Are the Devs stubborn?

[Gaalsien]

I've only been on the beta for a few weeks, but the more I look at the forums, reddit, and the dev twitter posts, the more I start to feel like the relationship between the playerbase and the devs is distinctly one way.

In many cases it seems like the players know exactly what they want. Sometimes the devs acknowledge their wants, but usually only to the effect of saying 'no, we're not including it', seemingly because they feel they know better. They refuse to even trial concepts, despite this being beta.

It annoys me because the entire point of a beta is to get the community's input, find out what they want, what they find fun. It also makes me worried for the future. SEO seem to believe in future they'll be able to use the playerbase as a source of player-made (free) content, like what Valve managed. This worked for Valve because they have such a healthy relationship with their fans, but it will only work for SEO if the players feel like they're being listened to and their opinions taken into consideration. Otherwise they'll be disenfranchised and unwilling to contribute.

Do the devs have their own vision for the game that they're stubbornly sticking to, even if fans disagree with it? Would reworking some game mechanics require too much programming? Do they just have a better, fuller conception of what the final, released game will look like, and are confident that people will love it?

One of the few positive responses I've seen is their stated commitment to the metagame, but I've yet to see anything concrete actually implemented.

tl;dr: Are the devs too stubborn to listen to fans? Arrogant? Lazy?

[Tooterfish]

Higby, one of the developers you mentioned, has stated several times that they listen to the concerns and suggestions from us, but obviously can't include everything at launch. PS2 is a long term development process, and the key focus now should be a polished release, not a feature packed mess.

What you said about Valve is true, because Valve is one of the earliest known digital distributors, and TF2's F2P model was intended to entice people to use and commit to the service.

Ultimately, I haven't found many games in the extended past that have been as receptive to fans as the PS2 dev team. So, in short, I disagree.

[Rat]

I also disagree, I dont think you can find a group of devs more involved with the community, as you said you have only been around here for a few weeks, right now they are just balls to the walls trying to get this next patch ready. after that I am sure it will just be debugging and optamizations to get ready for launch....More candy will be coming later.

[VelRa]

They aren't stubborn, but they do have to stand their ground. In many cases, they do know better, especially when it comes to back-end issues which are not immediately visible to loud forum mobs, such as the whole issue with square continents turning out to be a performance issue, not a design issue.

[Bear]

Many times what the players want isn't what's best for the game. For every 1000 players that want "X" added to the game, there's another thousand that want "Y" added which might be entirely opposite. Just because the player base has a suggestion, that doesn't mean it integrates well with what the development plan is. The player suggestions are almost always done in a vacuum. We can only make them based on the game as we're currently playing it. What's missing is the reality that the dev's are already 2-3 builds ahead of what's being played.

What bugs me is that there seems to be a "rose colored glasses" phenomenon when you see players talk about PS1. PS1 was a good game but it wasn't the most amazing gaming experience ever. Yet when you hear "vets" talk about it you'd think it was the most incredible fps ever made. If you put the current number of PS2 players into a PS1 lattice system you'd have a 5 fps clusterfrick that was unplayable.

My best advice, play the game, report the bugs, offer your suggestions for game improvement and if they're not accepted don't cry that that the devs don't listen.

[Rolfski]

In many cases it seems like the players know exactly what they want.
There's only a small minority that thinks they know "exactly" what they want and these are the few vets that want to make this a PS1 with better graphics.
And even they don't know what they want because if the devs would do this they would start complaining that this would only be a "PS 1.5".

The rest of is open to the ideas the devs come up with and so far these devs have done a pretty good job of taking our feedback on these ideas into account. So no, the devs have not become more arrogant. It's just that with the release coming some people start whining louder.

[peekaboo]

This is SOE.... I don't know where most of you been for the past decade to blindly put faith where it isn't warranted, but the large volume of die hard fanboys shutting down all criticism in regards to this game when its in beta and benefits most from it, is extremely disapointing. I guess people really don't learn from past mistakes, few companies have disapointed their customers as much as SOE has, time and time again showing the almighty $$ is the only thing they care from you.

The devs are not your idols, nor leaders. They are your employees as you are paying them money for a ongoing service. they don't need you to defend them or their product, they need you to tell them how to make it better. Of course it gets confusing when handling SOE since they thrive on hype not on facts or on actual products that realize their potential. And in the age of kickstart and other such projects that put the devs in direct contact with their customers the kind of elitist behaviour displayed by this dev team is really jaw dropping.

Keep expecting that things will get better, that all that was promised will be delivered. After all what is life without pipe dreams. And in 3 to 6 months when you are looking for the next adrenaline/social fix, try to remember those days when you still naively belived everything that someone who is wanting to make money out of you told you.

Tl: DR: Don't trust SOE, review its track history. A games potential is irrelevant if the DEV team has no intention of developing on it and sees the game only as a cash cow with the associated disregard for its player base

[Figment]

There's only a small minority that thinks they know "exactly" what they want and these are the few vets that want to make this a PS1 with better graphics.
And even they don't know what they want because if the devs would do this they would start complaining that this would only be a "PS 1.5".

This is not true. First off, it's the majority of veterans. Second, there's a lot of concensus on what needs improving, what's fine and what isn't. It's about a very specific group of topics : driver/gunner, class system, base layout and capture/meta game mechanics. AMS has already been adressed partially (split of transport and AMS roles is expected in time). On these topics there's a lot of concensus among veterans, or at the very least the impression it needs work. I'd even say that on at least half these topics, the same can be said for new players that discuss issues.


Third, there's only a very, VERY small minority that wants an exact copy of PS1 and then we're talking 0.5% and even they feel there's room for improvement with respect to PS1 and would accept change, just not a "dumbing-down-revolution", which btw, is only supported by the fanboys. The new peops seem to be down with whatever works best and that includes a lot of PS1 concepts that have been reintroduced or mentioned. Sometimes they even bring it up themselves without knowing that they were PS1 ideas. These vets would also not be the ones complaining it'd be PS1.5, in fact, you're the first to bring this up. The ones I'd see complain about "PS1.5" are the fanboys who at the start of the alpha decided that "everything must go with whatever the devs decide".

The rest of is open to the ideas the devs come up with and so far these devs have done a pretty good job of taking our feedback on these ideas into account. So no, the devs have not become more arrogant. It's just that with the release coming some people start whining louder.

I'm sorry, but the "rest" doesn't exist. Plus, there's quite a few of those that aren't open to every alternative, particularly not if they've been done in PS1 because they argue PS1 failed thus every concept that was in PS1 failed (and often suggest we should use other popular game's concepts, just because they don't believe in originality or that popular games must have good stuff in it, even if those concepts are not designed for a MMO context). Those are the most silly and narrowminded people around, tbh. They claim to be innovators, but they're simply copy cats.



As for the devs, I agree they've not become more arrogant no. They - or in some cases Smedley :P - are sometimes a bit stubborn, but most of the time simply didn't really know how things would work out, think they have a good idea (and sometimes they do) and they just need the experience of testing something for themselves before realising it has to change. They readily admit it at times if something didn't work and you have to give them credit for that. Unfortunately, we're all rather impatient (it's our baby too after all) and with a deadline this close it's rather scary if there'll be sufficient room to change or tweak mechanics afterwards (without ending up with SWG's NGE-experience) and if the launch isn't going to end up as a premature birth. I think most people on all sides would have prefered to let the beta take a bit more time.


I do hope that they'll continue with a test server that's open almost 24/7 for continuously testing new concepts.

[sylphaen]

Let's put it another way: you are creating a game with a specific vision and someone points out you should try this or that. How is saying "no" arrogance or trying the initial vision stubborness?

With all due respect, you should ask these questions about yourself first. If people do things a certain way, and whether it's a mistake or not, they usually have a reason to do so.

There is a difference between wishing and demanding. Irrespective of whether they are stubborn, crazy, arrogant or not, there is also a way to ask about and say things.

For instance, while I'm disappointed about some aspects of PS2 at release, I'm confident the game may evolve in interesting ways.

I also doubt devs decided to get on social networks to demonstrate how stubborn they are and wail on players. Check Jimmy's answer in Hamma's thread: i see an awesome post full of support and hardly any evidence of arrogance or stubborness.

[Rolfski]

This is not true. First off, it's the majority of veterans. Incorrect. Based on what T-Ray said, hundreds of thousands seem to be playing beta now, more then ever in PS1. Only a very small percentage checks these forums. And among these are a relatively high number of disappointed vets, because we all know that satisfied players tend to be less vocal. So what to you may seem like a majority, it is really not.

Second, there's a lot of concensus on what needs improving, what's fine and what isn't. It's about a very specific group of topics : driver/gunner, class system, base layout and capture/meta game mechanics. Incorrect again for the reasons above. If they would get rid of driver/gunner and class system you would probably see a lot more complaining compared to what you see now, especially from the newcomers with a COD/BF background. So there is no reason to assume there is a general "consensus" on this.

[Figment]

Incorrect. Based on what T-Ray said, hundreds of thousands seem to be playing beta now, more then ever in PS1. Only a very small percentage checks these forums. And among these are a relatively high number of disappointed vets, because we all know that satisfied players tend to be less vocal. So what to you may seem like a majority, it is really not.

Nice assumption, but you have no indicators of that whatsoever. You have no idea if people who don't go to the forums won't just leave if camping continues or they hate particular aspects. I've got around 12+ new people from BF/CoD in my outfit and they all comment in the same way on the same issues we do. The big difference? They're still impressed with the first impression of the sheer scale of the game, veterans look well beyond that.

Also funny is that they pretty much all independently said they wished they had discovered the PS franchise before.

Incorrect again for the reasons above. If they would get rid of driver/gunner and class system you would probably see a lot more complaining compared to what you see now, especially from the newcomers with a COD/BF background. So there is no reason to assume there is a general "consensus" on this.

Again, bullox and based on nothing substantial. Prove it. As in, show that players would be unhappy. Don't assume based on other game's management decisions to milk status quo formula games for a decade without innovation ("playing it save") and living off their name without ever making a game that's truly unique, improves or does anything but upgrade graphics. Can you really tell there's a massive difference between CoD: MW, MW2 and MW3? I'd be impressed if you can see major differences in game play.

Speaking of innovation, you do realise that the new CoD: BO2 is only now changing their inventory system to allow you to carry more stuff at once (ten point system)? So I presume you conclude that game will have 60.000 sales tops all of a sudden? Or shall we say 10 million based on name and awareness alone because it's not doing what all other games have been doing?

In fact, I've seen many, MANY BF players complain about driver/gunner complain in the same way as veterans and when they do, they want a PS1 Prowler setup, while PS1 players tend to favour a PS1 Vanguard setup. They want a bigger split. I mean, really? They don't want solo-man tanks if it means they get camped by zergs. There's no massive "MUST HAVE SOLO TANKS"-crowd. In general infantry FPS players are ultimately unhappy with tank spam. So really, what are you basing this claim on? Initial dev suggestion that they had to? They assumed Rolfski, as are you. I don't know if you actually talk to people, but I never hear anyone new complain about the idea of split controls, in fact, they love the idea because it's true teamwork.


Base layout is complained about a lot in being not defensible enough. I've even seen a thread filled with non-PS1 players, started by an ex-BF3 player, who looked at an AMP station from PS1 in a tutorial vid and the lot went "wow". Seriously? They'd all hate it? Suuuuuure. I suppose we were PS1 nerds before we started playing PS1. Right. We're not normal people, right? We're a special breed...


Why do you assume BF players who never heard of PS1 or are young would hate PS1 tank design and inventory design? Are you making assumptions or do you have actual evidence of this? And don't come here stating sales numbers, we all know that companies like EA pay IGN and other gaming sites heavily and even have weekly TV adds to push the awareness of their console shooters. On top of that, those games have always been dominantly displayed in stores and those games had a one time purchase system. Those are far bigger reasons that they sold well than that PS1 systems would somehow not mix with the players.

This has never been the case for PS1.

[texico]

I think Smedley is stubborn. He said in his very very first post on Planetside 2 that he didn't want Sanctuaries and its 3 years later and I can't help but think a big reason why they're not in/have no current plan to put them in is he doesn't want them in. I also found this the other day:

http://i46.tinypic.com/669lpv.jpg


That won't change.


As for the devs, I don't believe they're "stubborn", more like, just having to make active decisions and rolling with them. They don't come across as politicians to me, they seem much more relaxed and down to Earth. However, it seems they have either created or been given a vision they're trying to achieve and so won't change their guns on certain issues. Then again, they've also stated a number of times that nothing is untouchable during Beta.

I actually haven't seen a quoted reason from them as to why they really don't want to change to driver/gunner setups or implement an inventory system. I saw Hamma's q@a but Higby just stated "We've talked about it, but ultimately we have no plans to" and not why. Does anybody have that quote? (there are a lot of interviews these days and I haven't seen every single one >_>).

[Hamma]

It's possible they are holding their ground on some items.

But the entire death screen was created DIRECTLY because of player feedback. In alpha builds it was a cheesy FPS deathcam and now its a awesome screen with stats on who killed you how much health they had etc.

[Fear The Amish]

been in since tech test and must say the Dev's do listen to the players and if it is feasible and matches up with their vision of PS2 they change it. i Also agree that it isn't the majority of Vets that are bitter but a vocal minority and its a fact if you work in the business world that it takes 10 good experiences to wipe out 1 bad one. Also the people that have a good experience don't come to a forum and gush usually its the people that are negative that do. i am a PS1 Vet that likes ALOT of the things in PS2 and from the lists of meta game updates like the way its moving currently. Personally i HATE the lattice and think hex is a better system. I am ambivalent about 1/2 seater tanks and since they are adding ability to cert into driver/gunner combo i don't know why people are still complaining about it, Also Figment PLEASE dear GOD stop grouping me as a PS1 vet with toxin spewers like yourself. I played PS1 loved it and i am enjoying PS2 now also, and see it going far. In my outfit are plenty of other vets just like me so stop generalizing us with you.

[Figment]

Toxin spewer? I'm sorry, but you haven't seen toxic. I know ps1 players that have already given up on PS2 on all kinds of levels. You should hear them for a change.

I may be blunt, but very constructive in my posting, I just don't like it when a forum minority claims to be the silent majority without any evidence to back that up. I hate it even more when someone claims a superior argument on "want", without being able to argue why it is good for the game.

We see the results of tank interface and cert design in the form of tank spam in game daily. It is not healthy for the game at all, certainly not in combination with the base design that invites vehicle camping.

If you havn't noticed due to rose teinted glasses, that isn't liked by new players at all.

Maybe you should ask people in game what they feel about all the camping. Tried that before? No? But hey, let us not give our feedback and all sing kumbaya while people leave the game, whether it is disappointed veterans, or frustrated new players.

Let us pretend that the devs are telepaths. Probably why they ask us to share our experiences.

No. They are nice guys, but they do this for the first time and they need help to improve their product. I'm not spewing toxin at all, I just don't waste time on compliments as long as there are big fish to fry.

If you havn't noticed Amish, they did take some of my feedback to heart and those are among the best loved changes so far. Sure, I'm pretty blunt in debates with other players, but only those who think they can make due with either half arsed non-solutions or seem to live in a world without critique. I'm not quite sure what you are in a beta for if all one does is say "it is fine", especially when it is not. I also take issue with people that pretend to speak for others when they havn't actually researched it, interviewed or otherwise tried to at least verify their claims. I'd rather take anecdotal evidence from someone who disagrees, then someone who just goes "they are bittervets don't listen to them" or "BF players are used to something, THUS they want that, screw if it fits in, just shoehorn it in even at the cost of balance".

And yeah, if you don't think about the cert for driver gunner split much and are a zergling, so usualy in the numerical advantage or at least with cover from tons of people, you won't realise easily how poor the cert suggestion is. It doesn't solve the perceived problems of numerical spam, enough reason to not consider it on its own (!), but it also suggests teamplayers are worth less than solists because they have to invest heavily while solists don't at all, that's against the game's team spirit, it doesn't undo the balance issue where the MBT is seen as a Lightning plus, meaning the Lightning remains seen as the subpar solo tank, it doesn't change the fact that solists would be more powerful and even when you make the guns more powerful on the crew version, that creates new issues, like unit balance with other units and on many targets won't actually provide any advantages, since you can't outperform one hit kills.

That is a lot of good reasons not to go with the token cert. Meanwhile the only shortsighted and self interest reason someone supports it is "well then I can still drive alone while it is an option for you, so everyone is happy?". No! If you actually would listen to all the arguments and maybe play the game too, you would understand it is not an option when you constantly face groups of 20+ tanks to come in with 7 to ten tanks that die equaly fast, even if they have a meager firepower advantage. To compete, you are forced to ignore the crewed option, even if you want it.

I don't want to play heavy assault all the time either, but the game forces me because it is the only infantry type with ranged missiles. You can blabla all you want about enforced teamwork, but in the end I can't play the game in any other way to support the team, let alone my way.

These sort of restrictions are bad on units that are weak and have to be flexible to have a chance of survival, but to not have restrictions in strong units that can only be justified as having the power of a team behind it, is just the world upside down.

The main argument I keep hearing for solo-MBTs is "I just want it and I'll justify it by saying millions of people that aren't playing yet and aren't posting at all all want it". Can you imagine that to me sounds like a child in a candy store going "but mommy I want it!" after mommy just explained that the child would get sick from eating too much candy? And the justification would be like the pro-BFR at release crowd going "oh but the majority does like it, only the whiners come here and that is why there are hundreds more that dislike it than like it: only the critics will post". I'll listen to any reasonable argument about how the game benefits and it doesn't impact the viability of other units or otherwise renders them obsolete, or how you would want to solve the issues above - even how they wouldn't be issues if there is a reasonable solution that isn't pulling back forever or playing in kind. However, random, unsupported assumptions and selfishness don't score you any points with me and I'll let you know.

Reality update: people that don't like something will eventually stop playing that game. You can't argue that tanks are fine based on hundreds of thousands are playing now. That isn't evidence of anything and likely they came in for the promote of the largely fight ever. You can argue that if retention rates become known, there is an obligated poll held by SOE. Till then, you can only compare forum voices. And they outnumber your voice, on some subjects by 6:1. That isn't an indicator to you something might be wrong? Hey here is a thought? Why have a beta if only whiners will ever post feedback? I'm sure BFRs never drove people off over time en mass either... How long do you think players will be able to stomach camping or get frustrated by standing no chance in outnumbered situations, which occur every hour if not more?

I'm sorry, but I find that attitude of yours just incredibly biased, narrowminded, shortsighted, at times egocentric and naive and ultimately self-destructive since we are all here to get the best out of the game for all of us, aren't we? Yeah that is negative, but it isn't bashing. If you come over that way, that is your fault. That isn't meant as an insult, that's just my opinion and critique. I'm sure you find me rude and right now unlikable, but I'm rather straightforward with the risk of coming of as rude than hide my opinion of your stance, get nowhere and make you think you have a solid position. I dared you before to really argue why the cert thing would be good and how it would solve things. Afaik, you flat out refuse. Now that would be rude: you are asked and given the opportunity to make an argument for yourself and you just go "I just want it and it solves everything", without ever stating why or how. That is just arrogant, obnoxious and plain rude. And then to expect to be taken serious or even try to take some sort of moral high ground is just laughable. So yeah, I'm harsh. But you do that to yourself by not providing yourself with any credence (extensive arguments) and resorting to namecalling, dismissing and worst of all, lies.


I'm not the kind of person who starts using terms like "bittervets" and I'm certainly not one who then expects any person targeted as part of that group to go and respect you. Look for the real vile in those who use the term "bittervets" and try to create a split in the community.l instead of simply debating and discussing various alternatives.

And yeah, no respect for those people from me if they don't drop that attitude.


You can say a lot about me, but at least I'm fair and give the devs credit where it is due. I'm just not easily satisfied, I'm certainly demanding and even more critical, but I will always, always back up any strong opinion with indepth reasoning. Since when is that a bad thing?

[sylphaen]

I would not have posted again but I want to show some public support for Figment. Yes, his posts are usually walls of text. Yes, his tendency to be vocal (and verbose) will make him post to no end on PSU.

In the end, while I do not always agree with him, I find that he offers a great contribution to these forums.

For instance, his posts on this thread to which I agree save me a lot of efforts. I tried to stay on topic in my previous post but there was one question in my mind I had decided not to delve into:
In a thread asking if the devs are stubborn, how do "PS1 vets" get bashed that fast ?

At this point, PS1 vets bashing is more than irrational, it's become a sport ! Yes, we are evil! We are blight on earth! We breed hatred and love to steal candies from babies !!!
:evil:

We call ourselves Planetside fans but truly, we are a demoniac conglomerate of angry SOE competitors trying to sabotage PS2's launch !
:mad:

No really...
:doh:

Sorry for having to add so much irony but I feel it wasn't clear enough in Figment's post.

Why wouldn't we wish success to PS2 ? Why wouldn't we want to share ideas we feel would improve the game ? A lot of items were already discussed in many threads and as such, our job is done.

As it is often mentioned, PS1 vets represent a small number of players; small enough to be irrelevant. PS1 vets will not sway the masses (and fyi, I am not being ironic here). Why feel so angry at a minority group? At some point, and if you consider them as such, you should simply admit that "bittervets" are a nuisance and stop being bothered by them. We are not changing the game, devs are and if they decide to change something, it's because they believe will be improved, not because vets said so. They will take some and leave some. What counts at the end is having a great game to play !


PS2 will be what it is on release and the general public will judge it as it is. The issue of vets being bitter or not is irrelevant on what PS2 gameplay is and how much people will enjoy it. Time will reveal all things.

Putting all the bad on vets and commies is a bit of an easy shortcut and suppresses thought.

[Rolfski]

I would not have posted again but I want to show some public support for Figment. Yes, his posts are usually walls of text. Yes, his tendency to be vocal (and verbose) will make him post to no end on PSU.

In the end, while I do not always agree with him, I find that he offers a great contribution to these forums.

For instance, his posts on this thread to which I agree save me a lot of efforts. I tried to stay on topic in my previous post but there was one question in my mind I had decided not to delve into:
In a thread asking if the devs are stubborn, how do "PS1 vets" get bashed that fast ?

At this point, PS1 vets bashing is more than irrational, it's become a sport ! Yes, we are evil! We are blight on earth! We breed hatred and love to steal candies from babies !!!
:evil:

We call ourselves Planetside fans but truly, we are a demoniac conglomerate of angry SOE competitors trying to sabotage PS2's launch !
:mad:

No really...
:doh:

Sorry for having to add so much irony but I feel it wasn't clear enough in Figment's post.

Why wouldn't we wish success to PS2 ? Why wouldn't we want to share ideas we feel would improve the game ? A lot of items were already discussed in many threads and as such, our job is done.

As it is often mentioned, PS1 vets represent a small number of players; small enough to be irrelevant. PS1 vets will not sway the masses (and fyi, I am not being ironic here). Why feel so angry at a minority group? At some point, and if you consider them as such, you should simply admit that "bittervets" are a nuisance and stop being bothered by them. We are not changing the game, devs are and if they decide to change something, it's because they believe will be improved, not because vets said so. They will take some and leave some. What counts at the end is having a great game to play !


PS2 will be what it is on release and the general public will judge it as it is. The issue of vets being bitter or not is irrelevant on what PS2 gameplay is and how much people will enjoy it. Time will reveal all things.

Putting all the bad on vets and commies is a bit of an easy shortcut and suppresses thought.
Don't worry about it. Actually, I truly respect these vets for being so passionate, it's inspiring :-)
On other times, it's demotivating, depressing, ranting, repeating, blind raged, narrow minded and unconstructive though.

[LONGFELLA KOJ]

Incorrect. Based on what T-Ray said, hundreds of thousands seem to be playing beta now, more then ever in PS1.

I would love to see where the stat for "hundreds of thousands" comes from. I very much doubt hundreds of thousands are playing Planetside 2 beta. Sorry.

[Ghoest9]

Many of the things players ask for are completely unrealistic - because they are basically asking for a different game.


On the other hand the devs do refuse to do some really basic things like.
Give enemies circle markers so they dont get confused with friendly triangles.

Its a really easy change to implement that the player base almost universally wants(and we color blind players need) but they refuse.

[Sturmhardt]

I would love to see where the stat for "hundreds of thousands" comes from. I very much doubt hundreds of thousands are playing Planetside 2 beta. Sorry.

Me too. I would really like to see some numbers on the players per continent, I wonder how many fit in atm.

Btw, great post figment, seriously, I second everything you wrote.

[Figment]

Thanks Sylphean.

About how and why I argue the way I do: See, I don't expect anyone to at all times agree with me, but I do expect them to argue why and not dismiss off hand without good reasons. But especially by being semi-discriminatory ("bittervets" is a pretty derogatory/demoninsing/racist stereotyping, if there was such a thing as a veteran race). Tbh, I don't get why that word isn't considered a direct troll insult because it's nothing but flamebait.

I often try to entice/force/bait people into showing the real reasons why they want something, try harder to defend their point of view and if they do, many times very good insights are gained. If they don't or refuse to, IMO they just maintain a weak position. Most of the times though, I just feel people haven't really thought long and hard about what they really want, but even less about how it will impact other things. Especially when it's not in their direct interest. I try to keep everyone's play styles possible, but fight OP or UP situations.

It really saddens me to conclude someone is just in a debate for themselves with not even attempting to look at it from the opponent's pov. Or even trying to see what really motivates them.




People have different perspectives and frames of references and that's a good thing. This game does need to cater to as many play styles as possible, but these have to be balanced against other play styles, or they just become dominant. If you already have a solo tank, why do you need to infringe upon another tankstyle too? Why not just ask to make that available solo-tank a bit stronger in some way if it is supposedly that skewed power wise against a multi-crew vehicle?


PS1 example other than BFRs and MBTs: In PS1, aircav was too dominant for a long period of the game, till the Wasp and Flaklet and AA upgradable turrets. Aircav camping in PS1 with no good counters probably cost a lot of subscribers as well. The Wasp and AA turrets were just a little bit too powerful though (Wasp had too much range with no counters to the lock on) and wall turret AA had too high damage output against fast, light air because it had to compete with Galaxy Gunships as well. The AA-air balance has never been quite right in PS1, even so, it was better to have a bit stronger AA because the backbone population of any FPS game is infantry.

I know, pilots back then often said "yes but situational awareness" and "but you can avoid that by not going there" or "pull your own aircraft". Within the context of that status quo of the game, sure, sound advice. But, was it an indication that it was balanced if those aircav also get really high K/Ds? Or did it mean that infantry should have been thrown a bone in the sense of more field cover or a little AA buff to handheld weapons?

And that's actually something PS2 does better, especially in terms of cover for infantry, making hoverspam less viable and I've said that before and they did a good job at that, especially with regards to walls. Once that's there, I don't see any reason to keep mentioning it every time I critique, I'll play my other improvement cards. My posts are long enough anyway.


PS2 currently has much stronger AA, which in itself is good, but since everyone can pull it (context!), air becomes the hunted, too hunted, now. I'd even say the two-shot AA lock on rockets are too strong for this context. Three shot would be better IMO. Now if the class/cert system was such that you could not get all infantry weapons per character and only few people would get this handheld AA, then two shot would actually be fine. It is good that there's flares and smoke that breaks the lock, but it kinda forces setups to have a flare defense slot right now and even more in the future when people have those things en mass.

Which is funny and ironic. See how balance works? You have to find that balance where it is useful, but not OP or making something else inviable. Niches have already been filled by very strong customizable solo units. It just makes adding new content problematic and potentially either OP or creating a riot because something someone purchased is heavily rebalanced to be weaker.



It's good to have the PS1 experience and have some feeling for how one minor change can impact and change the entire feel of the battlefield for other playstyles and units. Even though I love newbees entering the game, you can't expect them to realise the extend of the impact of such changes till they've at least experienced some of them in this new context. Hence why it is so important to listen to that general minority of PS1 players, regardless of their views.

Writing them off as irrelevant is the worst thing you can do right now. They're the most experienced with all these kind of things. They're the most passionate and the most likely to provide indepth feedback of all kinds and can provide tons of relevant analogies that others cannot. They're demanding and picky, sure and borderline annoyingly repetitive at times. But that doesn't make them wrong and tbh, that's a good thing: PS2 should keep raising the bar.

If all you hear is how it's all sunshine and roses, nothing will ever trully improve. As an artist and designer, I've always felt the best critiques I've been given were from the harshest, constructive critics out there. I'd feel I'm not doing my job if I wouldn't be harsh and critical, while also saying how something could be done better. Doesn't mean there might not be an even better solution, but then it's not the one in game.

And hey, if they do something right, I'll acknowledge it, probably with some more critique to fine tune it a bit more. There's always room for improvement and I think it'd be bad to become complacent or content. Please note that room for improvement doesn't at all times mean it needs to change right away. Hence why I tend to focus on the most important issues that do need fundamental changes to better the game massively IMO, especially if you only get a few chances to get those in (especially important to make such changes prior to launch) and why I'm so tenacious in those topics.

[Huntsab]

BlackOps 2 is out soon Figgy. The insta-gratification lot will be off then. I find your posts articulate and echo every gripe the veterans (the loyal customers, is SOE forgetting this?) have about PS2. They may as well introduce BFR's now. No point keeping them out when the game is designed this way

[psijaka]

PS1 vet bashing is only to be expected when some PS1 vets come across as elitist in the way they patronise newcomers (no disrespect intended to vet posters on this thread). Doesn't excuse it though, especially the name calling.

The opinion of vets *is* important, but then again so is the opinion of newcomers; they will probably form the majority of the player base after all, and may have valuable experience of other games to bring to the community.

[Figment]

PS1 vet bashing is only to be expected when some PS1 vets come across as elitist in the way they patronise newcomers (no disrespect intended to vet posters on this thread). Doesn't excuse it though, especially the name calling.

Honestly it's not elitism and it's not arrogance to claim to probably know better if one actually has more experience in a particular field. It doesn't sound humble, but it can actually be a fact. people just don't like to admit that others might have a better vantage point. :/

The opinion of vets *is* important, but then again so is the opinion of newcomers; they will probably form the majority of the player base after all, and may have valuable experience of other games to bring to the community.

Of course the new player opinion is important, but they predominantly add experience and commentary in terms of game accessibility. Their opinion is far more important in regards to if concepts and mechanics are communicated well so they can understand it and play, rather than determining which they should be. Veterans more or less skip that process largely because they're already familiar with it.

As far as other game experience is concerned, that's not new to the player base: PS1 vets basically play every other game in the world as well, so the newcomers don't really bring any new game input aside from games nobody else played maybe. What they will bring is similar input as PS1 vets already provide. And over time as they learn the new context, I'm quite confident their views won't differ that much either.

Perhaps the biggest difference will be the amount of acceptance of a class system, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't like an inventory or differently setup unit certification system better if they recognise the benefits or start seeking for ways to cut down on unit, ability and weapon type spam. Personally feel it's people that want to create more authority for themselves that try to pretend there's a world of anti-PS1-vets out there (poorly applied appeal to authority argument). It's funny when the smallest minority argues as if nobody would agree with PS1-vets on anything, ever, because we're all somehow obsolete ancient artifacts that have no link to the modern world and the present. :doh:

And they wonder why they induce negativity. :blowup:

[Rahabib]

Heres the issue:


The game needs to be released in a decent time frame.
The game needs to be fun for all
The game needs to be relatively bug free


So lets take a look at #1. It seems a lot of what people are asking for is to scrap something implemented and to start over. For instance the Hex system, people keep asking to scrap it for the lattice system - that simply isnt going to happen unless you want to delay the game months. And for what? Instead of making suggestions that require a complete overhaul of something you are far better off asking to tweak something. An example is the deply range of Sunderers - it probably took them only a few hours to do that, its quick and easy. If you want something fixed, ask for minor things.

Now #2. The game needs to be fun for all, not just the hard core. For as much hate there is for COD, BF, and any other player, unless you only want to make the game for the existing PS1 community you have to make some concessions. Letting players do things with tanks by themselves is an example. If you force players to double up on the tanks, you will find the casual community irritated by it. Instead of multiple man tanks, they implemented better enhancements for second guns. How will it work out, we dont know yet, but maybe we should give it a try?

Now #3. Heres the main issue. We can bitch and moan about X or Y, but at the end of the day the game is just 2 weeks away from launch so bugs are the number one priority. It may be a month or two away before serious features are tweaked. I watched the last dev video (the twitch tv one that was about an hour long) and it seems they have a long laundry list of stuff they want to add and things they will add in. Personally, I think they addressed almost every concern I had - it just wont all be in on the 20th.

[Figment]

1. 3. Of course, but that's why people think the release is early. ;) And the Sundy overhaul took a number of weeks to implement and then a month to create animations for and get a lot of bugs out, it's still not feature complete and may need further tweaking. It's not that simple. Again, that's why a lot of people think it should be given time because after a release, people will have far harsher critiques and worse, may not give the game another chance a year later.

But about 2, Rahabib, did you ever see the casual community complain in PS1 about sharing vehicles? No. Do you hear casuals complain about the Liberator in PS2? No. That's a non-argument with no basis in statistics, interviews or whatever else even: it's based on pure assumption. Pure assumption gets no credit from anyone aside from those who make the assumption.

[Rahabib]

But about 2, Rahabib, did you ever see the casual community complain in PS1 about sharing vehicles? No. Do you hear casuals complain about the Liberator in PS2? No. That's a non-argument with no basis in statistics, interviews or whatever else even: it's based on pure assumption. Pure assumption gets no credit from anyone aside from those who make the assumption.

Much of the "casual" community of PS2 didnt even play PS1.

[Figment]

Much of the "casual" community didnt even play PS1.

Much of the casual community didn't even have broadband internet.

That doesn't mean that other casual gamers have distinctly other standards in terms of game play though.

The only thing you could argue is that a lot of gamers wern't interested in paying a subscription, let alone multiple MMO subscriptions, because that's actually fact, but PS2 really outperforms PS1 in that department, it being F2P.

[sylphaen]

One thing I thought about and would be interesting to point out is that in many cases, people need to have experienced something to truly understand how it feels. If never suffered, how can you understand someone suffering ? If you never experienced hard times, how can you understand people going through them ?

It's valid for many aspects of life.

Back to PS: PS1 improved over time (eg: the lattice system implemented post release) and for someone who did not experience the game before its improvements, it can be hard to understand how it was worse before and how some mechanics or systems improved the game. I could criticize the PS1 lattice for being too directive or hard-coded but I understand it help to create a dynamic gameplay with some directions. Pre-lattice, the back-hacking was pretty s***** f****** annoying gameplay. When there was no queue system for vehicle acquisition, it was also a nightmare. When only the CC hacker would get CEP for a base cap, it was also quite terrible (cloakers of the same team shooting each other to get the CEP since it was a "winner takes all" system).

The devs have a lot of ambition for PS2 and a vision that will take time to implement. If there is one good thing that may happen is that people will experience a not-there-yet game with flaws. They will whine about them and suggest ideas. Devs can then improve the game with support from the community instead of opposition.

I've been wondering if it's not what they were already doing but we'll see. Maybe one day, they'll change MBTs to be driver+gunner and tank spam will decrease and players will massively applaud this change.

As I say, it's hard to appreciate what you have unless you have known worse. Similarly, it's also hard to know better unless you have seen or tried different ways.
:)

[Rolfski]

I would love to see where the stat for "hundreds of thousands" comes from. I very much doubt hundreds of thousands are playing Planetside 2 beta. Sorry.

I had a hard time believing these stats as well but he kinda suggests it in this video (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=49649) (after 43 min mark).
Although he said he threw that number in (he was talking 300K), I'm fairly convinced there must be some base for that figure.

And if you do a rough calculation, a current player base of over hundred thousand is fairly possible imo. We have 5 servers now, each capped at 2000 players afaik, so total capacity is 10K. If less then 10 percent logs in at any time, their servers can handle it which doesn't seem an off usage percentage to me. Personally, I'm playing PS2 10 hours a week on average, which is probably above casual but still only 6% of my time.

Btw as an example, he was also using a number of 5 million players on day one. Highly speculative I know but to me, that suggests that they are aiming for at least a few million players with this game. Which is nothing btw compared to COD series (40 million active players) or WoW (10 million paying subscribers)

[Sturmhardt]

We have 5 servers now, each capped at 2000 players afaik, so total capacity is 10K.

That was just a marketing number BEFORE the beta. Since then no dev went into detail how many players REALLY fit on one continent, so I guess they didn't reach this number. I guess it's closer to 1000, but that is just speculation as well.
I can just advise everyone to be very cautious about PR numbers like that, they don't really mean anything without real knowledge of their context.

[GuyFawkes]

I made a new char on each server last week when only 3 servers were up, and there were over 350k characters on the scoreboards so 300k isn't too much of a stretch to the imagination. According to figgys post elsewhere I think that makes it almost 4 times the population of subscribers of ps1 at its peak or thereabouts.
I recall when DCUO went ftp , and smedley tweeting a twenty fold increase in server numbers (from 50k to over 1 million) so I can see where they are making their guestimates.

[Figment]

Yeah, I don't think it's by any means a stretch of the imagination that they'd have hundreds of thousands of people. I'm just curious about retention rates.


It would be very nice if there'd be regular pollings tbh, good, thorough proper conducted surveys on login during a beta... And why not? People get to play for free, signed a NDA or beta document stating they are to provide feedback, I wouldn't find it weird to be obligated to fill in a 10-15 minute survey once a week or so by email to keep the account alive during the beta process.

[Tamas]

They must hold their ground and to their vision.

Of all the players, only a small fraction give feedback and it's usually the vocal lot, that we can't tell whether they represent all of the players or not.

So far PS2 devs have been EXTREMELY cooperative - few other titles do what they did until now - it surprises me that people take it for granted and don't appreciate anything. You could say that the devs that give the middle finger and the devs that really interact with the community are treated in the same way by players...

I do know that lots of good and interesting ideas come from fans, some come in good way explaining in detail the pros and cons, some are plain out biased towards a certain gameplay type.

You can't expect them to implement what one guy wants, but many people (here and official forums) think that they are somehow superior and that their ideas are good while others are idiots - self entitlement ftl.

I've seen so many games ruined simply because devs tried to please everyone and in the end everyone was unhappy. I hope they can balance out between what players want and what is actually good for them.

As a paradox - over a year (since launch) WoT forums have been filled with people unhappy about everything all the time, yet the number of active players is constantly rising.

Some gamers should realize it's not a game for them only. While I'm hoping that SOE won't go for mass appeal sacrificing what made it a good game (differentiation and innovation) - so many games recently fail to realize - they were popular because they were so unique. I've been disappointed by many new installments in series I loved simply because the devs got rid of "boring, tiresome, time consuming" mechanics - but that's was what made them different! I miss complex game that go into an insane level of management, that require time and investment, that are VERY long - that is what makes a game - yes, I miss the old days when it was required to think and it was a challenge - some of that is coming back from indie devs that are fans themselves and they want to have something like that not some huge publishers failcascade.

And I derailed from the main idea....

[Rolfski]

I made a new char on each server last week when only 3 servers were up, and there were over 350k characters on the scoreboards so 300k isn't too much of a stretch to the imagination. According to figgys post elsewhere I think that makes it almost 4 times the population of subscribers of ps1 at its peak or thereabouts.
So with PS2 already having more players in closed beta than PS1 subscriptions (75K) at it's peak (this was confirmed by SOE btw) and a forum like this only having 23K members, it's fair to say that the group that qualifies as "disappointed PS1 vets" is only a small minority, albeit a very vocal and passionate one.

[Figment]

PS1 players are a minority in general, but that doesn't mean they represent a minority opinion or don't voice majority problems and concerns, or that their concerns are less valid somehow. You should be a bit more careful with your assumptions and judgments there Rolfski, you skip to conclusions far too easily. :/

It's well possible that:

A. New players don't see the problems yet because their sensory systems are being overloaded with new information and are still figuring out how it is all connected.
B. New players agree with the problems and if they complain they get lumped in with a supposed veteran minority, simply because they share the opinion.
C. New players haven't discovered forumside yet to express their concerns.
D. New players don't care enough to report their issues with the game and just leave again due to widely perceived problems without ever sharing feedback.

It's waaaaaaaay too easy to state that they're all happy, etc.

[Rolfski]

PS1 players are a minority in general, but that doesn't mean they represent a minority opinion or don't voice majority problems and concerns, or that their concerns are less valid somehow. You should be a bit more careful with your assumptions and judgments there Rolfski, you skip to conclusions far too easily. :/

It's well possible that:

A. New players don't see the problems yet because their sensory systems are being overloaded with new information and are still figuring out how it is all connected.
B. New players agree with the problems and if they complain they get lumped in with a supposed veteran minority, simply because they share the opinion.
C. New players haven't discovered forumside yet to express their concerns.
D. New players don't care enough to report their issues with the game and just leave again due to widely perceived problems without ever sharing feedback.

It's waaaaaaaay too easy to state that they're all happy, etc.
I'm not saying that. I'm just arguing that your assumption "...First off, it's the majority of veterans...." is incorrect. Anyway, let's get away from this discussion and focus on the original issue, suggesting that the devs have become stubborn/arrogant. Of which I disagree.

[Furber]

On the topic of PS2 Anti-Air, I think it's important to note a certain balance that came out of the projectile speed of PS1 flak (and to some degree the missles). I suspect that the faster projectile speed of this AA could be creating some issues. However, I could be wrong about this, as I don't have a ton of experience with the current AA (before and after this recent AA nerf). I'll just throw out some ideas...

A certain popular style of using quick air craft is "hit and run". You typically run because if you hang around for too long, you're toast to AA. However, it seems to be that the AA can, rather easily, trace a fighter through the sky and bring it down. So the idea of balance becomes, "how much straight up power should AA have". If they have too little, Air craft, particularly libs, will dominate the battlefield. If AA is too strong, air craft is basically not a factor in the game.

I propose that instead of trying to find an ideal damage balance for AA (specifically flak), they should limit its functionality some. In PS1, if an air craft was flying at a decent speed away from your flak, it was basically home free. That meant the air craft was temporarily out of the picture, but not dead. This gave air craft a window of opportunity for a quick strike and then pulling out to avoid exposure to AA for too long. Some one manning the flak on a SG, or a Buster MAX, would have to predict incoming air craft (both by leading and over all awareness). You would have a chance to lead a lot of flak where the plane was going to be. All of your potential damage was built into the plane continuing it's approach, and if it chose not to retreat upon taking flak damage, it was screwed. But to the careful pilot, AA was merely a nuisance that had to be out maneuvered.



Let me know if I completely missed the mark with this, I don't want to come off as anything close to a know-it-all when it comes to air. Like I said, I'm just giving out a few ideas in relation to what I thought was a pretty balanced system (PS1).

[Figment]

I'm not saying that. I'm just arguing that your assumption "...First off, it's the majority of veterans...." is incorrect.

I'm basing that 95% of my Steam list is from PS1 and the fast majority of them share the same opinion and then see other PS1 vets have the same or similar opinions on various outfit forums and official forums and PSU. :/

It's not an assumption as much as it is a deduction from observation. You're right of course that in theory the sample size could be extremely skewed in terms of who is posting, but I don't see any reason to assume that given ForumSide's history.

Anyway, let's get away from this discussion and focus on the original issue, suggesting that the devs have become stubborn/arrogant. Of which I disagree.

I would agree with that. They're mostly stressed and preoccupied right now, but they're not trying to ignore us. They do seem to listen, not quite as much as we'd like to of course (they have their own opinion and probably some prejudices or idea babies), but I've seen a lot of little and some bigger things being implemented that I've seen mentioned on forums - many of which could be based in part on remarks from me, but you can never tell what their inspiration was and frankly I don't care as long as it happened.

Engi glue gun getting an overheating limitation to stall them from outrepairing HA. Quite a few bases have been given more walls. Changes in capture systems, generator usage, SCUs not being far away from spawns anymore, Sunderer has been given an AMS instead of the Galaxy and since the Amerish patch a deployment radius, clear deployment animations to intuitively indicate if you can spawn from and grab gear at it and which you should be targeting first and then some more things that I know I've remarked on. So if they took some of it into account and came up with the rest, that makes me glad.

All in all the game is moving forward, but yeah, still has a long way to go. Will it be ready for launch? It won't be bug free, it won't be perfect and regarding spawncamping I fear a bit for retention rates if vehicle spam isn't addressed, but it'll probably make quite a bit of money right of the bat anyway. With Amerish at least, infantry has some leeway to thrive before hey get camped in the spawnroom.

See, I'm not always negative. ;) I'm just very demanding.

[psijaka]

They must hold their ground and to their vision.

Of all the players, only a small fraction give feedback and it's usually the vocal lot, that we can't tell whether they represent all of the players or not.

So far PS2 devs have been EXTREMELY cooperative - few other titles do what they did until now - it surprises me that people take it for granted and don't appreciate anything. You could say that the devs that give the middle finger and the devs that really interact with the community are treated in the same way by players...

I do know that lots of good and interesting ideas come from fans, some come in good way explaining in detail the pros and cons, some are plain out biased towards a certain gameplay type.

You can't expect them to implement what one guy wants, but many people (here and official forums) think that they are somehow superior and that their ideas are good while others are idiots - self entitlement ftl.

I've seen so many games ruined simply because devs tried to please everyone and in the end everyone was unhappy. I hope they can balance out between what players want and what is actually good for them.

As a paradox - over a year (since launch) WoT forums have been filled with people unhappy about everything all the time, yet the number of active players is constantly rising.

Some gamers should realize it's not a game for them only. While I'm hoping that SOE won't go for mass appeal sacrificing what made it a good game (differentiation and innovation) - so many games recently fail to realize - they were popular because they were so unique. I've been disappointed by many new installments in series I loved simply because the devs got rid of "boring, tiresome, time consuming" mechanics - but that's was what made them different! I miss complex game that go into an insane level of management, that require time and investment, that are VERY long - that is what makes a game - yes, I miss the old days when it was required to think and it was a challenge - some of that is coming back from indie devs that are fans themselves and they want to have something like that not some huge publishers failcascade.

And I derailed from the main idea....

^ this. Totally agree.

[maradine]

Let me know if I completely missed the mark with this, I don't want to come off as anything close to a know-it-all when it comes to air. Like I said, I'm just giving out a few ideas in relation to what I thought was a pretty balanced system (PS1).

Nah, that's reasonable. Specific mechanics aside, it should come down to a fundamental risk decision to the pilot - if I fly into an AAA umbrella, I am risking the bird.

What I'd prefer is that the balance issue is solved via better intelligence tools for the pilot rather than the never-ending nerf/buff cycle. In the real world, every military aircraft carries one or more variety of threat warning receiver, which is a passive device that identifies the direction and type of any hostile targeting apparatus currently turned on and being waved in the craft's direction. This could be implemented as an actual cockpit element, or just a simple "mark all the active skyguards and/or bursters within 2km as spotted". Maybe a buzzer, a flashing light. Maybe as a module.

The goal here is to have AAA with potent lethality but give pilots the ability to completely avoid it, or for the brave, terrain mask against it.

[Shenyen]

I don't want to play heavy assault all the time either, but the game forces me because it is the only infantry type with ranged missiles. You can blabla all you want about enforced teamwork, but in the end I can't play the game in any other way to support the team, let alone my way.



You can argue that if retention rates become known, there is an obligated poll held by SOE. Till then, you can only compare forum voices. And they outnumber your voice, on some subjects by 6:1. That isn't an indicator to you something might be wrong?

1. The need to use Heavy Assault to get rid of tanks in the vicinity disappeared, when i noticed that the Combat Medic is able to carry 2 C4 charges.

Life has been much easier since then.

2. Happy players don't play Forumside. They also don't play Forum Age of Camelot, ForumQuest and Forum of Warcraft.

This forum is used to ask questions, which means that guy was unhappy with a lack of information ingame, to complain about features or lack of certain features - again - unhappy person!

Seldom, there are threads about how great a certain battle was, how great a certain feature is or something like that.

But some moments in this game are awesome and i hear that also from other players.

If you were looking only at the forums, you would think this game was a horrible piece of s***, without any fun moments.

Counting forum requests for changes is totally worthless, because you would most likely poll a majority of unhappy players.

If you want a real poll, ask SOE to require the players to answer a "How much do you like this feature?"-poll during the loading times.

Much of the casual community didn't even have broadband internet.

That doesn't mean that other casual gamers have distinctly other standards in terms of game play though.

The casual community didn't want to pay for a subscription - all those who paid for the game each month became instantly invested in the game and couldn't be counted as casual anymore.

Casuals never complained about sharing vehicles, because no casuals played a game with a monthly subscription, they played Counter-Strike, Battlefield 1942 or something else.
World of Warcraft was the game that transformed the "I would never pay monthly for a game"-crowd to subscribers.

[Fear The Amish]

Figment i don't disagree with what you are saying but how you are saying it. It honestly what ends up happening is that the way some other vet's like you come off is as entitled elitist whiners that want ps1.5 and most gamers don't want that. Plain and simple PS1 failed and failed hard because of hardware limitations at the time and an attempt at mixing FPS and RPG elements way to heavily. Personally i have made multiple posts critiquing and suggesting fixes to the game but in a way that isn't written purely to cause drama and hubbub. Also i know multiple vet's that refuse to come here because all it seems to be now a days is a group of angry bitter vets demanding things that A.) don't make any sense in a modern game, or B.) so doom and gloom about this game failing. They would much rather just play the game and report bugs in a constructive manner.

The problem with the angry vet post is that what it does is poison the waters of this game friends of mine that never played PS1 come to the official forums and all they see is "PS1 Vet angry about PS2" or "i am done with this game", and multiple other posts of this nature. How do you think a new player takes that? seeing the supposedly passionate and driven individuals that stuck with a broken game for years and refuse to give a game in beta a chance. Personally i played the ps1 beta i remember it being MUCH MUCH worse then its current incarnation at this time. We all need to remember that for this game to succeed at launch it just needs to be optimized and the bugs at a minimum, and the metagame to be added within the first 1-2 months.

[sylphaen]

We all need to remember that for this game to succeed at launch it just needs to be optimized and the bugs at a minimum, and the metagame to be added within the first 1-2 months.

To be honest, you could stick to that. For PS2, the rest does not matter.

[Figment]

1. The need to use Heavy Assault to get rid of tanks in the vicinity disappeared, when i noticed that the Combat Medic is able to carry 2 C4 charges.

I believe I said long distance missiles. ;)

Got C4 on Light Assault. Can't figure out for the life of me why I'd have to cert the same damn thing on everything that's the same thing. It's not about balance clearly...

2. Happy players don't play Forumside. They also don't play Forum Age of Camelot, ForumQuest and Forum of Warcraft.

PS1 forums were full of happy players. From all sides. Forums are a reflection of a community, not just the upset, whiny or specific other part of a community. That's... preposterous. Gravitating to certain topics, sure.

Or are you saying you're only posting here because you're upset? :/ There are no other motivations for you to post here?



As for the remainder, disagree heavily with that. A casual player is someone who plays something on and off for no other reason than wasting some time and not thinking too much about it (though it doesn't mean you don't think at all, you just don't think it's the end of the world if you don't get a top score and you won't continue playing to get that top score) nor playing super-competitive. If you spend money on something it doesn't mean you stop being a casual, it means that you think it's worth the money. Nothing else.

[Figment]

Figment i don't disagree with what you are saying but how you are saying it. It honestly what ends up happening is that the way some other vet's like you come off is as entitled elitist whiners that want ps1.5 and most gamers don't want that.

What's a PS1.5?


I'll tell you what PS1.5 is, giving the original PS1 a texture overhaul like they initially planned.

A new game is a PS2. Modern Warfare 2 is not MW1.5 either, is it? Despite the lack of innovation, it's still simply a sequel within the same series and as such plays by certain rules that define the series.

Plain and simple PS1 failed and failed hard because of hardware limitations at the time and an attempt at mixing FPS and RPG elements way to heavily.

I'll give you the first (limitations), but the latter isn't true. That worked fine. Management was the problem from marketing to bad content management (poor expansions and revised development visions).

Personally i have made multiple posts critiquing and suggesting fixes to the game but in a way that isn't written purely to cause drama and hubbub. Also i know multiple vet's that refuse to come here because all it seems to be now a days is a group of angry bitter vets demanding things that A.) don't make any sense in a modern game, or B.) so doom and gloom about this game failing. They would much rather just play the game and report bugs in a constructive manner.

I don't post to cause drama and hubbub, I'm just extremely critical and straightforward in my critique and a lot of people don't have the self-confidence to handle that or are used to subtle postings or take critique WAAAAAY too personal. Especially when I completely trounce an idea (with arguments, of course!). :/

A often heard quote from other veterans about ideas suggested in threads on any PS related forum (not just PSU) is "How can people be so dense and why are you even trying to reason with them?". I try because I have a little higher expectations of people. Even those that post utterly stupid ideas at some point in time have the capacity to provide good feedback. If only they asked themselves some more questions.

The problem with the angry vet post is that what it does is poison the waters of this game friends of mine that never played PS1 come to the official forums and all they see is "PS1 Vet angry about PS2" or "i am done with this game", and multiple other posts of this nature. How do you think a new player takes that? seeing the supposedly passionate and driven individuals that stuck with a broken game for years and refuse to give a game in beta a chance.

If we didn't give it a chance, would we be here? Honestly, people that come to a forum should expect critique to be the number one thing one finds. Why? Because it provides reason for debate.

A thread that says:

"Oh wow, nice rock formation in game."

Creates this response:

"Yeah nice"

"k."

"it's the face of jesus!"

"+1"

While most people will look, say "nice" in their mind and click on.

And is therefore over after one page. People pick what they spend their time on writing and reading. News is the same way. We can talk all day about a disaster flooding, but we won't spend much time on a baby seal being born. There's just no point in the latter even if it would make the news such a happier thing to watch.

Personally i played the ps1 beta i remember it being MUCH MUCH worse then its current incarnation at this time. We all need to remember that for this game to succeed at launch it just needs to be optimized and the bugs at a minimum, and the metagame to be added within the first 1-2 months.

Of course, it was much worse in the early PS1 beta, but we've gone through the exact same whack-a-mole from PS1, just in PS2 on less continents and in a smaller area of the map at a time! That's exactly why it confuses so many PS1 vets that wheels are being reinvented as triangles or hexagons before the devs realise a circle works better after all! Sure, some circles made it in and some hubcaps could just as easily be done with other hubcaps. But why reinvent the wheel itself?

We're confused with why so much time has been wasting reinventing what obviously worked or needed some minor tweaking. Time which could have been put in further innovating, evolving the underdeveloped and developing new ambitions and creating previously non-existent stuff. :/

I'm not saying the devs do a horrible, horrible, horrible job. Of course not. But, given the knowledge of 9 years of playing the game, you just know there's more potential that could have been there now.





Btw, read the thread on "the reactions of non-PS1 players" and notice that things like tank spam and buildings not being defensive enough and being camped constantly are very recurring issues for all players. :/ I maintain that vets, including you, see what causes those things well before a newbee would. Which is why it is so important to be heard now and prevent that newbee from ever going "I hate getting camped all the time without being able to fight back", or going "I hate not being able to play alone as infantry a bit better", or "I want to play infantry, but I have to drive tanks to compete, I don't want that".

Those things, can, should and I'm sure they will be addressed. It's just a matter of time, which we may not have to prevent lots of release reviews about camped outposts everywhere and having no idea where to go and getting ganked from all directions. Bug fixing and performance are also extremely important, but ultimately, I'd rather CTD once a day than get camped without a means of fighting back 24/7.

[Fear The Amish]

What's a PS1.5?


I'll tell you what PS1.5 is, giving the original PS1 a texture overhaul like they initially planned.

A new game is a PS2. Modern Warfare 2 is not MW1.5 either, is it? Despite the lack of innovation, it's still simply a sequel within the same series and as such plays by certain rules that define the series.



I'll give you the first (limitations), but the latter isn't true. That worked fine. Management was the problem from marketing to bad content management (poor expansions and revised development visions).



I don't post to cause drama and hubbub, I'm just extremely critical and straightforward in my critique and a lot of people don't have the self-confidence to handle that or are used to subtle postings or take critique WAAAAAY too personal. Especially when I completely trounce an idea (with arguments, of course!). :/

A often heard quote from other veterans about ideas suggested in threads on any PS related forum (not just PSU) is "How can people be so dense and why are you even trying to reason with them?". I try because I have a little higher expectations of people. Even those that post utterly stupid ideas at some point in time have the capacity to provide good feedback. If only they asked themselves some more questions.



If we didn't give it a chance, would we be here? Honestly, people that come to a forum should expect critique to be the number one thing one finds. Why? Because it provides reason for debate.

A thread that says:

"Oh wow, nice rock formation in game."

Creates this response:

"Yeah nice"

"k."

"it's the face of jesus!"

"+1"

While most people will look, say "nice" in their mind and click on.

And is therefore over after one page. People pick what they spend their time on writing and reading. News is the same way. We can talk all day about a disaster flooding, but we won't spend much time on a baby seal being born. There's just no point in the latter even if it would make the news such a happier thing to watch.



Of course, it was much worse in the early PS1 beta, but we've gone through the exact same whack-a-mole from PS1, just in PS2 on less continents and in a smaller area of the map at a time! That's exactly why it confuses so many PS1 vets that wheels are being reinvented as triangles or hexagons before the devs realise a circle works better after all! Sure, some circles made it in and some hubcaps could just as easily be done with other hubcaps. But why reinvent the wheel itself?

We're confused with why so much time has been wasting reinventing what obviously worked or needed some minor tweaking. Time which could have been put in further innovating, evolving the underdeveloped and developing new ambitions and creating previously non-existent stuff. :/

I'm not saying the devs do a horrible, horrible, horrible job. Of course not. But, given the knowledge of 9 years of playing the game, you just know there's more potential that could have been there now.





Btw, read the thread on "the reactions of non-PS1 players" and notice that things like tank spam and buildings not being defensive enough and being camped constantly are very recurring issues for all players. :/ I maintain that vets, including you, see what causes those things well before a newbee would. Which is why it is so important to be heard now and prevent that newbee from ever going "I hate getting camped all the time without being able to fight back", or going "I hate not being able to play alone as infantry a bit better", or "I want to play infantry, but I have to drive tanks to compete, I don't want that".

Those things, can, should and I'm sure they will be addressed. It's just a matter of time, which we may not have to prevent lots of release reviews about camped outposts everywhere and having no idea where to go and getting ganked from all directions. Bug fixing and performance are also extremely important, but ultimately, I'd rather CTD once a day than get camped without a means of fighting back 24/7.

First off MW1 and MW2 can do that because financially and critic wise they were successes PS1 was not. So they have to try other ways which leads to redeveloping the wheel currently seems they decided screw the wheel lets go with Caterpillar tracks instead while different also work.

Secondly on Tank spam that has mostly been resolved with the nerf/buff of aa/air. Also a re prioritizing of what weapons HA carry makes spaming tanks less and less of an option. Also the way that Amerish is designed makes those tank Spam's fall apart very quickly.

Also i agree that if its a good thing or quarky no one writes about it because they would rather do something else. Which would support the argument that most vets aren't bitter vets, Also using your steam group as a sample size is silly because being your steam friends they probably have similar views on the game. I know my Outfit has a lot of vets and most of them are in love with the game. They also realize that this beta release is doing well and when the development team promise the meta game aspects they trust them, and save criticism on that subject until there is something to criticize .

[Shenyen]

As for the remainder, disagree heavily with that. A casual player is someone who plays something on and off for no other reason than wasting some time and not thinking too much about it (though it doesn't mean you don't think at all, you just don't think it's the end of the world if you don't get a top score and you won't continue playing to get that top score) nor playing super-competitive. If you spend money on something it doesn't mean you stop being a casual, it means that you think it's worth the money. Nothing else.

When Planetside was released, you were still laughed at when you said you paid monthly rates for a MMORPG or even worse MMOFPS in a games forum.

The Counter-Strike- and Battlefield crowd was very vocal and "I would never pay a monthly subscription fee for a game" was typed into a reply-textfield very often.

That changed only after the release of World of Wacraft.

Nobody with a casual approach to FPS games would have paid 15$ a month to play Planetside for one and a half hours on wednesday, 2 hours on saturday and then again some hours a week later.

If you paid - you PLAYED!

You wanted to get your moneys worth out of the game.

[Nolerhn]

I don't think the dev's are stubborn. They listen to the fanbase and have made changes specifically catered to the vocal crowd. On some issues they must stand their ground, while we have our own vision of what PS2 is, you must remember too that the devs have their own vision. I feel like they've met us in the middle.

They can't appease all requests, but I do feel their relationship with the fanbase is the strongest I've ever seen in the development process of a video game.

[Crator]

They listen to the fanbase and have made changes specifically catered to the vocal crowd.

Who else could they listen to? How would one be able to listen to someone else who says nothing or very little (needle in haystack)?

[Figment]

Who else could they listen to? How would one be able to listen to someone else who says nothing or very little (needle in haystack)?

Telepathy?

[Tatwi]

Telepathy?

Telemetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemetry).

Loads of user generated data thrown into graphs and pattern recognition algorithms.

[Crator]

Telemetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemetry).

Loads of user generated data thrown into graphs and pattern recognition algorithms.

So we should not voice our opinions at all. That goes for everyone. Forums are useless to devs?

[Figment]

Telemetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telemetry).

Loads of user generated data thrown into graphs and pattern recognition algorithms.

Telemetry shows where players go and how long they do that. It doesn't say if it is considered good or bad, if players like that or not. For that, you're really going to have to ask the players directly. :/


Remember the one dev that said he had no data that suggested an AMS was needed?

Was this data based on telemetry? On the fact that players took territories with ease and bases flip flopped all over? What data does telemetry provide?

Forum feedback > all other feedback, period.

[Tatwi]

So we should not voice our opinions at all. That goes for everyone. Forums are useless to devs?

My comment was more of a silly play on words than it was a statement about the validity of fan/player feedback. Beyond that, my reply to this thread's title was simply, "yes".

This is coming from a person with around 900 posts on the beta forum. I think our feedback is important. :)

[Crator]

^ Ah, I failed to detect your sarcasm. Nonetheless, good to get out that kind of ideal regardless I think...

[Sirisian]

In many cases it seems like the players know exactly what they want.
As someone that's been just following from the sidelines and not really posting here, the main forums, or on /r/planetside I have found that isn't the case. As with most issues people bring up there's two sides and arguing that there isn't is kind of arrogant.

I personally find a lot of proposed changes for vehicles and the metagame people rally behind here and on the main forums are flawed as much as some of the developer's views. I mean that's just how I view things and from what I can tell others view things way differently.

I wouldn't say they're stubborn as they're just focused on fixing map issues and trivial things at the moment. There's really nothing to say they aren't jotting down notes and waiting to discuss and think about changes for later.