Boring

[fallenvet]

Is it me or does anyone else find the constant back and forth point recaps a little boring? I feel like all I ever do is run from point A fight for 2 seconds, then have to run back to point B fight for 2 seconds, and the cycle continues. It just gets old after awhile.

[AThreatToYou]

Ya. I miss the old PS1 battle-lines.

[Sunrock]

Is it me or does anyone else find the constant back and forth point recaps a little boring? I feel like all I ever do is run from point A fight for 2 seconds, then have to run back to point B fight for 2 seconds, and the cycle continues. It just gets old after awhile.

Jup this game really needs some long term goals. A "win map" progression bar or something.

At least now with the cert point changes I have something to grind for... But that just my old obsession with grinding exp that is kicking in. I just can't help my self.

[Poser]

I never played PS1, but I agree that victory seems meaningless when you can lose a base again within 10 minutes. The frontline should be out in the field more often than directly in the base.

I disagree with the word "boring" however. Keep in mind that until the game is out of beta, it isn't fair, nor is it accurate, to judge it. We are still in the feedback stage & de-bugging stage.

[elementHTTP]

Yes they need to think about long term goals

[Crotch]

The only exciting base is the Crown.

Because it's so much damn fun to defend.

There's a great incentive to conquer it baked right in.

[Elude]

^ The Crown is my home.

[Conq]

Yeah, I didn't really realize how boring the game was until last night when I had the most exciting battle ever. It was 30 TR being bombarded by VS and NC tanks/infantry in opposite directions for a couple hours.

I started off with a big grin as I was SKEPing infinite rockets into the horizion and skeet shooting LA as they flew over the base but my expression started to slip through the sheer monotony of the defense. It was just us infinitely respawning and killing a bunch of people infinitely respawning and summoning tanks from nearby bases. I lost track of the point but couldn't walk away from the fight, luckily the server came down and ended my misery.

Battles need to be more meaningful.

[Hydra]

Right now its a Map with a a variety of Infantry arenas; seriously for the love of god where the hell is the frontlines? and honestly? not having the ability to kick another empire off the cont encourages boring ass three way battles and no goal in site.

That is one of the most mind infuriating things I can think of of when it comes to this game; someone thought it was a good idea to have empire owned waprgates and no sanc because it slows down "gameplay". Seriously? SERIOUSLY? There were things in Planetside that worked, there's no excuse why it shouldn't be here either. This game at the moment is boring as a hell; even with my outfit playing whack-a-mole gets tiresome very quickly. :rant:

[SoUnreal]

lol, unfortunately this is PS. There was never any point or meaning to any of the battles, and that same philosophy has carried over to PS2. The gameplay is fun, but eventually it will grow boring because what are you really doing? They have the potential to really implement a massive competitive shooter, but seemingly have no intention to do so. Imagine 30 vs 30 clan battles, fighting for control of territory. Clan leaderboards, reputation, prestige, etc. Actual bases that belong to particular clans, alliances, multi-clan battles. Ultimately an end-game and a reason to fight and win for those participating in clans. The potential and possibilities are limitless. But, instead we're left with a graphical upgrade over PS1 and some new weapons and upgrade system. That's all.

[fallenvet]

Just read this off the main PS2 forums:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/upcoming-facility-capture-mechanic-changes-and-more.19498/

These changes should be a big help. Lets see how it works out.

[ringring]

It's not news and it has been discussed under various headings for a while old old-time ps players (to the disgust of some).

But, the devs have listened and are making changes.

Quite rightly they point out that it's nigh on impossible to test out gameplay issues when your test team consists of up to 50 devs. Increase the population and include people who know what a big battle feels like and you get meaningful feedback, even if it isn't always coherent (or short).

This is why we are getting the different capture mechanics, changes to base design, the adjacency concept, benefits of different base types and (promised) and inter-continental meta game.

[Shotokanguy]

It's funny, because I thought the modernization of PS2 would lead to wonderful gameplay mechanics, but right now, it feels like a nearly 10 year old game did lots of things better.

Not saying I hate the game, but I feel like a lot of things need to be brought back in line with the original game's methods.

[Timealude]

I used to get the boring feeling when the beta opened up on the first way, but after the changes they have made the game feels pretty good now. It also could have something to do that we have played on one continent this whole time. They even said they are going to be rolling out content on a monthly bases IHO that should keep things fresh. Hell when they add weather its going to change the whole approach to the game with low visibility and maybe even effects on vehicle. Also as I said in another thread, a lot of people still havent played this game despite there being tons of vets as well as beta keys in. When all the certs come out im sure it will add a lot of things that will keep this game fresh, like the infy certs or the rest of the vehicle specials, and im sure that esamir will change things up as well. I can understand why some people can be bored with this game atm with no "win" element, but I can also see how much this game has changed and how it can surely be a good successor to PS1.

[Kipper]

I just spent about 2 hours with an outfit platoon of no more than about 15 people defending Rust Mesa against advancing hordes of NC - I wasn't bored at all. Its obviously one of those easier bases to defend though, some of the layouts don't lend themselves too well to holding onto them.

Sometimes resecures are very 'run of the mill' but the fun really starts when one of the other factions (or an outfit in one of them) takes particular offence to you being somewhere they'd rather you weren't.

No other shooter really gives me a 2 hour base defence scenario that only ended because they finally managed to break us down and kick us out, not because of some arbitrary timer.

And of course, counting up the costs of the sheer number of vehicles we destroyed, that must have hurt their resource stockpile :-)

[Morsong]

I haven't played PS1 in a long, long time, but wasn't there a "winning empire" posted on the main website for each server near midnight every night?

For instance, in PS2, if I'm on server x and by 11:59 gmt -7 (think that's the timezone in california, not sure..I suck with these things) whichever empire controls the most territory "wins" for that day. They have until midnight in a set timezone to win, and the winners could be announced via server message or website.

It's really a simple thing and I think it would help create more of an end goal at the end of the day. Thoughts?

[SixShooter]

I'm not bored at all but I can see how some people could be. That will change with new continents as well as the longer capture times that will be put in. I can't wait to fight somewhere other than Indar but as for now I'm having a blast.

[fallenvet]

I like your idea Morsong, would help build faction loyalty.

[capiqu]

The bases are captured too quickly. Toh of 10 minutes like Planetside 1 would allow a defending empire time to regroup and resecure a base. Spawn rooms inside Tech and AMP stations would help defend those bases a little longer in the event that the outer spawn points are lost.
Yeah it would make it harder to capture a base, but if you look at planetside 1, the empires that are better organize and have their outfits working together will be able to cap those bases.
This would allow you to have battles that last 1,3,5 hours to cap a base. Those where the epic battles that we had in Planetside 1 and those are the battles you rarely find in Planetside 2. With the exception of The Crown which is great to defend , and who doesn't love defending the crown?
Just like PS1 we would have to defend The back doors, front gates and the roofs from enemy troops.

[SpottyGekko]

I guess with only ONE continent in game currently, it would not be very popular to implement or test a "continent lock" mechanism. Your faction got kicked off Indar ? Sorry, no more PS2 beta for you on this server ! :D

Once more continents come into play, the current "Indar merry-go-round" should ease off a bit. If a faction gets pushed back to their warpgate, they will have the option of fighting on another continent at least. As it is, there's no alternative to push out from the single warpgate, whatever the odds.

[Ghost Runner]

I dont know I played about 7 hours so far 5 as NC and 2 as TR I had a blast defending Zurban as the NC and you guessed it as TR I defended the Crown just wow that was a blast. as far as boring goes nope to much going on to be board can get repetitive though but hell best multi player shooter I have played since the Novalogic days lol. :)

[Flaropri]

Question: Is the problem with actual capture times or with map design? Or the mix of the two?

Given people's praise of The Crown it seems at least a mix if not primarily design of the other locations.


As far as boring... that's always subjective, but I've never had a problem with "meaningless" victories or fighting over the same map after having played it. Perhaps that's just because of my experiences with other shooters, but it seems to me that Planetside has more overall strategy and (relative) permanence of victory on a small scale as well as the large scale.

Is it genuine boredom that players are feeling, or is it just that you've been playing it enough to get burnt out on it? Or is it disappointment that it isn't quite as good as you hoped? Just something to consider.

[Sledgecrushr]

Over the next patch Galaxies are not going to be automatically respawn vehicles, that job is moving to the sunderer. Initially what we are going to see is 90% ground game with air assault assisting instead of what we have right now. Im really looking forward to this new iteration of PS2.

[Flaropri]

The actual Good 'ole Fashion Cloaking Advanced Mobile Spawn should make a return before launch.

They could always go with a Modification that would give it cloaking (at the cost of transport space for example), as they have (still are?) considered with the Gal-Spawn. Obviously that wouldn't effect the size of the vehicle but... I just don't think a separate vehicle is what is required in this particular case.

Either way, I'm curious to see the long-term results of the overall shift to primarily ground-based spawn vehicles from the Gal.

[Sledgecrushr]

What Im hoping for is a front line, where advancing is done inch by bloody inch. Where the entire time you are moving from base to base it is littered with burning destroyed vehicles. The devs expressed that the galaxy respawn cert is going to be buried deep in the galaxy cert tree. And they said it might take years to get to the end of a cert tree. When this next big patch comes it might be a long while before we are able to respawn from a galaxy.

[KiddParK]

What Im hoping for is a front line, where advancing is done inch by bloody inch. Where the entire time you are moving from base to base it is littered with burning destroyed vehicles. The devs expressed that the galaxy respawn cert is going to be buried deep in the galaxy cert tree. And they said it might take years to get to the end of a cert tree. When this next big patch comes it might be a long while before we are able to respawn from a galaxy.

^ this.

[Scotsh]

I guess with only ONE continent in game currently, it would not be very popular to implement or test a "continent lock" mechanism. Your faction got kicked off Indar ? Sorry, no more PS2 beta for you on this server ! :D

Once more continents come into play, the current "Indar merry-go-round" should ease off a bit. If a faction gets pushed back to their warpgate, they will have the option of fighting on another continent at least. As it is, there's no alternative to push out from the single warpgate, whatever the odds.

Yes, this needs to be emphasised.
All these discussions about long term motivation, persistence of map changes are near worthless as long as there is only one continent.
The introduction of another continent may (or may not) alter the dynamics in a major way.
We well probably see 2way fights for a single continent, we may see major domination of one continent by a single faction.
IIRC (well its been really a long time since i played PS1) 2way battles on one continent also lead to a very volatile map that could completely change in a few hours.

They really need to bring in Esamir ASAP.

[SoUnreal]

The aspects being discussed that will be implemented into the game, only prolongs the endless cycle. Doesn't really add purpose or depth to the battles.

[Kipper]

The aspects being discussed that will be implemented into the game, only prolongs the endless cycle. Doesn't really add purpose or depth to the battles.

Well moreso than an arena shooter for sure - where individuals or teams playing badly or well still results in an arbitrary reset after a specified amount of time, so whatever anybody did before means nothing.

Once they bring back the re-encryption mechanic so that a base defence or capture means you can take a bit of a breather, and tweak the capture times so that battles last longer and the other team gets a chance to respond before something flips - then it will start to mean more, as gaining or losing a facility will at least give you something solid.

I'm not sure on the resources yet though, whether they mean 'enough', I take myself off to fight where I think I need to defend, or can attack something - I don't really look at what resources that will grant to me or deny to my enemy on account of never actually having run into a resource shortage. I tend to take in turns with other squad people to pull a vehicle, and play a few lives of infantry inbetween pulling each vehicle (because of timers etc anyway).

I think balance changes will fix the flow, mostly. As far as a game experience goes, its already a far more enjoyable shooter than any other I've played because of the scale of it.

[SoUnreal]

Well moreso than an arena shooter for sure - where individuals or teams playing badly or well still results in an arbitrary reset after a specified amount of time, so whatever anybody did before means nothing.

Once they bring back the re-encryption mechanic so that a base defence or capture means you can take a bit of a breather, and tweak the capture times so that battles last longer and the other team gets a chance to respond before something flips - then it will start to mean more, as gaining or losing a facility will at least give you something solid.

I'm not sure on the resources yet though, whether they mean 'enough', I take myself off to fight where I think I need to defend, or can attack something - I don't really look at what resources that will grant to me or deny to my enemy on account of never actually having run into a resource shortage. I tend to take in turns with other squad people to pull a vehicle, and play a few lives of infantry inbetween pulling each vehicle (because of timers etc anyway).

I think balance changes will fix the flow, mostly. As far as a game experience goes, its already a far more enjoyable shooter than any other I've played because of the scale of it.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I love the scale as well, and I don't want to see that diminished, actually given the amount of technology at hand I think the scale could have been pushed further.

I guess the way I see it, is that while fighting over a base for an hour can deliver exceptional gameplay, the thing is what happens after the base is captured? What's the motivation or gratification in dedicating hours to these battles if there's no end-game to what I'm doing. After all no one will ever truly win or lose, so why fight? With your typical shooter, yes the resets are in essence stale technology IMO, but at least there's gratification in winning or trying to win with every match played.

Now, this of course isn't a black and white situation either. No one wants to see a victor or "game over" scenario after a few months of play. I'm not getting at that.

Ideally, I think you leave the core PS mechanics as is, NOTHING changes, but also have continents setup specifically for outfit battles. On those continents setup more to fight for, have there be a potential for victory and different definitions of victory and obtainable goals. That way the true essence of the 100% persistent, never ending battles of PS remains intact and unaffected. But, for those who want something more, maybe something more competitive can also find enjoyment in the game. I mean I really don't see why not, or why that wouldn't work.

Maybe something along those lines are in the plans? I'm not sure.. Of course, it's all perspective and preference though. I'm not knocking the game at all, PS2 seems like it's going to be a fantastic title for what it is, I personally just can't see myself putting a lot of time into if there's no purpose or core competition involved. All in all, with something along those lines you bring in a much larger audience as well, by pleasing both sides.

[Kipper]

You have to look at the end game as being each base battle. If these are tuned to last a minimum of 10-15 minutes with a 2 or 3 minute break, that replicates an arena shooter in terms of basic battles.

It then surpasses it by allowing the fight to come to its natural conclusion when a team wins or loses - whether thats in 10 mins or 2 hours, not some arbitrary timer that stops things just as its getting interesting. It further dumps on other shooters because the battles are potentially larger, with no limitations on vehicles, and territory control that will matter when it's properly tuned.

Beyond that, if you're having fun from when you log in to when you log out - the game is doing its job.

I've seen talk of 'grinding' on the official forums and I think it's inaccurate. MMO grind is doing something that's repetitive and easy, and boring - like farming AI mobs for XP with little to no chance of death. PS2 isn't a grind because what you're being asked to do is not easy or predictable, so you always have to be on your toes.

[Sunrock]

I've seen talk of 'grinding' on the official forums and I think it's inaccurate. MMO grind is doing something that's repetitive and easy, and boring - like farming AI mobs for XP with little to no chance of death. PS2 isn't a grind because what you're being asked to do is not easy or predictable, so you always have to be on your toes.

Thats not how you define 'grinding'. Grinding is doing something over and over again. It does not matter if it's easy or hard or if its fun or bring. There are allot of grinds that can be both fun and hard. Fun and hard... ok I won't go there ;)

But no matter how fun and hard a grind is you will eventually grow bored with it. Even if it might have taken 800 hours of game play to get there but you will eventually.

[Crator]

There are allot of grinds that can be both fun and hard. Fun and hard... ok I won't go there ;)

But no matter how fun and hard a grind is you will eventually grow bored with it. Even if it might have taken 800 hours of game play to get there but you will eventually.

You forgot about the chaffing. The horrible chaffing. :D

[Kipper]

What I was trying to say us that an easy/boring grind really suits the term. Technically, you're right - but when something is fun it seems harsh to describe it as grinding IMO.

[Aaron]

In PS1 they had "facility VS facility" battles, and a frontline was made between the facilities. This doesn't happen in PS2 because either there are too many capture points on the map, or facilities aren't that important.

Currently, it's "run here, go there, take this point, then take the point over here." It's the type of running around that doesn't encourage epic battles between facilities. I realize they want to make use of every inch on the map, but there is a problem with that. Perhaps you can't use every inch of the map? I don't know how you can focus a battle, when the focus needs to be everywhere and everything.

You may not have the feeling of creeping closer and closer to the enemy facility because you are trying to expand your territory like a bubble.

[Sledgecrushr]

With the galaxy as the primary spawn the front lines were very porous. With the change making the sunderer the primary spawn I see things becoming much more involved on the ground.

[Sunrock]

With the galaxy as the primary spawn the front lines were very porous. With the change making the sunderer the primary spawn I see things becoming much more involved on the ground.

It will also be easier to deploy as spawn hub. Galaxies you can from a majority of bases see far way when they fly in and land so you know where to focus your attacks as a defender. But it will slow down the blitzkreig tactics witch is needed IMO. VS on EU beta 01 are too good at blitzkreig. (Probably all Germans ;) )

[Ipimpnoobs]

Boring...lmao
Tell me after you watch this vid if you find this game boring... I pulled out the old rocky I on you...lol


302 Found



I love those beautiful A2G's!!! My GAWD they are sweet!

[Sunrock]

Boring...lmao
Tell me after you watch this vid if you find this game boring...

Everything with no expedition gets boring if you do something too much. It's just a question how fast you can get there...

[Paperboy]

All that is missing is the deeper gameplay, it feels too much like go here kill that and die, spawn, kill him get killed again, run over there, oops tank zerg! run!! or die.

I'm hoping that there will be sanctuaries and connected continents, these never ending 3 way battles are becoming.... boring.

[Chewy]

3 months old this time.