Important Issues, Life or Death of the Game

[The Kush]

I am going to keep this as short and sweet as possible, no bull shit just straight to the point. Planetside 2 has some major issues. If these problems are not addressed, mark my words this game will fail. People can laugh all they want but we will see who is laughing in a year if you continue to ignore these fundamental issues. Now as I have said before the truth hurts, but you need to hear the truth so this game can be fixed and become the successful AAA shooter I know it can be. Key areas to keep in mind that will make this game successful and take full advantage of the large battles is proper teamwork and strategy.

-Bases need a ton of work. Let start by giving them a perimeter with fully enclosed walls, adding doors, staircases, more levels on the interior of the bases, back entrances to add some strategy, ect. Planetside 1 bases were great! We just needed more variety so they didn't become boring. Keep the fundamentals the same. A fun aspect of these base designs is it created what I call a "remember the Alamo" gametype. Defenders would try and hold out, attackers would try to push in. A very rewarding and fun system that promoted teamwork and strategy.

-The lag is really hurting this game. All my friends who have signed up for beta or got keys have quit 30 minutes after. Myself, and several of my friends, have really expensive rigs (i7, top of the line graphics, ect) and the lag is unbearable.

-As I briefly touched on Planetside needs teamwork and strategy to be successful in the long run. As you know, it's the community that kept PS1 alive for so many years. I loved playing with friends and my loyal faction, working together for a common goal. There is no common goal. It is honestly time to start looking into the lattice system. It makes the game more epic. Any legitimate fighting force usually has one common objective. Of course eventually if ANTs are added you could kill a generator in the back lines and maybe drain a base and capture it. But the lattice system helps keep the battles focused. I don't care if the population has to go down to achieve this. Because right now I see no large battles as is and the lag sucks. 

-Sanctuarys.. until this point I thought the new system might work, I gave it a chance but no it has completely failed. Players who aren't even active take up player spots on the continent and the whole thing is honestly a mess. We need a stage to organize troops. This also is another aspect that promotes teamwork and strategy.

I would not have taken a half hour out of my day to write this if I want passionate about the game. I have been playing since 2004 and I love planetside. Be original SOE, that's how you make money. Stay true to what you know. The first person shooter market needs a legitimate teamwork game. Not a lone wolf game like cod and bf. you have people who want to be ignorant, pretend like everything is okay. And that's fine. People can't stand to hear the truth because it hurts. But it hurts even more that you changed a game that had so many good qualities and threw them all out the door to be just like the rest. I see so many people say "planetside 1 obviously sucked or it wouldn't have had such low pops blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about and probably never played when the game first came out". Truth is, planetside 1 did work. SOE pushe everyone away when they strayed from the fundamentals and added bfrs. Not to mention the game was years ahead of its time and no one could afford a decent computer to run it. Hopefully changes happen soon otherwise I'm counting my losses on the station cash I purchased and I am moving on.

[Fanglord]

-The lag is really hurting this game. All my friends who have signed up for beta or got keys have quit 30 minutes after. Myself, and several of my friends, have really expensive rigs (i7, top of the line graphics, ect) and the lag is unbearable.



not to be a party pooper, but im running an i3 and 6850 an on high with a few settings lowered its running fine for me (720 but my monitor is a pos, so hurrah for being a cheapskate!).

though on that note I would love a more varied option, I hate just low/med/high doesnt really allow for enough tweaking.

[Ritual]

I think you exaggerated the fact that people with i7's and the latest 600 series graphics cards are "lagging" to the point of quitting.

I also disagree that we are so far away from Planetside 1 that we have no hope.

The latest patches are a step in the right direction, they are listening. And at the rate of changes we are seeing on a patch by patch basis, problems can come and go like night and day. The game is constantly improving for the better as far as I can tell.

They are experimenting in a true type of "BETA" way, nothing to them is sacred that it will never be changed. And Lets also not forget; THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MADE PLANETSIDE 1!!! Have a little faith.

SOE and crew will get it right.

[Bittermen]

I don't have any problems with lag

[Rat]

Runs fine for me...have a I7, but my graphics card is crap (GTS240)

[Mox]

I agree with you regarding all mentioned game mechanics.
We really need a lattice system, better defendable bases and sancs to teamup.

The framerate is not so bad for me. My medium priced rig is a year old and still play on high settings with a framerate around 30.

[Mox]

You been playing since 2004, you are likely past your expiration date for this game. Time for you to move the fuck on. Let players who enjoy a new PS2 give feedback. Thank you.

Thats exactly this kind of ignorance we dont need here. Maybe you move on as soon as the next bf or cod is launched. The remaining guys will be loyal players like the Kush and not bf/cod game kiddies who need a new game to hype every 3 month.

[psijaka]

You been playing since 2004, you are likely past your expiration date for this game. Time for you to move the fuck on. Let players who enjoy a new PS2 give feedback. Thank you.

Thats a ridiculous statement; all beta players have the right to give feedback, and negative feedback is just as important as positive feedback, as long as it is submitted in a constructive manner (as in this case).

The Kush has gone to the trouble of posting his concerns because he actually cares about the game.

[FortySe7en]

Thats exactly this kind of ignorance we dont need here. Maybe you move on as soon as the next bf or cod is launched. The remaining guys will be loyal players like the Kush and not bf/cod game kiddies who need a new game to hype every 3 month.

He may have offended you by what he said, but he is 100% correct. There is a new style of FPS gaming, and as far as PS2 is concerned, it is doing a fantastic job.

The bases don't need perimeters. The area around them don't support it. You use the high ground and the trenches to defend, which is perfectly normal.

The lag isn't killing this game. These servers are hosted on SOE's mainframes. Having a ping of around 150-200 is completely normal in an MMO. The lag isn't really affecting the gameplay at all. You just need to adjust a tiny bit to compensate.

As far as sanctuary's.. Its a beta. OFC people are going to be taking up slots, probably testing other things. What people fail to realize is that this is an actual closed beta. This isn't a "preorder the game and get into beta" type issue, this is a REAL closed beta. You cannot even begin to understand how warpgates work based on that fact alone.

As for the BF/COD kiddie comment, well, you're just an idiot. Congratulations on bringing absolutely ZERO to this conversation other than a misguided insult to an ENTIRE playerbase.

[zzzornbringer]

this game just depends on all the outfits. casual solo players like me, never will pay for this game.

you are very limited as a solo player, i know that. i enjoy the atmosphere the game creates. i play it like a interactive war movie. i get excited when galaxies fly over my head.

but in the longer term? i don't see myself playing this for a longer period of time. and i also don't want to get into outfits, talk to people and coordinate and stuff.

i just want to log in, enjoy the game for a while. get a few kills, die a few times. watch some battles. and quit again.

i just don't want to get involved in a mmo kind of thing again. i am mmo-oversaturated. not saying this game sucks or something like that. the game is very awsome but just not for a solo player.

[Legolas]

The bases don't need perimeters. The area around them don't support it. You use the high ground and the trenches to defend, which is perfectly normal.

The devs don't agree with you and are making the main bases, y'know, actually bases via shield gens and spawn gen mechanics and choke point tunnels. They are more walled than ever before.

High ground and trenches? Seriously? Have you even played the game? If you have you would know that people just ignore everything and walk or drive into bases, at least on Indar, which was (is?) a problem.



The lag isn't killing this game.

Tell that to all the people - and there are many - who can't run it with any kind of frame rate in these big battles which are what PS2 is advertised on. At least not yet.

I'm sure they'll have this fixed by release though.



You cannot even begin to understand how warpgates work based on that fact alone.

Warpgates highlight flaws in the map design due to restricting each faction to mostly fighting on about one third of the map. Fighting on that same third is kinda boring after a while... and the gates also constantly remind me of the lack of a meta game and continental conquest.

The future doesn't matter. A release date does. And we can see exactly how warpgates work - they will probably work this way on release. It is not the end of the world, but nor is it a good thing.

Though I can't say I'm convinced of the need for Sanctuaries now. All they would do is move the problem that stems from a lack of maps elsewhere.

[ShadoViper]

He may have offended you by what he said, but he is 100% correct. There is a new style of FPS gaming, and as far as PS2 is concerned, it is doing a fantastic job.

The bases don't need perimeters. The area around them don't support it. You use the high ground and the trenches to defend, which is perfectly normal.

The lag isn't killing this game. These servers are hosted on SOE's mainframes. Having a ping of around 150-200 is completely normal in an MMO. The lag isn't really affecting the gameplay at all. You just need to adjust a tiny bit to compensate.

As far as sanctuary's.. Its a beta. OFC people are going to be taking up slots, probably testing other things. What people fail to realize is that this is an actual closed beta. This isn't a "preorder the game and get into beta" type issue, this is a REAL closed beta. You cannot even begin to understand how warpgates work based on that fact alone.

As for the BF/COD kiddie comment, well, you're just an idiot. Congratulations on bringing absolutely ZERO to this conversation other than a misguided insult to an ENTIRE playerbase.

New style my ass, maybe if you just started gaming you might think call of duty is a new "style". The only thing that game brought that was "new" was over-priced dlc, dumbed-down gameplay, killstreaks and a lot of morons into the twitch gaming arena.

Obviously planetside 2 is not doing a "fantastic" job. While I'm enjoying my time with it, it's quite clear it needs work and has some glaring issues, and it seems that some of those problems have been resolved by bringing back aspects of planetside the AMS issue for example. Which people were stating was going to be a problem months before pre beta.

So yes, both "schools" will be needed for this game folks.

Blind appraisal won't make this game better either. and personally the guys on this site bitching are not always right, but they are more often than not. They care about this game.

Also your perimeter arguement didn't really make sense to me. So permiteter/walls wouldn't really be supported/needed for bases because we are using the "high ground" to defend and it works?

[SpottyGekko]

My understanding is that SOE's intention with PS2 is to develop a game where BF3/CoD players will feel immediately comfortable, but to also offer them increased depth combined with the persistence of an MMO.

PS2 is not being made for PS1 vets. It is clearly a whole new ballgame, and it has a completely different set of priorities than its predecessor.

I imagine the process went something like this:

We (SOE) have to revitalise our MMO business, our products are ageing and our sub-based model is outdated.
Let's be the first to build AAA MMO's and launch them as F2P offerings. We will be the Wallmart of the MMO industry, low margins (micro-transactions) but high volumes (huge number of players).
Which of our current IP's is best suited to lead this "new direction" ?
Aha ! Planetside ! It always had good potential and a small but loyal following. It has relatively simple mechanics compared to standard fantasy MMO's, so development time will be shorter.
It also has the potential to pull in players from all over the massive FPS fanbase. Besides, there is no other MMOFPS to compete with, we have the market entirely to ourselves !
Sooo... a potential playerbase of millions and no competing products, this could be a licence to print money :D


Unless SOE as a studio scrap their entire new F2P-focused development strategy (unlikely at this point), PS2 has to pay for it's development cost by attracting a very large number of players.

Think in the range of 2 to 3 million "registered accounts" in the first year or two. If each one of those accounts spend a minimum of $10, PS2 will be well on the way to covering it's development cost. But to make an actual profit, SOE will have to somehow persuade those players to part with more than $10 each on average.

Last time I looked, the "classic FPS player" was a lone wolf who played solo for k/b score, achievements, unlocks and medals (i.e. personal bragging rights). Yes, there are clans and teams in the FPS world, but I'd be amazed if even 10% of the total FPS audience played the majority of their games in a true co-ordinated team-based fashion.

And the "classic FPS player" is where PS2 will find its "millions of players". If it can't lure those players in to spend $20 to $30 each and stick around for 3 months or so, it will most likely fail to meet it's objectives.

[Crator]

You need depth in games to keep people coming back. The easy and fun part of Planetside 1 and 2 is shooting people. As long as you don't make it overly complicated to get to the fight there shouldn't be an issue. There are smart players who know how to read instruction books and on-screen dialog to help them figure out the meta-game. Those players who do figure out the meta-game begin leading the rest of the empire via tools given to them to communicate to their empire on the battlefield. The players who aren't keen about what to do where to go take cues from the other players leading.

[Redshift]

My understanding is that SOE's intention with PS2 is to develop a game where BF3/CoD players will feel immediately comfortable, but to also offer them increased depth combined with the persistence of an MMO.


Problem is atm the action is no where near as consistent as those games because everyone is spread out without front lines, or real objectives.

Those players will leave as soon as a newer FPS is released, if you want to get players to stay you need to hook people in with longer term addictive gaming.

Currently the game doesn't hold my attention for an entire evening let alone 9 years.

[Legolas]

Problem is atm the action is no where near as consistent as those games because everyone is spread out without front lines, or real objectives.

Maybe the mission system will help with objectives... I can't understand how such a thing would work though.

[sylphaen]

Maybe the mission system will help with objectives... I can't understand how such a thing would work though.

a resource system, a mission system, a hex system... The PS2 system is too complex (sometimes in unnecessary ways) to achieve what PS1 did with facilities/lattice.

We can hope devs strike a balance to make it work but the more complex a system is, the harder it is have everything working well together.

I think PS2 is just too open; kind of like how too open PS1 was before its lattice system.

[Shogun]

You need depth in games to keep people coming back. The easy and fun part of Planetside 1 and 2 is shooting people. As long as you don't make it overly complicated to get to the fight there shouldn't be an issue. There are smart players who know how to read instruction books and on-screen dialog to help them figure out the meta-game. Those players who do figure out the meta-game begin leading the rest of the empire via tools given to them to communicate to their empire on the battlefield. The players who aren't keen about what to do where to go take cues from the other players leading.

THIS!

ps2 is doing fine with the easy fun part, the shooting.
but it is lacking in the meta fungame for the noncasuals.
planetside 1 did very well in the meta part. it was extremely satisfying when a cr5 strategy worked out and a long battle was won that turned the tide on the war for the whole continent (or even world in some rare cases) .

too many great ps1 mechanics are gone now. and the reimplementation of ams has proven that not everything the vets want is bullshit. the ams works fine and the vets told us so right from the beginning. there are a lot of ps1 mechanics, that worked great and should make a return in ps2. since ps1 is so unknown, it would count as innovation for a shooter and that´s what a lot of gamers are looking for.

[Gonefshn]

The only thing I really agree with here is the overall goal.

I never have lag issues even in big fights. Any time lag appears they seem to address it on the forums or in notes and end up fixing the issue.

I like the new open base designs though I agree having SOME bases that go back to old style PS1 would be a welcome addition.

Playing with my outfit I never feel like strategy and dynamic battle is missing.
In all combat situations we are always finding ways to address the fight and cleverly come up with solutions that work. Enemies pulling armor, Bringing in Sunderers and libs, etc. All these things change the flow of a battle and have different implications and things that need to be done to address them. It doesn't feel like BF3 or CoD because the fight can change so quickly with so many factors. Strategy is totally viable and present in the current build of the game. I do not see myself getting bored. The actual gunplay and moment to moment is so much fun I always enjoy myself.

Only big gripe I have is the resource cap is too low. It should be more like 2000.

[elementHTTP]

My understanding is that SOE's intention with PS2 is to develop a game where BF3/CoD players will feel immediately comfortable, but to also offer them increased depth combined with the persistence of an MMO.

PS2 is not being made for PS1 vets. It is clearly a whole new ballgame, and it has a completely different set of priorities than its predecessor.

I imagine the process went something like this:

We (SOE) have to revitalise our MMO business, our products are ageing and our sub-based model is outdated.
Let's be the first to build AAA MMO's and launch them as F2P offerings. We will be the Wallmart of the MMO industry, low margins (micro-transactions) but high volumes (huge number of players).
Which of our current IP's is best suited to lead this "new direction" ?
Aha ! Planetside ! It always had good potential and a small but loyal following. It has relatively simple mechanics compared to standard fantasy MMO's, so development time will be shorter.
It also has the potential to pull in players from all over the massive FPS fanbase. Besides, there is no other MMOFPS to compete with, we have the market entirely to ourselves !
Sooo... a potential playerbase of millions and no competing products, this could be a licence to print money :D


Unless SOE as a studio scrap their entire new F2P-focused development strategy (unlikely at this point), PS2 has to pay for it's development cost by attracting a very large number of players.

Think in the range of 2 to 3 million "registered accounts" in the first year or two. If each one of those accounts spend a minimum of $10, PS2 will be well on the way to covering it's development cost. But to make an actual profit, SOE will have to somehow persuade those players to part with more than $10 each on average.

Last time I looked, the "classic FPS player" was a lone wolf who played solo for k/b score, achievements, unlocks and medals (i.e. personal bragging rights). Yes, there are clans and teams in the FPS world, but I'd be amazed if even 10% of the total FPS audience played the majority of their games in a true co-ordinated team-based fashion.

And the "classic FPS player" is where PS2 will find its "millions of players". If it can't lure those players in to spend $20 to $30 each and stick around for 3 months or so, it will most likely fail to meet it's objectives.

SpottyGekko hit the spot :D

If PS2 cannot generate money there will be no PS2 (long therm ) ! Basic law of economics
-more people or wide audience = more potential money
- so better written code / optimization => less money i have to spend to play PS2 = more money i can spend on PS2 simple !

how do you make people spend cash ?
- by going league of legends route (arguably the most successful FTP model)
- DO NOT REINVENT THE WHEEL ! (concentrate on selling more cooler cosmetics not BOOSTS ! )

Now this is make or brake
- game must BE FAIR AND FUN for most people
game mechanic is free ,cosmetics isn't

- resources/xp boost = potentially more tanks/air + better situational response = not fair for most people = P2W !
- its easy to sell boosts then to optimize code for cosmetics !
- if frame rate is choppy now imagine when cosmetics come in :( game will be unplayable
- population imbalance is next big problem this brakes everything they try to balance

Then we come to how to keep people in
- what is fun for most people ( not for loud ones ) ?
- what is making player base bored of playing
- this is where feedback is important
All People must give SOE feedback its critical for game success

- PS2 vets vs new-coming FPS player base who will prevail its up to your constructive feedback

[The Kush]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to read. I am glad some people aren't dealing with lag anymore, my friends and I still are but it seems that there might be some steps in the right direction.

A few of you touched on this but the lattice system truly gave a feeling of accomplishment and you really thought the battle meant something. You also always had a direction to go, you knew where the front lines were. I like how another user put it, at times the current system is almost to chaotic and difficult. Keep it nice and easy.

Some of you agreed with my points on bases. To the user who suggested some change and some don't, I would be open to that. The problem I have is look at any modern base, castle, fortress, ect for all of recorded history. They ALWAYS have a wall. This is because you need a perimeter to defend. The fun part is defending that wall. The attackers are rewarded when they finally breakthrough. That's what made PS1 fun, it wasn't always easy, some battles were long. But you were always getting kills and in the en strategy conquered numbers. The very first screenshots of PS2 showed based completely surrounded with walls. Add some shield gates to some of the bases and this will be incredibly fun.

Basically I can agree, the shooting mechanics are going the COD/BF route and I am fine with that (not preferred but as people have said they want to appeal to that audience) but to have the game addicting and fun, you need the conquest aspects of PS1, that is what will make this mmo great and keep people hooked.

[Gonefshn]

Most AMP stations have full walls and shield gates now.

The bases you are looking for already exist.

The problem is without a lattice system there are never enough players at that base at a given time to occupy that perimeter. My experiences in beta show that the walls don't hold people out like they did in PS1. In PS1 the base was small enough that the main pop of an empire could properly cover the walls on all sides. You couldn't get close to the wall easily. Getting over it meant a true siege. In PS2 the bases are there, and are well laid out but the size of them and no lattice system means you will never have the mass of players necessary to use the walls effectively. Sure the walls are there but most the time I can walk right up to them easily. No one sits on the walls and shoots at people approaching the bases in PS2 like in PS1.

The lattice system tell players which base they need to protect, you can be sure which base the enemy will be coming for so you know where to concentrate forces. It's a more restricting system but it allowed the bases to function properly. The designs of the bases are fine whats missing is the incentive to properly defend them. Bigger bases means more people are necessary to hold the line. Period.

[GuyFawkes]

The game does have potential

PS1 was cut off at the knees before it came out. The mmo was relatively unknown, FPS meant counter strike or UT/quake, and paying a sub for a fps was taboo. The guys making the engine for ps1 were shunted off to eq2 land before they could blink. Advertisement was non existant, we've probably seen more sightings of the Loch Ness Monster in all honesty. Not a great start. Bugs existed for years, it was a hackers wet dream. Things cited as ps1 unique features weren't even in game at launch, like the lattice system. Command structure was little more than epeen sanctuary for the main part.

PS2 at least has a decent foundation to work from this time. MMO's are 2 a penny , ftp is becoming more mainstream. Don't forget one of the biggest drawbacks for ps1 was population. Little to kill dosen't make for a great shooter. The devs are listening (sometimes too much..look at the esf banjoing going on..forumside ftl), they added ams (in a fashion) they adjusted the cert gain, they are still on going working on hex system and trying to make it better. Nothing is set in stone. Matt Higby mentioned the hex and lattice systems , but for now are still seeing if the hex thing can be made better. Need to give them time.
They acknowledge that the certs are a bit lacklustre in several areas, many were probably just placeholders to fill in gaps. But they have to try stuff out to see how things work , or don't.
I think they have done an incredible job so far in the time they have had. This time last year ps2 was just a wink in a ps1 fans eyes,don't forget.

Don't get me wrong, I think the game has a bucket load of things to add to get the long term appeal in there to make it addictive and worthy of that planetside tag, but it all takes time and these are people working in the soe offices, not robots. I'm sure they are aware of most peoples concerns, but the process is like building with Lego. The icing that made ps1 appealing can always be added, but unless the foundation is right from day 1, they are just making trouble for the future.

[sylphaen]

A lot of good posts in this thread. Thanks everyone for taking the time to post your thoughts !

Just to add on GuyFawkes comment after thinking about his point, we do are a very demanding crowd (and I'm not the last at complaining either).
:p

Roma was not erected in one day ! In time, we can hope PS2 will succeed as well (and also not suffer the whole empire breakdown to dark ages part).
;)

So to get straight to the point like we do when criticizing: thank you for all your hard work devs !
:love:

[berzerkerking]

Seriously? After all the constant patching do you really think that they are not working on that. This is what a real beta is. You should be thankful they are not making you run on specific parts of the map and submitting full reports to them for every systematic glitch the found. I may not have experience in planetside but i do have great experience in closed beta. Calm your tits they hear you.

[Redshift]

I may not have experience in planetside but i do have great experience in closed beta. Calm your tits they hear you.

The bit they're are missing is the bit that made planetside awesome..... They don't hear us as much as you think, they're months from release and we feel they're missing some massive huge chunks of gameplay. What they have atm is a game that doesn't feel like it has any longevity, that's why people are bitching.

[igster]

PS2 Mechanics are excellent generally. And the graphics are amazing. But the gameplay really does need to be there. F2P will fail if it offers no gameplay hook to keep people coming back. F2P will be a 3 month Blast with a game and then move on to other things because it is boring and there is no depth to the gameplay.

The biggest hindrance to the meta game is not in my opinion the lattice... it is more the map. It's very difficult to ascertain the status of any base my looking what is on the map..

Take a look at the map...What do you know? influence. nme population. That is all. It is so clunky. Resources.. they are just numbers... meh... really can't get excited about seeing numbers..

Quick Scan of the map.. are any bases under threat.... ER.. NO IDEA TBH.. THERE ARE NME THERE BUT I KNOW NOTHING ELSE ABOUT THE BASE OVER THERE
Is there any friendlies there defending it? NO IDEA.
What is the progress if the cap? NOT A SCOOBY DOO CLUE.
How long ago was it taken? DONT KNOW AND BY NOW I DONT CARE
Is anyone reacting to it? NOT A CLUE - I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO IS ON THE SERVER ANYMORE
I cant see this stuff so i don't care. It flips.. we just go flip it back. Zerg Zerg. Rubbish meta game.

Reminds me of the saying
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
"If a base is assaulted in PS2 and noone is around to see it, would it have been a great fight?"
There are so many gameplay opportunities being missed right now and great fights that just don't happen because noone has the information to react and make the great fights. Organised squads take a base and no-one really responds because the opposition just don't know about the moves being made. A well oiled squad go and take a big base and no-one cares because the decent opposition are busy zerging away on the other side of the map or on the other continent.
The only intelligence information you ever get on the map is if there is a dirty great big tank zerg and it shows up on your map.

PS1 on the other hand.
We had the Tools to detect the plays of the opposition : The MAP.
Hawkeye CR5s and vets spotting a base being capped.
Spotting a generator going down
Spotting a tower being flipped
Spotting a base being drained
Spotting a block of blue/red on tactical radar.

Right.. they are moving in on base X..
Who is there? Oh it's UMVS/DT/Wawawawhatagreatbigscrote/phychophonics lot/TrX/Outcasters/Azure Twilight/BRTD..
Is anyone responding.
Lets respond..... Let the games begin.... organise a response.
We need this .. we need that.. get an AMS... get a gal.. get a tank.. pull this do that....organise.
Gal drop to flip a base..
Gal drop to secure a base last minute

I cannot say it enough.. this was the gold dust of Planetside 1.
We had teams who specialised in Special operations and resecuring and would hate to zerg.
Resecuring a base with 1 second left on the cap.
Gal dropping a base and stopping a massive zerg in it's tracks.
Flipping a base.
Prepping a base for a heroic capture against the odds without being spotted.

This was the meta game at it's finest.
All death match games lose their novelty... planetside had terrible mechanics but this meta game kept them playing and coming back for a long time.

The Twitch shooter crowd will lap it up once they actually see what effect it has on how they play together and understand it.. Marry this depth with twitch fps mechanic and you will be playing for years and years... This is what the veterans are crying out for.

Oh and make the bases able to be defended by squad sized teams. Kush has it right. The bases are actually Death Match maps where you can be attacked from any angle at any time.

Back to basics. Even as simple as being able to list the approaches makes teamwork possible. There are too many approaches to each of the objectives in the bases. Back Door, VBay, Air Term, Maindoor, CC resulted in a small squad being able to put up an effective defence against the odds.
A small squad could lock down a base so that they could call out incomings and react while keeping a strong defence. Great teamwork could result. Therefore you had to step up and work well to beat the defence.

I don't even know how to describe all the approaches to strategic objectives in this game. Most of them end up being outdoors with multiple ways to attack them resulting in a squad having little or no chance of being able to defend other than to overwhelm the opposition with superior numbers.

[texico]

*map stuff*

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.

It's subtle but so true. Playing PlanetSide, the map is your bible. PlanetSide 1 gave you all the kind of information he was talking about. On an individual scale it meant you had a clear picture of what was going on so you yourself feel more organized and see the point, and on a larger scale the whole empire is more organized, more responsive, more cohesive. They have the information necessary to react to what's happening to their own bases, or what's happening to the oppositions.

[Buggsy]

The BF3/COD players are use to riding in steam trains, let's show them the automobile.

Translation: The BF3/COD players don't know what they want.

[sylphaen]

I second what Igster said.

[Ritual]

The map in Planetside 1 was an extension of my mind.

While I havent playtested Planetside 2 yet, I support the idea of having the same map functionality as its predecessor. Im up for new and creative ideas to convey all of the important information however. If it's pie charts and icons so be it.

My most important issue however remains base variety and design, and the types of base offensives and defenses they are stimulating. I would like to see more base variety with additional brainstorming on how to make them logical from an attackers and defenders point of view, while keeping them large and complex. I only know what I see in videos so take my opinion as generalized.

[Realmofdarkness]

I dont know how well it would fit in PS2 but I loved a game called Enemy Territory where the maps were designed in such way that the attackers had to complete small tasks to progress on the map while the defenders had to build defence mechanics along the way. I think defending/attacking bases would be more fun if defending team engineers could build protective stuff like walls on fixed locations that could be blown up by C4 or tanks for example. engineers could build obstacles so that vehicles couldent just drive in the base but foot troops can pass.

Even doors to lets say field generator room should be a task for the engineer to build, and the door has to be destroyed with C4.

[RodenyC]

I dont know how well it would fit in PS2 but I loved a game called Enemy Territory where the maps were designed in such way that the attackers had to complete small tasks to progress on the map while the defenders had to build defence mechanics along the way. I think defending/attacking bases would be more fun if defending team engineers could build protective stuff like walls on fixed locations that could be blown up by C4 or tanks for example. engineers could build obstacles so that vehicles couldn't just drive in the base but foot troops can pass.

Even doors to lets say field generator room should be a task for the engineer to build, and the door has to be destroyed with C4.

PS1 had bases like that.You couldn't blow them with C4 but the prep the base for attackers were there.Mines,Spitfires and their variants,and TRAPs were blockades that enemy vehicles couldn't go through.And the goal before that was too capture said tower near it unless it was a capital base.

The original games are always better.PS2 proves that.

[maradine]

The original games are always better.PS2 proves that.

Status quo bias and confirmation bias in one sentence. This thread is a metacognative delight.

[VaderShake]

The BF3/COD players are use to riding in steam trains, let's show them the automobile.

Translation: The BF3/COD players don't know what they want.

I think you have a misconception that BF3 and COD players are the same thing and also that they do not know what they want. I have over 10,000 hours in the BF franchise and after a month of PS2 beta I will easily leave 10,000 hours behind. BF is more COD than PS, PS is nothing like COD, PS2 is much diffrent than BF. Apples and Oranges is still to close, more like Apples and Tripe kind of difference.

Give SOE some more time to build features into the game they say they are adding (mission system) & keep providing customer feedback about what you want.

I also think we all have to consider what exaclty they are building here, the vision they are presenting for the future, and the possibilities this may lead to 5+ years down the road.

I have been gaming since 1978 and I have seen the progression and benchmark games, make no mistake what ever PS2 ends up being it will be a benchmark game for years to come, don't miss what it is even if it's not enough PS1 for you. I'm not claiming it's "perfect" yes it could use more structure variety, yes the business model is fuzzy, ect. but it does have a team of devs that will atleast acknowledge their customers and that is way ahead of the curve in the industry which is rare, not unheard of but rare.

[Gonefshn]

The main reason I still think lattice is the main issue is because so many other complaints people are raising in this thread have been mentioned and are sure to be addressed.

People are also not remembering the upcoming mission system.

Sure, the mission system could fail too, but it also could fill these holes.

The lattice told you where to go and directed the flow of battle.
The mission system could do exactly that for the zerg. Current mission is to attack a certain base or territory, when it flips the mission system reasigns a new target based on priority. This is basically the lattice system.

Wait for the mission system and more UI updates.

[ShadoViper]

Back in my day, back in my day..:zzz:

Disappointing.