.

And there's another thing - engineer carbines are virtually no tradeoff over assault rifles, so people have no problem playing the class, and so there's always a lot more engineers running around than there were in BF2. That means a lot more RPGs and Javelins running around. On the flip side, this proliferation of engineers sometimes leads to situations where the enemy tank has 2-3 engineers repairing at once, when THAT happens, if that's what you're referring to, sure, it's hard to kill them. But they're repairing instead of fighting, and that's a nerf to tanks.

Continue thinking this if you want, we're just going to have to disagree. But DICE's pursuit of and inspiration from CoD are facts, not fallacies.

Broadside

2012-07-08, 03:12 PM

Wow he actually got you all to post for 14 pages?

Successful troll is successful.

Landtank

2012-07-08, 03:19 PM

Now...there IS a way to do disabling that is dynamic. Compartmentalized damage: Meaning, to disable the movement, you have to hit the treads or the engine compartment, or if you hit the turret, it turns slower or can't fire, something different every time based on where you hit the enemy vehicle.

What do you think about that? Instead of a flat "Every time you hit 50% you're disabled", people have suggested that if you hit the treads(for example) there be a 25% chance to disable movement. That would be better wouldn't it? I don't want disabling either way, but to be fair, since you mention dynamicness, I thought I'd throw in compartmentalized damage.

I was actually just talking to a friend about how awesome it would be if it had a similar system to World of Tanks, where you can get hit in various spots and it would damage that module, ie the treads, turret rotation, ammo rack etc.

That would be such a fantastic addition to Planetside 2, but it's a hell of a long shot :P

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 03:22 PM

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 03:27 PM

Littleman

2012-07-08, 03:38 PM

Disabling chance = ((Total hp - remaining hp) /total hp) /3. Or divided by whatever number might be balanced.

At least this way as the tank suffers more damage overall, it's individual systems are more likely to fail with each successful hit up to a maximum of a 33% chance in the example.

If a tank has 4250 hp, and is sitting at 3000 right now, that looks like: ((4250 - 3000) /4250) /3 = 9.8% chance of something being disabled on the tank when struck.

Repairing the system(s) should simply be dedicating a few consecutive seconds to the repair process. And yes, tanks will need a bit more durability for this system to be fair.

Ideally, each part would have it's own HP pool, but that could be fairly demanding on the server.

Personally though, I'm not much a fan of the whole disabling systems thing. With the pacing of Planetside, once the treads go and the tank loses one of it's primary defenses in mobility, one may as well just abandon the tank.

Klockan

2012-07-08, 04:02 PM

The AMS needs to be driven to the battle, that means it can be destroyed enroute and it can't randomly appear anywhere and everywhere, unlike squad spawning and the flying AMS galaxy.
How isn't there a frontline? The map will look roughly like this considering how it works with capturing areas, ie you have a huge advantage within your own borders:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p7/morbidgamer/PS21.jpg
Now, that frontline is roughly 8km wide. With ~600 players on each side we would have on average 13 meters between each player on that frontline, of course there will be holes but don't think that you can just sneak past the frontline that easily with a galaxy. Near large bases the density will be much larger than that making it all but impossible to get a galaxy past. So you would have to take the long way around past the more desolate areas. The disadvantage of that however is of course that you will be driving much longer past enemy territory, thus both costing a lot of time and also there is a big chance of randomly getting spotted and killed. As for squad spawning since it has a long cooldown you can't open up another front from somewhere using it, since unlike PS1 you can die in PS2 and thus it often isn't enough just to spawn once.

To put this in perspective, the frontline will have roughly the same density of players as the larger battlefield 3 maps all the way through the continent. Some places will have way less but others way more. Do you think that you could get a galaxy gunship past a bf3 map that had planes without it instantly getting shot down? How easy do you think it is to move past that wall of respawners that will be trailing towards the frontline to try to get behind the frontline to squadspawn a few persons? Not that easy, and if you manage to do it you just put 5-10 people there which can't really do much against the zerg of enemies nearby, and each one of those who dies is a person who wont come back since there is such a long squad spawn cooldown while each player they kill will get ressed comparably isntantly, got access to vehicles and should thus easily be able to whipe the floor with these squad spawners. Thus the frontline integrity is held since squadspawners can't impossible fight with those who can spawn in a nearby base since they need 4 minutes to respawn while the zergs needs a few seconds. Then when the squad is dead they have to respawn behind the frontline, they go forwards to the frontline and now realize why the frontline is a frontline and why people can't just fight anywhere. This is all logistics, isn't that hard to understand. Galaxies can easily be destroyed and squad spawn is highly limited so those options can't hurt the integrity of the frontline.

Organized outfits players might be able to set up second frontlines behind the main frontlines with success but shutting those down is a ton easier than setting them up so stopping them shouldn't be a huge issue but when it is pulled off correctly it will just be all the more epic.

rTekku

2012-07-08, 04:50 PM

Audio Spotting - if someone fires their weapon without a silencer they should show up on the mini map. That is the advantage of a silenced weapon. If you want you can always play on servers with SHOW MINIMAP set to OFF.

The advantage of a silenced weapon is just that. A quieter weapon. And in a game like Battlefield where the developers focus a lot on the sound design and emphasize how important it is, then silencers need no other advantages.

This is one example of how I feel Battlefield was dumbed down for the mainstream.

Instead of having players rely on their own senses and forcing them to listen out for things like unsuppressed gun fire and having to decide the position of where the gun fire is coming from, they take all of that away and make it easier by implementing audio spotting.

I don't have to use my senses anymore to determine how near or far an enemy with an unsuppressed weapon is. I just have to look at my mini-map and I have his exact location assuming he's within range to show on the map.

And as for "play on servers with mini map off". Majority of servers people want to play on aren't running a server with those settings. And we should not be forced to play on servers with mini maps off just because DICE decides to make the game easier for Joe Sixpack.

Supernova Sun - who cares about the sun. What about the supernova flashlights?

The sun, believe it or not, has a major impact on the game. Depending on your location and the location of an enemy, the sun may cause you to miss a kill(s) and die in the process.

An easy example of this is trying to kill an enemy in Caspian Border CQ located on D(the hill with rocks) while you're looking up at them from C(river area next to the forest). With the sun blinding you, you can barely see them, but they can see you just fine. Meaning they have a massive advantage over you who is not only dealing with the effects of suppression, bullet drop, etc, but also the sun.....:rolleyes:

DICE even admitted it needed to be toned down, but I stopped playing so who knows if they ever did. This isn't a simulator. We don't need a "realistic" sun. Planetside 2 appears to have that down.

Clustered flags - It does change the feel of the game but it is not that bad. The Back to Karkand expansion brought back 4 older maps, and they are not necessarily better than the new maps. There are plenty of servers available that use only the biggest maps and they might suit your style of playing better. I myself like the variety, even with the occasional round in Metro thrown into the mix.

Clustered flags is that bad.

How do you advertise this game as having the "biggest maps ever", and then the biggest map in Battlefield history turns out to be nothing but an oil field where 99% of the space isn't used because all of the flags are right next to each other in the middle of the map?

Much of the map goes unused and after just a few rounds of playing, the map becomes stale.

Part of the fun in Battlefield is learning the maps. And when you're playing on a map where 4 or 5 flags are right next to each other, there isn't much to learn about the map. You spend no time learning what the best routes to take to get to that flag are or what type of tactical advantage might this flag give me in a specific situation.

Every game is just a race to the first flag and meet in the middle.

And that makes for extremely boring and predictable gameplay that gets old quick.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 04:51 PM

Plastic KMA :) I ain't coming back till there's a properly modeled logistics system, so I can blow the shit out of people with the big artillery.

Now, that frontline is roughly 8km wide.

That's not a frontline. It's a fancy version of capture the flag where a point in space is the flag, and places of interest is a circle which centers on the point.

In PS1 a frontline is between 2 capture points, where 2 circles meet, like between a tower and a base. Players gradually extend the frontline to the left and to the right. Someone can drive an AMS all the way around a base and setup behind enemy lines, but the probability of being intercepted and destroyed is high.

With the flying AMS in PS2, this risk of the flying AMS galaxy being intercepted reduced to almost zero, it's risk of being destroyed setting up anywhere around the target is equal on all sides, so the frontline turns into a series tiny circles (infantry spawning infantry) and larger circles (flying AMS galaxy). It's kind of goofy.

As inferior as this classic CTF system is....

http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/files/2012/02/Magnet0873.png

It's much better than COD random spawning where enemies appear out of the blue.

N is your spawn point, S is enemy spawn point. The magnetic lines is where the cat herding takes place, where most players just go in a straight line towards a target, less numbers of payers play flank-man, and even less numbers of players go all the way round to the rear of the enemy.

roguy

2012-07-08, 04:57 PM

You make it sound like disabling is one small change compared to a ton of empowering changes you list but you underestimate the effect disabling actually has.

Then explain to me how getting disabled after 3 (or even more thanks to reactive armor) AT shots to the front (and 2 more to kill it) makes tanks worse than simply getting 1 or 2 shot in BF2 from the FRONT.

BF2 Tank 1 Hit Kill - YouTube

how to 2 shot a tank in bf2 - YouTube

And link me a video where a tank is doing this good against infantry in BF2.

Battlefield 3 ★IFV LAV 25 Gameplay★[ATGM Reactive Armor] BF3 ★Squad Teamwork★ Strike Karkand - YouTube

Enough with the bullshitting. Tanks are wayyyy stronger in BF3.

The Loverator

2012-07-08, 05:00 PM

Signed, A very angry person who just bought the dumbed down Diablo 3.

Sorry, but...

1.) You got what you deserve for bying a Crap-Hybrid between "Console" (*pukes*) and the PC.

2.) You got WHAT you deserve for not being patient and observe instead of blind buying something in Hype-Mood.

3.) You got what YOU deserve for NOT being careful about a UNSOCIAL Firm,
who is known for SPITTING on the Player's/Fan's Wishes, their Love for Games like Warcraft, Starcraft - and Diablo.

Seriously, some Gamers should just learn not to trust other People blindly. And it's almost Divine Wisdom by now,
that some Game Developers and Producers are greedy as Hell, give a Sh** about the Community/Player's,
AND often make use of a Successor of one or several, successful Game's which where Forerunner's.

Examples:

Gothic 1 and 2 - were pretty epic. What was with Gothic 3?? It was "dirty".
Big, beautiful World - but "no Gothic". The same Crap with Gothic 4, Arcania - "a Gothic Fail"

AvP 1 and 2 - nice Games. What was AvP 3/2010?? Interesting Singleplayer-Mode,
but the Multiplayer was simply said Trash. Poor, loveless Console-Sport.

F.E.A.R.3. - "worse" Version of AvP3 in a slightly other Setting and Genre.
The Singleplayer was h~aaaaaard whipped to a Game which was at least a bit worthy of a Player's Time,

and the Multiplayer - "unbelievable" - was even M.O.R.E of an Epic Fail as AvP3!!
Not even a Server-List/Dedicated Servers - and the smallest Crap-Playercounts ever.

Do i need to count up more Failures of Games from the greedy Game Industry nowadays?

No, i don't have to. ;) And i know that at least Planetside 2 will be a Milestone of Epicness,
compared to the Trash the Game-Market is overflooded with in the actual Days.

And while Guildwars 2 will be a Heaven for Fantasy-Fan's, Planetside 2 will be a Heaven for Shooter-Fan's.
O~hhh J~eeeaaah, Ladies and Gentlemen.

greetings, LV. :wave:

Klockan

2012-07-08, 05:08 PM

The actual purpose of it in BF3 was to nerf vehicles relative to infantry to cater to CoD infantry focus players, though, remember. That won't work in PS2.

Frustration from constant and persistent disabling isn't dynamic. It's routine. There's nothing dynamic about constantly being hit and forced to repair to move. Especially since in larger battles it's deadly, your engineer gets out to repair and he's dead due to the scale(there's always someone there to shoot him).

Doubling the health of a tank and then making them get disabled at 50% is making the tanks weaker how? When you get disabled in bf3 you would usually be dead in bf2. There is nothing fun with getting hit and being forced to die and respawn either. In bf2142 which was the first battlefield with directional armor you actually did one hit tanks from behind, in bf3 that is barely a disable. In bf2 you were almost dead after 2 shots to the front, in bf3 you are almost disabled after 2 shots to the front. Disabling vehicles is catering to the noobs, yes, but not the infantry noobs but the tank noobs since it allows them to survive even when the tank goes down.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 05:09 PM

I was actually just talking to a friend about how awesome it would be if it had a similar system to World of Tanks, where you can get hit in various spots and it would damage that module, ie the treads, turret rotation, ammo rack etc.

That would be such a fantastic addition to Planetside 2, but it's a hell of a long shot :P

That would be pretty cool. Armor plate thickness in WWIIONLINE added some tactical complexity in that game.

Complex=good
Simple=bad

Sorry, but...

1.) You got what you deserve for bying a Crap-Hybrid between "Console" (*pukes*) and the PC.

Hey man, I'm usually careful about this stuff. I always read the user reviews before buying, this time I screwed up. MY BAD!

2.) You got WHAT you deserve for not being patient and observe instead of blind buying something in Hype-Mood.

I haven't bought a game in 3 years, I figured, "Hey how can Blizzard possibly screw up Diablo?"

3.) You got what YOU deserve for NOT being careful about a UNSOCIAL Firm,
who is known for SPITTING on the Player's/Fan's Wishes, their Love for Games like Warcraft, Starcraft - and Diablo.

I don't need you to beat me up on this, I've already done my flagellant time.

Stop ignoring people who disagree with you, this is the second time you've done this.

I think I got like 8 people on the ignore list now.

Electrofreak always has constructive posts, including the one addressed to you, and you just ignore it.

The game will be better off without people who can't comprehend the fact that the game isn't finished, it's an extremely easy to understand concept.

@Stardouser: I agree with many of your points, but if the devs want a successful game then they have to cater to multiple crowds, including those who don't already play PS1. Some of those casualizations are a good thing, especially the vehicle disable. It allows for more dynamic gameplay instead of simple rock-paper-scissors gameplay, agree?

COD/BF3 crowd haven't been exposed to MMOFPS games like WWIIONLINE or PS1, they don't know what they like.

Yeah I know it sounds presumptuous of me, but allow me to expand on that: the COD/BF3 crowd are like toddlers, they will be spoon fed anything with good graphics and enjoy it.

:)

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 05:30 PM

Then explain to me how getting disabled after 3 (or even more thanks to reactive armor) AT shots to the front (and 2 more to kill it) makes tanks worse than simply getting 1 or 2 shot in BF2 from the FRONT.

And link me a video where a tank is doing this good against infantry in BF2.

Enough with the bullshitting. Tanks are wayyyy stronger in BF3.

I'm not playing the video linking game. Think what you wish of that. As far as the videos you linked, you expect to be taken seriously showing a controlled noncombat situation set up just to prove 1 hit kills, that are rare in actual combat?

That said, you're trying to prove that just because a BF3 tank can take an extra hit or two that that makes them more powerful. I never said that BF2 tanks could take more hits or that disabling meant BF3 tanks could take less hits. I said BF3 tanks are nerfed relative to infantry. That does not mean that the discussion is reduced to comparing which game has tanks that can take more hits.

If it makes you happy then sure, I'll say that BF3 tanks can take more hits.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 05:35 PM

Landtank

2012-07-08, 05:51 PM

That would be pretty cool. Armor plate thickness in WWIIONLINE added some tactical complexity in that game.

Complex=good
Simple=bad

:)

Word, but I don't like complexity for complexity's sake. If something can be made streamlined simply because it makes more sense, then do it. I'm all for hardcore games, but I want this to cater to multiple groups of people so that it is successful and can have large populations for a very long time. However I do want depth, absolutely, it just has to be implemented right, and I won't be able to judge anything until I play it in beta!

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 05:53 PM

Word, but I don't like complexity for complexity's sake.]

Me neither, I know what that means: MOO3

If something can be made streamlined simply because it makes more sense, then do it. I'm all for hardcore games, but I want this to cater to multiple groups of people so that it is successful and can have large populations for a very long time. However I do want depth, absolutely, it just has to be implemented right, and I won't be able to judge anything until I play it in beta!

Xyntech

2012-07-08, 05:53 PM

The reason tanks are so weak in Battlefield games is because the map is so small, map is easily memorized, and there is no AMS.

Both MMOFPS (wwiionline and PS1) have large maps, hard to memorize, and there are infantry spawn points; so having more powerful tanks is not a big deal.

It would be a mistake to create BF3/BF2 type of weak tanks.

Not to mention how quickly a tank dies when there are 6+ people shooting it with AV guns, which will rarely be a big problem in even a BF scale game, but is a common problem in a Planetside sized game.

I'm guessing the tank armor we've currently seen has been low due to the low number of players they've had, and them wanting to test all of the tank death stuff. But one way or another, they will have to have more armor added by launch, even if it's still less armor than they had in the first game.

Xyntech

2012-07-08, 06:10 PM

Excuses excuse look your simply trying not to feel disappointed in the game when its obvious these are the decisions there going to do in the full game.

I make no excuses, because there is no doubt that tanks are going to be death traps if they keep their current hitpoints once a dozen people start laying into them. Either the developers are aware of this and just had them tweaked lower for testing purposes, or the devs are oblivious in this regard and will have to be made to realize there is a problem in beta.

That, or tanks will never get used because they are barely viable in 90% of the situations players would want to use them for. I somehow doubt that useless tanks will make it into release though. ;)

Traingye

2012-07-08, 06:11 PM

Buggsy I don't know how you played the game but I can tell you I rarely experienced a 'front line' type situation in PS1. How the game was set up everyone just went from base to base. The only time I can think of were lines would be set up would at bridges, and only because of the bottleneck they caused. The vast majority of battles were more of sieges where one empire would surround a base, eventually take over the court yard and then take unnecessarily long to push to the control console because the poorly designed interiors of the bases.

In PS2 there are more capture points so I believe the fights will be more spread out and creating a more 'front line' type feel to the game. Also I think you are over estimating the capabilities of a Galaxy. Those things are very large and are not meant for sneaking. If someone tries to go fly into enemy territory then most likely they will be noticed and shot down. Even if they do deploy, they can't cloak (currently at least) so they can be spotted easily and destroyed.

I know this has been said but you are talking like you know exactly how the game will unfold. Me, you, and everyone else, not even SOE knows how all this will exactly unfold. We haven't played the game and they haven't played it at scale. All we can do is speculate on what will happen, which is what I did above. You very well might be right in saying that there will be no real front lines, but to say you know that for sure is just factually incorrect. Beta exists so the developers can test the game at something closer to full scale better tune the game mechanics from there. There will be changes, and lots of them.

roguy

2012-07-08, 06:25 PM

As far as the videos you linked, you expect to be taken seriously showing a controlled noncombat situation set up just to prove 1 hit kills, that are rare in actual combat?

That said, you're trying to prove that just because a BF3 tank...

... Can take 3 times the amount of hits and still stay alive?
... has a pocket engineer in the MG seat because he isn't exposed and is more likely to get repaired in battle?
... is less likely to get shot in the rear or to have his repair crew killed because the maps are linear?
... spots infantry easier with IR vision or radar?
... has health regen?
... does more damage?
... can destroy cover and collapse buildings?

Should anyone take you seriously now?

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 06:25 PM

Klockan

2012-07-08, 06:25 PM

I make no excuses, because there is no doubt that tanks are going to be death traps if they keep their current hitpoints once a dozen people start laying into them. Either the developers are aware of this and just had them tweaked lower for testing purposes, or the devs are oblivious in this regard and will have to be made to realize there is a problem in beta.

That, or tanks will never get used because they are barely viable in 90% of the situations players would want to use them for. I somehow doubt that useless tanks will make it into release though. ;)
All HP is reduced, not just on tanks. And the tanks are not useless, they will just not be used in the same way as in PS1 since they still have longer range and more firepower than infantry. It is like how you could say that infantry is now useless that they die in 0.5 seconds at long ranges from anything.

In PS1 the front line was between the tower and the enemy town.
Read my post, here the frontline will be over the entire map instead between each hex. You wont fly around that, visual range is really long and it is enough that a few fighters sees you and the galaxy goes down which is a huge amount of credits down the drain.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 06:27 PM

Not to mention how quickly a tank dies when there are 6+ people shooting it with AV guns, which will rarely be a big problem in even a BF scale game, but is a common problem in a Planetside sized game.

Absolutely

Read my post, here the frontline will be over the entire map instead between each hex.

That is not a front line, that is Capture The Flag.

That map looks pretty but it does not constitute a front line. In Capture The Flag there are a series of circles where the center is the flag, and the circle is the front line. At least with PS1 between the tower and the base, where the 2 circles intersected that constituted a front line.

You would need at least 100,000 players on a server playing simultaneously for there to be a strategic front line with the size of that map.

Absentis

2012-07-08, 06:32 PM

I didn't realize this was a BF3 forum. :rolleyes:

While I can agree that complexity is good, nothing should be overly complicated to keep population levels up. There has to be simplified factors to do this, so different crowds will be more attracted for the game to have acceptable population levels to play the game in the first place.

As for the Galaxy spawn complaints, I don't see why it would be any harder to destroy since I see far more people wanting to be pilots instead of ground-based combat. Not to mention there will be plenty of AA. The Galaxy must land before being a spawn point, so it is extremely vulnerable but opens up flanks if it can successfully land which nullifies your argument of there being less tactical options. It's just a matter of being able to breach defenses, look for lightly guarded areas, or coming up with new ways to attack a position.

Traingye

2012-07-08, 06:47 PM

It's easy to guess what will happen. People will fly over enemy territory and deploy them everywhere. In front, in back, to the left, to the right of an enemy base. And each flight will have an equal probability of success unlike the AMS system where it was actually harder to deploy on the flanks or the rear of an enemy base. There will be no flank, there will be no rear, there will be no forward area, there will just be a random collection of skirmishes here and there radiating out in a circle from the target base.

I disagree. I think you will see many of them deployed but not all over the place. I believe it to be too difficult to land one and deploy it in a certain area unless your empire already has strong presence in that area. Similar in PS1 where you really couldn't deploy an AMS in a courtyard unless your empire already had control of it. My experience in PS1 was that AMS's were deployed after your empire had control of an area, most often in a courtyard or the outside of a tower. Rarely were they deployed without support and if they were, they would be killed rather quickly. I think Galaxies will be deployed in a similar fashion.

Keep in mind here that Galaxies are significantly larger than AMS's. AMS can hide in trees and be cloaked, which a Galaxy could never do. So even if one does get deployed I think it would get destroyed rather quickly.

In PS1 the front line was between the tower and the enemy town.

It depends on what you consider 'the front line' to be I suppose. I would considered the tower to be part of the overall siege of the base.

Rico Suave

2012-07-08, 06:49 PM

It's easy to guess what will happen. People will fly over enemy territory and deploy them everywhere. In front, in back, to the left, to the right of an enemy base. And each flight will have an equal probability of success unlike the AMS system where it was actually harder to deploy on the flanks or the rear of an enemy base. There will be no flank, there will be no rear, there will be no forward area, there will just be a random collection of skirmishes here and there radiating out in a circle from the target base.

In PS1 the front line was between the tower and the enemy town.

Wait, wait, wait. "The will just be a random collection of skirmishes here and there radiating out in a circle from the target base". Isn't that kind of like a localized front line? A siege of a base? Stalingrad, Lenningrad, Khe Sanh, Tobruk etc etc. I'm sure that felt like (or was) the frontline to those involved.

And if they fly over enemy territory to deploy in the rear, that means they had to fly over the front right? Which means they landed in the rear? It seems that you would like a continuous front akin to more traditional warfare (WWI, WWII) and would have to work to break the line. But with the size of the map and even with 2000 players on each, there will be holes everywhere in the front, it just is not feasible. Besides, airborne operations have been used to further the front or to break it open (D-Day, Operation Market Garden) so these tactics will be feasible with the Galaxies and Liberators.

Again, this is all subject to beta which we are all patiently waiting for, and at the end of the day if you don't want the other side to be conducting air ops, you better have air superiority.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 06:56 PM

Wait, wait, wait. "The will just be a random collection of skirmishes here and there radiating out in a circle from the target base". Isn't that kind of like a localized front line? A siege of a base? Stalingrad, Lenningrad, Khe Sanh, Tobruk etc etc. I'm sure that felt like (or was) the frontline to those involved.

They all had a front, flanks, and a rear. When they were encircled the battle was over.

And if they fly over enemy territory to deploy in the rear, that means they had to fly over the front right? Which means they landed in the rear?

Unless there's 100,000 players on the server manning every part of the invisible front line the map shows, every 50 meters.

It seems that you would like a continuous front akin to more traditional warfare (WWI, WWII) and would have to work to break the line. But with the size of the map and even with 2000 players on each, there will be holes everywhere in the front, it just is not feasible. Besides, airborne operations have been used to further the front or to break it open (D-Day, Operation Market Garden) so these tactics will be feasible with the Galaxies and Liberators.

Again, this is all subject to beta which we are all patiently waiting for, and at the end of the day if you don't want the other side to be conducting air ops, you better have air superiority.

I'm talking smaller scale, not the entire map which would be impossible to maintain a front without 100,000 players on a single server.

Can anyone say "Simulcap"? Bet you guys $10 Sturmgrenadiers is gonna roll on in here when the game releases and brag about their Simulcapping skills. hehe.

Klockan

2012-07-08, 06:57 PM

You would need at least 100,000 players on a server playing simultaneously for there to be a strategic front line with the size of that map.
There wont be firefights everywhere across the borders but how did you plan to fly in unnoticed with the large playercounts and the long visual ranges? Also 100,000 over 8km would be almost a medieval army, not a modern army. Higher lethality and longer visual/firing range means that you spread out more. Also the front is as I said 8km, which is 8000 meters, if you have 100 people spread out over those it is once every 80 meters. Since you can only build vehicles in your own territory and galaxies have even more restrictions it is fairly safe to say that they wont come from any other direction than the opponents territory.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 06:59 PM

I disagree. I think you will see many of them deployed but not all over the place. I believe it to be too difficult to land one and deploy it in a certain area unless your empire already has strong presence in that area. Similar in PS1 where you really couldn't deploy an AMS in a courtyard unless your empire already had control of it.

There aren't enough players to control anything but the courtyard, the flying AMS'ses will have no problem deploying anywhere but in the middle of an enemy base I'm sure.

My experience in PS1 was that AMS's were deployed after your empire had control of an area, most often in a courtyard or the outside of a tower. Rarely were they deployed without support and if they were, they would be killed rather quickly. I think Galaxies will be deployed in a similar fashion.

Keep in mind here that Galaxies are significantly larger than AMS's. AMS can hide in trees and be cloaked, which a Galaxy could never do. So even if one does get deployed I think it would get destroyed rather quickly.

It depends on what you consider 'the front line' to be I suppose. I would considered the tower to be part of the overall siege of the base.

Something with a front, a left flank, a right flank, and a rear. It doesn't have to be a perfectly straight line.

There wont be firefights everywhere across the borders but how did you plan to fly in unnoticed with the large playercounts and the long visual ranges? Also 100,000 over 8km would be almost a medieval army, not a modern army. Higher lethality and longer visual/firing range means that you spread out more.

Very easily. And from what I read it sounds like it will have more hitpoints than 10 bang-buses so it doesn't matter if they are spotted anyways.

And if they don't have that many hitpoints than players will complain that THEIR ONLY SPAWN POINT keeps getting destroyed.

Traingye

2012-07-08, 07:19 PM

There aren't enough players to control anything but the courtyard, the flying AMS'ses will have no problem deploying anywhere but in the middle of an enemy base I'm sure.

If an empire only has control of the courtyard then the base has already been put in siege. Deploying a Galaxy outside the base would still be behind the attacking empire's lines at this point.

Something with a front, a left flank, a right flank, and a rear. It doesn't have to be a perfectly straight line.

So a fight going on at the front of the base you consider to be a front line?

Very easily. And from what I read it sounds like it will have more hitpoints than 10 bang-buses so it doesn't matter if they are spotted anyways.

And if they don't have that many hitpoints than players will complain that THEIR ONLY SPAWN POINT keeps getting destroyed.

Can you please elaborate more than just 'Very easily'? They are massive how do you expect to deploy one in a relevant position unnoticed?

I've watched a fair amount of interviews with the dev team and having plenty of spawn points available appears to be a focus of theirs so I doubt people will complain about that.

Rico Suave

2012-07-08, 07:20 PM

They all had a front, flanks, and a rear. When they were encircled the battle was over.

What's this "When they were encircled the battle was over"? :lol: I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Do you not know the battle of Stalingrad, Khe Sanh, Lenningrad, any other siege throughout history or even the lost battalion (WWI)? They were all surrounded but they didn't just simply go "oh darn boys, we're surrounded, time to surrender". The attacker sometimes won, the defender sometimes won.

Unless there's 100,000 players on the server manning every part of the invisible front line the map shows, every 50 meters.

In practical sense because of the map size and the player count the front line won't be as well defined, unless you want to simply use the overall map and where the bordering hexes are.

I'm talking smaller scale, not the entire map which would be impossible to maintain a front without 100,000 players on a single server.

So why are you mad that there seems to not be a front. There will be people meeting at those imaginary points on the circles between base A and base B, but now there is another option to avoid the front and conduct assaults at the rear. And I wouldn't even call the meeting a front, it's more a skirmish. If I were to meet someone 1 v 1, I could call that a front, because I could flank him and kill him and extend my "front". Again, IMHO, the map will be to big to center fights anywhere else except facilities large and small, but that's what beta is for.

Can anyone say "Simulcap"? Bet you guys $10 Sturmgrenadiers is gonna roll on in here when the game releases and brag about their Simulcapping skills. hehe.

Tactics, they are a bitch.

NoDachi

2012-07-08, 07:20 PM

Why are you still feeding him?

Klockan

2012-07-08, 07:21 PM

There aren't enough players to control anything but the courtyard, the flying AMS'ses will have no problem deploying anywhere but in the middle of an enemy base I'm sure.

Something with a front, a left flank, a right flank, and a rear. It doesn't have to be a perfectly straight line.

Very easily. And from what I read it sounds like it will have more hitpoints than 10 bang-buses so it doesn't matter if they are spotted anyways.

And if they don't have that many hitpoints than players will complain that THEIR ONLY SPAWN POINT keeps getting destroyed.

You base way too much from the demo footage. That was chaos, it wont be anything at all like that on the live servers. Why? Mostly because all 3 factions will almost never be at the same location with roughly the same amount of forces like that, also they wont all have unconquerable super spawn locations really close to the base that can spawn any kind of vehicle. Lastly the density of players in that territory was lower than the average density of players at the front would be if we had 2000 players on the server with all territories unlocked. If you think one side could sneak a galaxy past that then you are ridiculously retarded.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 07:25 PM

What's this "When they were encircled the battle was over"? :lol: I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Do you not know the battle of Stalingrad, Khe Sanh, Lenningrad, any other siege throughout history or even the lost battalion (WWI)? They were all surrounded but they didn't just simply go "oh darn boys, we're surrounded, time to surrender". The attacker sometimes won, the defender sometimes won.

There's no need to go History Buff, I'm interested in what is fun, not what is lame.

In practical sense because of the map size and the player count the front line won't be as well defined, unless you want to simply use the overall map and where the bordering hexes are.

Those hexes mean squat, the only thing important is the Capture Point.

So why are you mad that there seems to not be a front. There will be people meeting at those imaginary points on the circles between base A and base B, but now there is another option to avoid the front and conduct assaults at the rear. And I wouldn't even call the meeting a front, it's more a skirmish. If I were to meet someone 1 v 1, I could call that a front, because I could flank him and kill him and extend my "front". Again, IMHO, the map will be to big to center fights anywhere else except facilities large and small, but that's what beta is for.

Ugh, that's not how players behave. It doesn't matter what the hexes look like, that's not a front it is a pretty picture.

Tactics, they are a bitch.

Behind the line caps will be nerfed into uselessness the first time a squad simulcaps 10 hexes. Oh where oh where have the Sturmgrenadiers gone, oh where oh where can they be?

Bet you $10.

Klockan

2012-07-08, 07:28 PM

Behind the line caps will be nerfed into uselessness the first time a squad simulcaps 10 hexes. Oh where oh where have the Sturmgrenadiers gone, oh where oh where can they be?

Bet you $10.
That will never happen due to the half an hour it takes to cap the base, the minutes it take for the defenders to stop the cap attempt and the fact that you can't stop them from respawning at the base while they can stop you from respawning by killing your galaxy. If they take just one of the 3-5 locations and holds that for a few minutes you lost. That's what we learned from the interviews. You might cap one or two, but never ten.

Those hexes mean squat, the only thing important is the Capture Point.

The hexes contains capture points though. The large bases takes up more than one hex and the towers take up 1 hex, but there is a capture point fairly close to each hex.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 07:33 PM

You base way too much from the demo footage. That was chaos, it wont be anything at all like that on the live servers. Why? Mostly because all 3 factions will almost never be at the same location with roughly the same amount of forces like that, also they wont all have unconquerable super spawn locations really close to the base that can spawn any kind of vehicle. Lastly the density of players in that territory was lower than the average density of players at the front would be if we had 2000 players on the server with all territories unlocked. If you think one side could sneak a galaxy past that then you are ridiculously retarded.

Typical player behavior:

90% of the players will gravitate to the biggest battle, cause big=cool

The other 10% will fly galaxies 2+ hexes around the battle, cause nobody will be looking, and pretty much park them everywhere. Ergo, there will be no frontline.

Klockan

2012-07-08, 07:35 PM

Typical player behavior:

90% of the players will gravitate to the biggest battle, cause big=cool

The other 10% will fly galaxies 2+ hexes around the battle, cause nobody will be looking, and pretty much park them everywhere. Ergo, there will be no frontline.
You cant be 2 hexes away from the battles since there is at least one capture point in a neighboring hex. Sometimes two capturable things lies right next to each other.

Reefpirate

2012-07-08, 07:36 PM

Littleman

2012-07-08, 07:39 PM

Galaxies are only dispensed from particular bases that need to be captured, and they cost a fair amount of resources from what I have been able to learn. This idea that Gals will be spammed all over the place I think is quite ridiculous. Also, let's WAIT FOR BETA.

Also, why the hell is this thread still happening? It's all over the place and full of trolls/dumbasses.

A few minutes spent looking at this board and one would realize this is the one of the only threads seeing any real activity...

That's pretty sad, actually.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 07:40 PM

That will never happen due to the half an hour it takes to cap the base, the minutes it take for the defenders to stop the cap attempt and the fact that you can't stop them from respawning at the base while they can stop you from respawning by killing your galaxy. If they take just one of the 3-5 locations and holds that for a few minutes you lost. That's what we learned from the interviews. You might cap one or two, but never ten.

Doesn't matter if it takes a half an hour for one player.

This is how it works.

1) 50 players in a squad, probably Sturngrenadiers, spawn into the game.

2) They all get in their planes and take the long route around the hotspots.

2) 1 squad leader, 4 members per squad. 10 squads.

3) Each squad picks a target, they do not use galaxies to be stealthy. The squad leader stays hidden with squad spawning, 4 other players cap.

4) They're on teamspeak and someone says "GO". Everyone simultaneously starts capping.

How fast does it take 4 players to cap behind the lines? 5 minutes?

5 minutes later, they simulcap 10 bases.

5) People go to forums and complain about losing bases so quickly, and they don't want to play Guard Duty cause it's boring.

6) Patch 1.12 Behind the lines capping is nerfed somehow, probably prevented altogether.

Traingye

2012-07-08, 07:41 PM

I don't think this is what's going to happen. The longer cap times are going to discourage it from happening.

Klockan

2012-07-08, 07:41 PM

How fast does it take 4 players to cap behind the lines? 5 minutes?

They said 30. You wont hold every position in a base for 30 minutes with 5 people. And why would it go faster with more players, you will just capture the nodes faster, the trickle for actually capturing wont go faster, ergo no matter how many you are you must still defend all the points for the same amount of time.

Buggsy

2012-07-08, 07:42 PM

You cant be 2 hexes away from the battles since there is at least one capture point in a neighboring hex. Sometimes two capturable things lies right next to each other.

Why can't you fly around a hot spot at long enough distance to not be detected? There some invisible force field preventing it?

They said 30. You wont hold every position in a base for 30 minutes with 5 people.

Fine, 30 minutes, still doesn't matter. Nobody likes playing Guard Duty.

Or it could be a rolling simulcap. Someone caps a base that's on the "frontline", caps quicker, than there are people in your squad that are pre-positioned to cap the other adjacent base real quick, and then the next adjacent one, and then the next.

Stardouser

2012-07-08, 07:45 PM

Doesn't matter if it takes a half an hour for one player.

This is how it works.

1) 50 players in a squad, probably Sturngrenadiers, spawn into the game.

2) They all get in their planes and take the long route around the hotspots.

2) 1 squad leader, 4 members per squad. 10 squads.

3) Each squad picks a target, they do not use galaxies to be stealthy. The squad leader stays hidden with squad spawning, 4 other players cap.

4) They're on teamspeak and someone says "GO". Everyone simultaneously starts capping.

How fast does it take 4 players to cap behind the lines? 5 minutes?

5 minutes later, they simulcap 10 bases.

5) People go to forums and complain about losing bases so quickly, and they don't want to play Guard Duty cause it's boring.

6) Patch 1.12 Behind the lines capping is nerfed somehow, probably prevented altogether.

Thus far we have only seen, as far as *I* know, Amp Station Zurvan's details, and it has 6-7 capture points. One person cannot therefore simulcap a base that big even if it were abandoned.

As far as towers and outposts there are several possibilities. One is that even towers or outposts will have multiple capture points. And another thing we don't know is what will trigger facility warnings?

What exactly is the point here? That we shouldn't be able to capture anything behind the lines? That's how you create meatgrinds and people can play BF3 for that.