Our concerns made it to PCGamer.com

[Sturmhardt]

Wow, Buzzcutpsychos complaints made it to the frontpage of pcgamer.com:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/01/03/planetside-2-critiques/

I guess SOE will have to act on this... TB did it, Hamma is doing it, Buzz is doing it spreading the word about the core issues too.

I am very excited to read Smeds state of the game he wants to post in january :rolleyes:

[yadda]

That's good, I don't like Buzz personally but he was very spot on about his assessment with the game. My largest complaint of this game contradicts my playstyle heavily. Everything revolves around certs, if you're not getting certs you're not playing the game, the best way to get certs is to kill people as fast and efficiently as possible. A lot of people will argue that with me, but there's really no other real goal unless you get warm fuzzies for repairing people and standing around doing a whole lot of nothing capping pointless areas, that's all we have.

I wish that team play was better rewarded than killwhoring but then I look at all of the medic vultures who cant even be bothered to upgrade their tools and change my mind but what I do know is the whole k/d thing needs to go. Even if it doesn't matter, there are people like me who obsess over it and to compound the issue it's the best way to earn certs.

I used to drive an ammo sunderer around but it was too risky/not rewarding enough so I simply stopped and started using a magrider and that's where I have stayed. Of all the things I want addressed the most I want the blatant kill whoring to stop and team play to be much better. I love running around doing stuff with my outfit then I press tab and see such poor exp/hr I feel like I have wasted so much time when I could be farming a sunderer in my magrider.

[Assist]

I love running around doing stuff with my outfit then I press tab and see such poor exp/hr I feel like I have wasted so much time when I could be farming a sunderer in my magrider.

I can honestly say I've never intentionally farmed a sunderer. I've spammed spawn rooms like everyone else, but I always hear about these people who farm sunderers. I just don't do things that are not enjoyable in game. If I'm ever in a Liberator it's because I'm piloting it for someone else, because it's incredibly boring IMO. I love my Magrider, but I go around looking for fights usually. I don't find some spawn and just camp it for 30 minutes.
I dunno, maybe I'm one of the few high rank players that attempts to play the goals of the games? People focus way too much on their certs, k/d, and score/hour. All that comes naturally if people would just play the game for fun.

Same goes to everyone who is critiquing the shit out of the game. It's great to try to improve the game and all, and I know most of the high rank players who are posting still enjoy logging in every night, but the whining about it in-game just makes no sense to me. It's meant to be fun, if you spend your entire in-game time whining about the game then why bother? :| I totally get coming to forums for ranting and raving about the game, but if it's really so bad then why even bother logging in. Games are meant to be fun, if it's not fun then I'm sure there's other games out there that the unhappy individuals can find enjoyable..

[RykerStruvian]

I think BuzzCutPsycho is hilarious and I don't agree with what he does, however he is not stupid. The points he made were valid and I am happy to see PCGamer did bring him up and his criticism. Also, lol...the picture on the front page is the Crown. :cool2:

[yadda]

I can honestly say I've never intentionally farmed a sunderer. I've spammed spawn rooms like everyone else, but I always hear about these people who farm sunderers.

Well, I guess my post can be misleading, Iv never actually "farmed" a sunderer in an abusive way. I think only a lib can actually do that by splashing the ground near them. A lot of times, I am physically incapable of breaking a sunderer due to using HE ammo and people repairing it from behind where I can't shoot. Heavies pop out and shoot me with rockets so I HAVE to kill them and when I get back to the sunderer it's at max health again so it just turns into impomptu farming by circumstance not by choice. I still use the body of the sunderer as a wall for my explosions but I just can't break it. Asking me to walk away and leave it is similarly ridiculous. So what options do I have?

I spawn camp doors, I do everything people complain about because that's just how the game works. I'm not going to lose on purpose just to make someone else feel better about themselves.

The smart people know the system is bonkers and encourages behavior like this because other things aren't rewarded as well or sometimes even not at all. I want to be that guy who always has a sunderer and keep it alive but it gives crap for exp so why should I bother with it?

[Ghoest9]

I dont know Buzz - but hes pretty much spot on.

K/D whoring is no way to build a long term community or promote tactics.

And the over supply of vehicles(especially aoe spamming air) has destroyed what most players enjoy.

[RykerStruvian]

I think the problem also deals with the fact that its hard to manage a game where a player can outfit a particular vehicle to have varying tiers of upgrades. For instance, in PS1 Reavers typically took more than a single salvo to destroy ground vehicles. I even have a video where it took three salvos to destroy a flail. However, the vehicles themselves were flat across the board in terms of stats...

In PS2, a tank can have four levels of reinforced armor. A liberator can have four levels of reinforced armor too. In this case, the scaling of damage gets offset because they have to scale the weapons to be effective vs vanilla vehicles and also upgraded vehicles. Because of this, it just makes the game feel really imbalanced because it literally is imbalanced...

[Sco]

I think his post is spot on.

[Shogun]

Same goes to everyone who is critiquing the shit out of the game. It's great to try to improve the game and all, and I know most of the high rank players who are posting still enjoy logging in every night, but the whining about it in-game just makes no sense to me. It's meant to be fun, if you spend your entire in-game time whining about the game then why bother? :| I totally get coming to forums for ranting and raving about the game, but if it's really so bad then why even bother logging in. Games are meant to be fun, if it's not fun then I'm sure there's other games out there that the unhappy individuals can find enjoyable..

i haven´t logged in for some time and i keep my whining constructive and out of the game, in the forums for the devs to see. but i think i can answer your question. ps2 is the only game that has unlimited potential, and the whiners keep logging in because there is nothing similar and the game may turn into the best game ever. i really hope it will!

[Chewy]

The smart people know the system is bonkers and encourages behavior like this because other things aren't rewarded as well or sometimes even not at all. I want to be that guy who always has a sunderer and keep it alive but it gives crap for exp so why should I bother with it?

I can't not tell you how many times I failed to get XP from doing support jobs. Getting XP for ammo, repairs, heals, and what not is fine for squad mates most of the time (read not all), but when Im helping pubs often all of that work is for nothing.

Troop based heals, repairs, and ammo seem to give XP fine. Yet often I never get revive XP and NEVER get vehicle ammo XP for my sundy with non-squad members. When I running an AMS/ammo sundy and there's already one deployed I keep mine on the move to supply ammo for everyone. No mater how much I hear the resupply sound I just can't get XP without them being in my squad.

Hell, Iv babysat 2 skyguards with an ammo sundy for around 20 minutes before with both of them blasting everything in the sky and not get a single point of XP. Not a single point for over 20 minutes of me risking my neck so that they (2 people Iv never seen before) can do their jobs. Didn't even get repair XP because of them being badasses at keeping the skies clear.

And please don't get me started on how Gal pilots get shafted for doing the only thing they can do now that the GAMS is gone.

[Ghoest9]

I totally get coming to forums for ranting and raving about the game, but if it's really so bad then why even bother logging in. Games are meant to be fun, if it's not fun then I'm sure there's other games out there that the unhappy individuals can find enjoyable..

Apparently no one told you about the rapidly declining server populations.

Almost all of us are logging on less and less. which is a shame because the game could be so good.

[MrBloodworth]

He just said what the vets said in alpha/beta. Not that it did not need to be said again, apparently.

I'm just waiting and watching for the Update 2. They have been quite silent since launch.

[Malorn]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

[MrBloodworth]

Yes yes, that's all great. We already said thanks. But what are you guys going to do NOW..as in moving forward. Because, frankly, you did not listen to the important things, and now its coming back around to you, as predicted.

I know you can't speak for the team. And i know you were not on the job for alpha/beta. You is meant as "The development team".

tug-o-war capture mechanics

What? No. That was Higby, And its been one of the worst ideas yet. Asking defenders to do double the work, instead of hack and hold re-secures is pure Higby.

[Shogun]

thanks for reinsuring, malorm!

i think the festivities and holidays are to blame that people think nothing is happening. the devs did a great job in communicating with the fans, but it turned out that the early veteran concerns were justified more than the devs thought. perhaps they should try out more things from ps1 that actually worked. there are lots of great ideas here at psu.

[yadda]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

Please, please, please relay the concerns about team play and kill whoring discrepancies. I wish killing was just a means to an end rather than the entire point. I feel like playing a support engineer is just doing community service.

Average day without double exp I can score 20k exp/hr in a mag, average day driving a sunderer and babysitting the combat front I'm lucky to get anywhere near half that. These are with boosts and minus double exp weekend, of course. Which one am I more inclined to do?

edit: I should also add, people often TK sunderers now if they want your spot. It's bad.

[unAimed]

Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few.

You are correct for most of these posts - but tug-of-war? Hell no! I think most people would have preferred the ps1 system of "hack and hold".

[VaderShake]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

Malorn-

Do you at least have a tentative date when Smedly is going to provide us that January Update with a time line he mentioned back at the begining of December??? I also requested the next "Command Center" focus on future changes and vision for PS2, T-Ray replied "Easy enough".

Just looking for an approximate "when" we can hear something now that the team is getting back from the holidays??

[ringring]

I think his post is spot on.
I don't know. I agree with a lot. I don't agree with the meatgrinder thing which kind of contradicts what we've been saying about lack of defendable bases.

And KDR. I think we've just got to live with that, it's there and people will play to maximise one and minimise the other. That's human nature.

The problem is that there's nothing else. When the point comes that the meta-game arrives and therer is a reason to fight beyond KDR then it will (hopefully) be different.

[Malorn]

I can't comment on the exact things that will be worked on. That is for Matt and Smed to reveal. Smed posted in a December state of the game that a plan is coming in January for players to provide feedback.

[Hamma]

Things are still pretty quiet at SOE. I'd suspect we will start hearing things mid January in this regard.

[Malorn]

Just looking for an approximate "when" we can hear something now that the team is getting back from the holidays??

I hear Matt, T-Ray, and Smed occasionally use twitter. :) You could try asking them.

[MrBloodworth]

I figured as much. I look everyday for an update on whats going in next patch. No more speculation or 6 years "wants list". While I watch my outfit roster have less and less people on.

I can only be personally entertaining for so long!

Plans won't cut it I think, action is needed.

Also, Please pass this around.

http://www.planetside-idealab.com/index.shtml

[Rockit]

I hear Matt, T-Ray, and Smed occasionally use twitter. :) You could try asking them.

Or try email, it works for me.

[VaderShake]

I hear Matt, T-Ray, and Smed occasionally use twitter. :) You could try asking them.

Tweeter sent!

[Rockit]

I can tell you this without revealing too much. Those folks across the street from SOE understand consoles will butter their bread.

[Rockit]

Learn this...

We Were Born For This - Paramore - Riot! - YouTube

[Chaff]

.
Yadda said;

"Average day without double exp I can score 20k exp/hr in a mag, average day driving a sunderer and babysitting the combat front I'm lucky to get anywhere near half that. These are with boosts and minus double exp weekend, of course. Which one am I more inclined to do?

I should also add, people often TK sunderers now if they want your spot. It's bad." :evil:


:cool:
Yadda hit it pretty much on the head for me. I do think the WHINING is at Critical Mass. I still hold onto the idea that Smed & Hig are true fans of PS1. Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. Changes need to be impemented asap to turn gameplay towards a more compelling play style.
I remember that PS1 got VERY Boring ..... but it took two years and BFR's to bring on my malaise.

I want PS2, not PS1. There's much to be done, and time is of the essence. Improve base design. Provide a LOT more real estate for Infantry to conquer & hold & fight over - real estate which is predominantly free of MBT & Air SPAM. Allow for complete Continental-Lock, so there's more "End-Game" feel for those who need it. Don't punish the losers - reward the winners - but don't go OP with the perk(s) for a Cont-Lock. (I always liked being able to pull a Mag for my empire - they look better when not in Purple Spandex)


.

Also, I think the old AMS with "Cloaking" was better. We still could sniff them out, but (in hind sight) the cloaking helped minimize spamming. Sundy's are big ol' beached whales....
.

[Vertigo]

I don't know. I agree with a lot. I don't agree with the meatgrinder thing which kind of contradicts what we've been saying about lack of defendable bases.

And KDR. I think we've just got to live with that, it's there and people will play to maximise one and minimise the other. That's human nature.

The problem is that there's nothing else. When the point comes that the meta-game arrives and therer is a reason to fight beyond KDR then it will (hopefully) be different.

That is the main problem. People log in and go out to kill, not to capture and complete objectives. It is a mindset that needs to change, or this will continue to be an academic exercise. As for the matter of meatgrinder vs. defensible base(s), I believe the attacker does NOT want to capture the base in most cases. If they did, that would stop the farming at that location and thus, reduce their kills / xp. That is why you see dozens of vehicles blasting the crown, but not moving in to take it. Even if they have the overwhelming numbers to do so, there is no incentive to finish the fight.

-Someone brings out a single aircraft, within a minute you see dozens of AA MAX units and skyguards pop up like a horde of parents fighting over the last barbie doll.

-Anyone repairs the turrets, and you have a dozen MBTs dialed into that exact spot and you are lucky to get a couple shots off before it is destroyed again. Then they wait, not for the engineers to get there, but for them to finish repairing. Even if they have clear line of sight to take them out, they wait for the guaranteed xp.

-A lone light assault jumps up on the top of the tower and starts jumping around to kill people. Not to distract from the ground assault, but just to get the kills. If they get taken out, it really does not matter because they probably got a few people before someone got them.

-A couple guys get in and start capturing a point, not to finish the fight, but to ambush the people coming to respond.

From my experience, most of the time, the defenders get tired of the siege and leave, or someone finally gets the zerg distracted enough that they move on. For the most part, only the outfits that really want to capture the base will do so, or the zerg will just roll over it. I have not yet witnessed a scenario where the defenders were able to wear down the attackers enough that they were forced to withdraw. Not that it has not happened, but I believe it is the exception and not the rule.

[infinite loop]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

This is all well and good, and this fact kept me encouraged about the future of the game. That said, these changes you mention are mostly the low-hanging fruit and grossly ignore the significant problems with the game as highlighted in Buzz's thread. Most of the topics he covers have been at the top of the list of 'must-dos' since early in beta and nothing has been done to address any of them. Alot of us, myself included, are heavily invested in this franchise, both financially and emotionally and want to see it succeed. The lack of any progress towards resolving these core issues has left my hope dwindling and seen my playtime plummet. I fear the next big "update" will simply be more trivial/cosmetic and do nothing to save this sinking ship.

[Helwyr]

"Our concerns" ... Who's this "Our" refer to? The first concern brought up in that article was K/D stats, that's not even on my list of concerns let alone the top one. I agree with BCP on vehicles and a few other things, but he doesn't speak for everyone on everything PS2, not by a long shot.

[DirtyBird]

...
we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

Last few weeks, due to the xmas break I know, the game has felt neglected.

Regarding that company line.
It great that you're still listening and you pat our heads and say you understand. But sooner than later you might have very little to listen too if more and more get disheartened and just don't bother and chuck it in.

I'm already concerned about the new players we've lost due to the current state of play.
Then there are those who have seen how the game can be exploited and the glorified K/D's you can manufacture and now they all want to mimic it.
Pretty sure that wasn't what any of us envisaged for the game.
That "achievement" in the first month was one of the worst things that could have happened in the game imo.
The poorest representation of the game you could get and that's about all it should be remembered as.

We've had a state of the game address in December and we'll get a plan in January some time.
That could mean February is consolidation of player feedback, review and update of said plan.
So action comes in March/April?
Something has to start to happen this month and I dont mean the addition of three more empty continents.


And we still have old bugs that need fixing, but that's another story.

[NewSith]

I criticize the critique
If you’ve been playing for a while, you know the kinds of farms Buzz is talking about: hours-long meat grinders at hard to capture bases which can churn out more experience points than tactical wins.
Hard to capture bases? Seriously?

Buzz suggested that the removal of kill/death counts and a stronger emphasis on tracking team-related stats such as resupplies and Sunderer/Galaxy deployments would encourage better teamplay.
PS1 never had any kind of that, but people were still actively supporting.

He also called PlanetSide 2′s “overabundance of vehicles” as “the biggest, most cancerous, and most destructive problem.” Low resource costs for both air and ground vehicles provides players a safe and effective way of racking up kills, points, and experience in relative safety, Buzz argued.
Wrong again. Go play on Miller Indar as NC. Resources pretty much increase the timer to half an hour sometimes.

As a result, infantry combat takes a backseat in favor of a game that “in its current state practically forces me to pull vehicles in order to gain XP.” Personally, I avoid vehicles for fear of receiving 20 rockets up my tailpipe as soon as I grip the steering wheel.
Isn't that a bit (more like ENTIRELY) opposite to what he just said?


Did anyone even bother to read it?

[Beerbeer]

Change all bases already. Do this first, please. Spawn rooms, generators, everything.

Worried about bottlenecks, just make more infantry exits/openings, but regardless it should be easy to defend, not impossible or unpalatable. Do it now, people are too accustomed to steamrolling bases.

Then get rid of vehicle spam. Either give the esf/mbt/lib a shared one hour cool down (that starts upon death) or buff the crap out of infantry AV. Two shot kills. Or, remove these vehicles' ability to one shot infantry WITHOUT flak suits. Get rid of he guns, refund the purchase. Nerf lib guns against infantry. Nerf podding against infantry more.

[RykerStruvian]

I figured as much. I look everyday for an update on whats going in next patch. No more speculation or 6 years "wants list". While I watch my outfit roster have less and less people on.

I can only be personally entertaining for so long!

Plans won't cut it I think, action is needed.

Also, Please pass this around.

http://www.planetside-idealab.com/index.shtml
I agree, this is something I am dealing with too. I'm trying to keep friends interested by posting news worthy posts on my outfit's forum. But it is getting to be difficult...I feel like a salesmen sometimes because I have to keep selling the idea that they need to stick around or play more. :P

[Wang]

Man way to drive away new players. I'm sorry that that game is not everything people wants... its almost like it just launched or something.. and those devs, taking a vacation on Christmas after they very successfully launched a massive game.. the nerve...

Well I guess I'll just go play the other game where you can fight massive numbers of enemy players just about anyway you want.. oh wait

[OCNSethy]

Thanks for your feedback Malorn, I appreciate it.

However time is ticking away. While I greatly enjoy this game, my enjoyment drops off sharply the longer I play.

You know this industry. You know something bigger and better will come out before any concrete changes are made and you know you will loss people to those new titles.

Make your changes soon man otherwise the only thing rolling out of the warpgates will be tumble weeds.

[gunshooter]

It sucks, because his post was pretty bad and pinned the lack of teamwork on the complete wrong thing (kdr rather than the metagame.)

I guess there's no going back here, devs are probably just going to change stats and hope the easy way out bandaid fix pacifies people. This is what happens when video game 'journalists' get lazy and just copy+paste a forum post for an article, in between taking bribes of doritos and mountain dew. The guy does not even offer his own insight or critique, it's essentially just Buzz's post reworded.

Man way to drive away new players. I'm sorry that that game is not everything people wants... its almost like it just launched or something.. and those devs, taking a vacation on Christmas after they very successfully launched a massive game.. the nerve...

Well I guess I'll just go play the other game where you can fight massive numbers of enemy players just about anyway you want.. oh wait

If "huges battles and lots of explosions" are enough to make a game worth playing for you, then congrats. You're the reason this game is the way it is. For those of us who are actually sentient though, it has a ton of problems, many of which were conscious design decisions made to try to appeal to people like YOU.

[VGCS]

huh.. well they certainly took a more sensationalized line on it than I would have.

Personally I think this whole "Meta" mess is just a series of side-effects to a lot of Technical problems with the game. This is super obvious to anyone who's actually "lost the ability to play" every time a very large Battle gets rolling around the outside of an Amp station or Bio/Plant (OUTSIDE, not inside) ...typically involving one of the Tower fortresses nearby... And once it becomes obvious to a lot of people that's it only going to get more congested from there you start to see players literally FLEEing the Zerg-on-Zerg fight. A lot of them because of bad Framerate while others are forced to leave by all the obvious Crash-to-Desktop incidents happening (No that guy's not AFK, he's just restarting). Then there's multiplicative force of more hackers, exploits, explosive spam, and probably the biggest one just from other comments I keep reading: The ever shrinking Draw-Distance in an ever-growing fight.

More people don't defend for these Technical reasons too. They know that the harder they defend against harder odds, the more people will just start congregating to that area, thus ruining their superior play-experience in the smaller single squads vs single squads contests. I know the Devs are looking at the bigger picture of trying to "add a meta" and more continents and stuff. But until these other Technical problems are solved first, I just predict a lot of 'Musical Chairs' happening with the effort they put into addressing the "Metas" directly...

[infinite loop]

To Malorn's defense you have to fix the fixable first. Then have the Devs talk about the bigger issues and come to consensus then fix that.

I don't disagree with that at all. The problem though is that they have completely ignored (i.e. not responded to) the bigger issues. We have railed on the base design, vehicle spam, etc. issues since AUGUST. Not once do I recall them even saying they were looking to make changes to these things. Instead we get fluff and more fluff. They've done a great job on optimization and performance, it's vastly improved since early beta, but the core gameplay issues are just as important. It just doesn't seem that the devs feel the same way, or perhaps they simply disagree with us on them altogether. Some kind of stance on these either way would be great.

[Fear The Amish]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

my only response is PS2's dev team picked a really retarded time to take a vacation... and higby's tweets about thai lady boys doesn't make me any happier when the game is in the state it is... hope he's enjoying that lap dance on me....

[Wang]

If "huges battles and lots of explosions" are enough to make a game worth playing for you, then congrats. You're the reason this game is the way it is. For those of us who are actually sentient though, it has a ton of problems, many of which were conscious design decisions made to try to appeal to people like YOU.

a few points for you

1. i didnt say there were no issues. what i did say was the game just launched and it will take time to fix everything, more than 2 months id say

2. huge battles that literally cannot happen in any other game IS the reason i play this game. so yea sorry i guess

3.those "conscious design decisions" can and will be changed. did you play beta? do you remember the bases on indar? yea they changed them. so they can change other stuff

4. while you may blame the current state of the game on me directly. all i said is the front page of both PSU AND PS2 official forums are covered with threads saying this game is crap..its not plain and simple... bugs and balance issues yea, no meta-game(which they already said would be a major focus of 2013) sure, but crap? no

5. do you know what will kill ps2 faster than me and you posting on forums? lack of new players because they got chased away by caustic forums

so allow me to issue a personal apology about the way the game is. im sorry that when me and my outfit capture a base i still love it as much as when i first played

so yea sorry

[RykerStruvian]

They've tried different things. We use to not have generators in the game or shields. Let alone walls. The bases in the beta were more easily accessible than they are now. They have responded and have made changes...I remember when the continental territory map looked like swiss cheese because it was so easy to take a base without any dependance on adjacency.

And yeah, it sounds bad that they all went on vacation but they were seriously working on the game for a while now. Smedley would make tweets at like...1AM/2AM/3AM/etc. They weren't exactly working 8AM-5PM...at least it didn't appear so. I would want a vacation too.

[Wang]

They've tried different things. We use to not have generators in the game or shields. Let alone walls. The bases in the beta were more easily accessible than they are now. They have responded and have made changes...I remember when the continental territory map looked like swiss cheese because it was so easy to take a base without any dependance on adjacency.

And yeah, it sounds bad that they all went on vacation but they were seriously working on the game for a while now. Smedley would make tweets at like...1AM/2AM/3AM/etc. They weren't exactly working 8AM-5PM...at least it didn't appear so. I would want a vacation too.

^This! stuff has and is changing(well not right this second). i dont undestand how everyone is so doom and gloom

[QuantumMechanic]

I am glad to see PC Gamer put up this criticism of PS2. Of all the gaming media sites, I think those guys were the biggest fans of PS2 from the beginning, and I never thought they'd do something like that.

I know that SOE is well aware of these issues, but it's been 6 weeks since launch and the biggest changes that I've noticed was the addition of some new rocket launchers. A little pressure from the media sadly is a good thing at this point.

Edit: while I'm at it, here's my laundry list:

1) Drastically improve infantry render distance
2) Make station cash purchases account-wide
3) Make bases defensible
4) Add the darn mission system already, even if only in a very basic form

[PredatorFour]

If only they would of had a proper beta like they said they were doing. No, not 3 months but a year to get it right. Too long ??? Well not really... considering they want this game to be around for 13 years!!

Too many times in the film, music and games industries you see people selling out their products for golden pennies and this is no different. Most cases produce a shoddy sequel to the original product. This game was made different to the original to cater for a wider audience, to get more pennies. Could you blame them ?? Thats for the jury to decide but its backfiring... as we have seen with countless other sequels, prequels , second albums etc.

The original game was better than this game (bitter vet anyone ? get real to the issues). Producing a sequel that actually was a sequel to the original would of seen this game have a hardcore following for years and years im 100% sure of that.

All they had to do was IMPROVE on the first game. IMPROVE upon its flaws. IMPROVE the graphics.. IMPROVE... IMPROVE ..(IMPROVE!!!)

Instead this game has DEVOLVED and its damn shame. It has potential for sure, but it doesnt look like it will be reached anytime soon.

Fanboi`s feel free to slate me for being too negative, do whatever you will. But if you played the best game of alltime for 7 years .... you might just understand what i mean.

[gunshooter]

a few points for you

1. i didnt say there were no issues. what i did say was the game just launched and it will take time to fix everything, more than 2 months id say

2. huge battles that literally cannot happen in any other game IS the reason i play this game. so yea sorry i guess

3.those "conscious design decisions" can and will be changed. did you play beta? do you remember the bases on indar? yea they changed them. so they can change other stuff

4. while you may blame the current state of the game on me directly. all i said is the front page of both PSU AND PS2 official forums are covered with threads saying this game is crap..its not plain and simple... bugs and balance issues yea, no meta-game(which they already said would be a major focus of 2013) sure, but crap? no

5. do you know what will kill ps2 faster than me and you posting on forums? lack of new players because they got chased away by caustic forums

so allow me to issue a personal apology about the way the game is. im sorry that when me and my outfit capture a base i still love it as much as when i first played

so yea sorry

You should probably instead issue an apology for basically preemptively saying that if the game fails it'll be the players fault.

If the game fails, it will be the games fault. People are constantly complaining that it's crap because it's crap. It's a huge piece of shit currently (maybe this will change, but it will certainly take a massive effort from the devs and many players will have already left by then) and for many of us that it has "lots of explosions and lots of people" is not enough.

[Beerbeer]

Sony also needs to come up with a plan. A quick plan.

Once they make changes (and those changes work) Sony needs to send out an email to the thousands of people who tried and stopped playing saying: infantry combat is back. Here's 500 SC to give it another try.

Changing things isn't going to automatically make those many people who couldn't find good infantry fights without getting one-shotted by vehicle spam (I know of many) magically come back.

Please don't try to entice people back now, in its current state.

[OCNSethy]

If only they would of had a proper beta like they said they were doing. No, not 3 months but a year to get it right. Too long ??? Well not really... considering they want this game to be around for 13 years!!

Too many times in the film, music and games industries you see people selling out their products for golden pennies and this is no different. Most cases produce a shoddy sequel to the original product. This game was made different to the original to cater for a wider audience, to get more pennies. Could you blame them ?? Thats for the jury to decide but its backfiring... as we have seen with countless other sequels, prequels , second albums etc.

The original game was better than this game (bitter vet anyone ? get real to the issues). Producing a sequel that actually was a sequel to the original would of seen this game have a hardcore following for years and years im 100% sure of that.

All they had to do was IMPROVE on the first game. IMPROVE upon its flaws. IMPROVE the graphics.. IMPROVE... IMPROVE ..(IMPROVE!!!)

Instead this game has DEVOLVED and its damn shame. It has potential for sure, but it doesnt look like it will be reached anytime soon.

Fanboi`s feel free to slate me for being too negative, do whatever you will. But if you played the best game of alltime for 7 years .... you might just understand what i mean.

I wont be slamming you. I didnt get to play PS1 but from what I understand from the vets, it was pretty awesome, rough yes but a solid game non the less.

I think the vets have a lot to offer and I do respect their opinions. Your right about improving. If you have a look at titles from the Creative Assembly (Shogun and TW Medieval) sequels can be done right. I am not sure why this game went off an such a large tangent from the original?

[Wang]

You should probably instead issue an apology for basically preemptively saying that if the game fails it'll be the players fault.

If the game fails, it will be the games fault. People are constantly complaining that it's crap because it's crap. It's a huge piece of shit currently (maybe this will change, but it will certainly take a massive effort from the devs and many players will have already left by then) and for many of us that it has "lots of explosions and lots of people" is not enough.

What I said was the game will fail if no one plays because the first 3 post of the official forums are saying the game is "shit"when the majority of the players don't feel that way but are to busy actually playing the game.

Whatever keep up the good work SOE. I can't wait till you start rolling out stuff to shut these kids up. In the meantime I will keep stuffing my money into your game

Well its been fun but Mani just got real and my tablet is going up

[Vashyo]

I don't think the K/D is a problem

The big BIG issue we have is that people put their own advancement over their empire's wellfare. Heck, even I play now just to collect certs, I go to places that give me the most of those. Not because I care about the color of the map, I earn just enough resources to be able to pull a tank anytime I want and I mostly just camp in structures or near them when I don't have a tank.

What SOE has to do, is add mechanics in the game that direct people with rewards, to move em away from selfish gameplay. If you get good XP for doing empire specific missions and the player perceives he gets just as good XP from it than joining the mass zerg battles, he's gonna do those missions.

K/D is just part of statistics, it has no effect on the gameplay whetever you see it or not, people will play exactly the same, with or without K/D. Cause staying alive long and getting kills = more certs.


Another issue I have with the game is the constant 3-way battle, I found them tiresome in PS1 and I find em even more tiresome in PS2. This is the biggest thing that craps on the metagame, how can you expect people to capture territory, when another faction is doing the same to you behind your back? There's allways 2 frontlines, but you only have enough population to focus on one, unless your side holds 50% of population ofcourse. This will eventually get fixed once we get the intercontinental warfare, atleast. I'd expect then the game becomes more tactical.

[PredatorFour]

I am not sure why this game went off an such a large tangent from the original?

I think they saw other shooters around now like cod and particularly the battlefield series and wanted to make a game that would attract hundreds of thousands of sales. I think they wanted to try and attract/potentially steal some of their customers and in doing so they changed the game into a much more simpler game than the original. Like an arcade version or something.

The bizarre thing was they decided to launch the game as the new cod came out..... Who at soe decided to do that? Smed? PR ? Whoever it was mustve been pretty wasted at the time.

[Sunrock]

Well that there was nothing other then farm kills have been addressed in allot of posts sens 6+ months before the game came out... That there was very mush lack of a conquering game that was stimulating.

[OCNSethy]

I think they saw other shooters around now like cod and particularly the battlefield series and wanted to make a game that would attract hundreds of thousands of sales. I think they wanted to try and attract/potentially steal some of their customers and in doing so they changed the game into a much more simpler game than the original. Like an arcade version or something.

The bizarre thing was they decided to launch the game as the new cod came out..... Who at soe decided to do that? Smed? PR ? Whoever it was mustve been pretty wasted at the time.

That’s a shame really. I specifically came to PS2 because I didn’t want to play a COD/BF clone, hell I don’t even own / play those games.

I can’t fault SOE in trying to gain a market share or niche market but the way it’s going, it will bite their collective butts.

[gunshooter]

What I said was the game will fail if no one plays because the first 3 post of the official forums are saying the game is "shit"when the majority of the players don't feel that way but are to busy actually playing the game.

Whatever keep up the good work SOE. I can't wait till you start rolling out stuff to shut these kids up. In the meantime I will keep stuffing my money into your game

Well its been fun but Mani just got real and my tablet is going up

Please cite your sources which show that the "majority of players" are busy playing the game and love it how it is.

Oh you can't, you just made it up.

[Sunrock]

That’s a shame really. I specifically came to PS2 because I didn’t want to play a COD/BF clone, hell I don’t even own / play those games.

I can’t fault SOE in trying to gain a market share or niche market but the way it’s going, it will bite their collective butts.

COD and BF is two very different games. All COD games are focused round close quarter infantry fights on small maps. BF is allot more like PS2 though. But never ever again think the two have anything in common more then they both are FPS games.

[gunshooter]

COD and BF is two very different games. All COD games are focused round close quarter infantry fights on small maps. BF is allot more like PS2 though. But never ever again think the two have anything in common more then they both are FPS games.

Their infantry combat is incredibly similar, and in both games infantry combat is put on a pedestal, just slightly less so in BF. Hell infantry gameplay in PS2 is=to COD. That there's more people around doesn't change the fact that the controls are the same.

[MuNrOe]

.. its almost like it just launched or something.. and those devs, taking a vacation on Christmas after they very successfully launched a massive game.. the nerve...


Launch a game then take 2 weeks holiday and go silent you are correct. Poor timing.

I really hope that the devs take more out of this than just "K/D stats are ruining the game let me see how much my engineer heals derp".

The problem stems from the lack of defensible and fun infantry only bases , spawn rooms being located in stupid positions and lack of doors. As well as the vech being able to shell every inch of the map problem.

Vech job should be to fight in the open and to push the enemy inside the base. Not prevent them from spawning or moving to objectives to defend them.

Add that to the complete lack of meta game and staged whack a mole strategic fighting and you have the problem at it roots.

[Vashyo]

What I said was the game will fail if no one plays because the first 3 post of the official forums are saying the game is "shit"when the majority of the players don't feel that way but are to busy actually playing the game.

Whatever keep up the good work SOE. I can't wait till you start rolling out stuff to shut these kids up. In the meantime I will keep stuffing my money into your game

Well its been fun but Mani just got real and my tablet is going up

http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=218230&from=1353362400000&to=1357250400000

Sadly if you've monitored steam statistics on player numbers at all, the peak player count has effectively halved since launch weeks. Most of my friends don't play anymore either, sigh...

So obviously majority of people don't feel like playing the game as much anymore, unless something happens soon.


People leave cause they dont feel like boosting for certs, they don't find the game interesting enough (metagame lacking = bored), and because of the buginess and performance issues. :/

[OCNSethy]

COD and BF is two very different games. All COD games are focused round close quarter infantry fights on small maps. BF is allot more like PS2 though. But never ever again think the two have anything in common more then they both are FPS games.

Sorry, Im not sure which you mean...

COD and BF have nothing in common? or PS2 and COD/BF have anything in common?

[Flycutter]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

Whose idea was it to remove the teleport from the spawn room of tech plants? I am just curious how this came out of the design meeting as a good idea.

I have always felt that if you know the reason something is done it might give you a different outlook and people might be more accepting of changes.

[Wang]

Launch a game then take 2 weeks holiday and go silent you are correct. Poor timing.

I really hope that the devs take more out of this than just "K/D stats are ruining the game let me see how much my engineer heals derp".

The problem stems from the lack of defensible and fun infantry only bases , spawn rooms being located in stupid positions and lack of doors. As well as the vech being able to shell every inch of the map problem.

Vech job should be to fight in the open and to push the enemy inside the base. Not prevent them from spawning or moving to objectives to defend them.

Add that to the complete lack of meta game and staged whack a mole strategic fighting and you have the problem at it roots.

All that is true but the devs have already said they heard us they said that the game would launch with no meta but they are working on it so why is that everyone is blasting the game for not having it yet? Its only been weeks and those weeks were right n the middle of a national holiday(in america) but everyone is flaming and demanding. I know a little basic java coding and it is HELL. I can't imagine what it take to actually code and deploy to the game all the changes people want but it will take more than weeks. Am I missing something? If you put what works in the game next to what's broken its still a good game better than any fps ive played recently but if I say that I get flamed because everyone wants to just play reskinned ps1.

Also note that I completely agree with u on the bases. I hate random holes in the walls of military bases but any given base is better designed than most levels in normal fpses

[Crator]

Change rate in beta was way to slow imo. Only 3 months for beta, a "true" beta where player feedback (a lot of it, almost too much for just 3 months) was given and listened to.

Although a lot was listened to they just didn't have time to try everything.
I don't think devs could have kept up, technically, making so many changes in just 3 months. It was hard to get them to budge on the G-AMS ordeal too. That was the biggest one. Beta should have been much longer!

[Drakkonan]

It's funny because one of the simplest solutions might also be the most effective. It sounds crazy, but imagine if kills were only worth 20 points, hell even 10, and all associated stats were also adjusted (revives, heals etc...). With 1 facility capture equal to 100 kills, players would be more motivated to complete the objective with kills being a byproduct of accomplishing a larger goal. Instead it's better to keep the enemy Sunderer alive and farm kills for certs, since it's incredibly easy to get 10 kills, and not worth the effort to cap bases if you can just sit on a biolab airpad and get 1000 points every few minutes.

It's by no means a perfect fix, and there are a lot of potential problems, since everything would have to be rebalanced, and ghost capping would become the most efficient means to gain certs. However, if they could create a dynamic point system where a base capture/defense points were a function of the enemy/fight density in the region (which is already measured in game), and the amount of time the player spent in the vicinity of the base, I think we'd see teamwork-oriented game-styles show up a little bit more.

[MrBloodworth]

This is all well and good, and this fact kept me encouraged about the future of the game. That said, these changes you mention are mostly the low-hanging fruit and grossly ignore the significant problems with the game as highlighted in Buzz's thread. Most of the topics he covers have been at the top of the list of 'must-dos' since early in beta and nothing has been done to address any of them. Alot of us, myself included, are heavily invested in this franchise, both financially and emotionally and want to see it succeed. The lack of any progress towards resolving these core issues has left my hope dwindling and seen my playtime plummet. I fear the next big "update" will simply be more trivial/cosmetic and do nothing to save this sinking ship.

This.

[CraazyCanuck]

It's funny because one of the simplest solutions might also be the most effective. It sounds crazy, but imagine if kills were only worth 20 points, hell even 10, and all associated stats were also adjusted (revives, heals etc...). With 1 facility capture equal to 100 kills, players would be more motivated to complete the objective with kills being a byproduct of accomplishing a larger goal. Instead it's better to keep the enemy Sunderer alive and farm kills for certs, since it's incredibly easy to get 10 kills, and not worth the effort to cap bases if you can just sit on a biolab airpad and get 1000 points every few minutes.

It's by no means a perfect fix, and there are a lot of potential problems, since everything would have to be rebalanced, and ghost capping would become the most efficient means to gain certs. However, if they could create a dynamic point system where a base capture/defense points were a function of the enemy/fight density in the region (which is already measured in game), and the amount of time the player spent in the vicinity of the base, I think we'd see teamwork-oriented game-styles show up a little bit more.

This. Incentive for time spent defending an area or re/capturing a key high adjacency value hex. Improved team rewards. Adjusting the xp reward based on current regional population density of enemy would be a good move. Regional resource bonus based on length of time a region was held without interuption of possession? Simple xp missions that are based off the current resource supply and hex possession of your faction and the enemy factions?

[Highstall]

http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=218230&from=1353362400000&to=1357250400000

Sadly if you've monitored steam statistics on player numbers at all, the peak player count has effectively halved since launch weeks. Most of my friends don't play anymore either, sigh...

So obviously majority of people don't feel like playing the game as much anymore, unless something happens soon.


Look, all the "OMG - people are LEEAAAVING" hysteria on the forums is completely misplaced. You are looking at the steamgraphs - so, do some comparisons. Here - I'll do some for you:
http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=200710q49520q218230&from=1346475600000&to=1357279200000

This thing you're seeing - where people pile in early and then dive out just as quick? That happens to every game, in even greater percentages than PS2 is seeing. People are actually responding really well to Planetside - and if they keep improving it over the months, you will start to see something like Torchlight 2 is experiencing - where the numbers actually start to creep back up as it increases the community over time.

Just because the passionate few in the forums rip their hair out and argue ceaselessly over game problems - that pretty much par for any forum these days. In fact, the louder the forums sound, the more people care. That's a good thing.

[Beerbeer]

Kind of a pathetic comparison if you ask me, especially considering planetside 2 is the only free to play game amongst the three shown, which makes it even worse, but thanks for sharing that.

Planetside can least afford to lose players compared to those other games. This game requires a healthy population as it is completely player-driven. Any negative churn is bad, really bad considering this game is completely free.

[Highstall]

Kind of a pathetic comparison if you ask me, especially considering planetside 2 is the only free to play game amongst the three shown, which makes it even worse, but thanks for sharing that.

Planetside can least afford to lose players compared to those other games. This game requires a healthy population as it is completely player-driven. Any negative churn is bad, really bad considering this game is completely free.

You're missing the point. It's not "negative churn" - it's just the way people try games. Every game spikes hard on release and then people wander away. There is no "grab everyone from release day and never let go." Building a lasting community is a slow process and will take time and a lot of good features rolled out every few months over years.

[Beerbeer]

I think you're missing the point. You should do some research on some FTP games. Comparing this game to paid ones and saying, "see" is really pathetic if you think about it.

[artifice]

One thing I know is that SOE listens to its player base. I also know that they aren't going to act on everything said because sometimes there's a very loud and vocal minority and it takes time to filter through it. There are also times that while something be a negative, the effect of it being the opposite or different will be worse. Not everything is black and white. Each system and design have positive and negative effects.

It also doesn't mean they are going to react right away as sometimes caution is better with major changes and giving it time to see how it works itself out is the better option instead of giving into a knee jerk reaction.

When they do listen and plan to change things accordingly, it doesn't mean the changes will happen immediately as it takes time to design the right solution and and develop the changes.

[Beerbeer]

I hate to say it, but I don't think "listening to fans" at this point will make a difference.

They should have listened before the game was released.

They are listening, but they're listening to the wrong people. I'm not sure who these select fans are, but these people just reinforce their bad game decisions. Placaters? Self-serving? Ensuring their playstyle is there, not realizing that they are in the minority when it comes to FPS games?

Good job I guess?

[ringring]

It's funny because one of the simplest solutions might also be the most effective. It sounds crazy, but imagine if kills were only worth 20 points, hell even 10, and all associated stats were also adjusted (revives, heals etc...). With 1 facility capture equal to 100 kills, players would be more motivated to complete the objective with kills being a byproduct of accomplishing a larger goal. Instead it's better to keep the enemy Sunderer alive and farm kills for certs, since it's incredibly easy to get 10 kills, and not worth the effort to cap bases if you can just sit on a biolab airpad and get 1000 points every few minutes.

It's by no means a perfect fix, and there are a lot of potential problems, since everything would have to be rebalanced, and ghost capping would become the most efficient means to gain certs. However, if they could create a dynamic point system where a base capture/defense points were a function of the enemy/fight density in the region (which is already measured in game), and the amount of time the player spent in the vicinity of the base, I think we'd see teamwork-oriented game-styles show up a little bit more.
Hmm, half right.

The xp for kills isn't important but if only the capture XP was proportional to the 'fight' it would be beneficial. And again if the was a XP award for the resecure of a base/outpost, again proportional to the 'fight' that had taken place.

However, these alone won't cut it. Many other things also need to change and the fundamental problem is that launch was with only 3 continents and no over-arching meta game.

The success or not of PS2 will depend on how quickly they can add that in otherwise people will continue to drift away and the consequent bad publicity will continue stop new people starting up.

What will the situation be in 1 years time I wonder?

[Wahooo]

Your concerns reached us long before PCGamer. :)

We haven't stopped listening to the players. Major changes have been the result of player feedback in Beta. Sunderer AMS, 12-man squads, adjacency requirements, generators, tug-o-war capture mechanics, and walls on amp stations, just to name a few. Those were all a result of player feedback. Honestly its the best dev interaction and response I'd seen in any game even before I was hired. Nothing has changed - we're still listening and we understand your concerns.

A lot of those things were brought up by player feed back BEFORE beta even started... but we had to PROVE it during beta to be heard.

Same as the general lack of meta-game and non-defensible bases. Only now it isn't beta, and people aren't waiting for the next beta patch and playing anyway. Actual customers are simply leaving.

[Highstall]

I think you're missing the point. You should do some research on some FTP games. Comparing this game to paid ones and saying, "see" is really pathetic if you think about it.

Wow, so your opinion is clearly set regardless of any contradicting information. Why educate yourself when blustering negativity is so fulfilling?

For anyone else who cares to inform themselves a little: games always spike hard on release, and then drop way down. Check my last post and browse different games on steam (since specific player numbers aren't really made public elsewhere.). Planetside will have to build on its community over years with new features, promotions and polish.

[Germanius]

Good thing. Achtung, (watch out) SOE! :lol:

[IronMole]

SOE didn't listen back then, what makes you think they will now?

THEY HAVE NOT LEARNED!

[Electrofreak]

I may not be a fan of BuzzCut, but I've been pushing for the return of dynamic XP and he mentioned it in his post as well:

The solution to this problem comes straight from Planetside 1; in Planetside 1, your XP gain for
a capture was based upon how much fighting was on that base. If it was a heavily contested base,
the reward scaled appropriately to reflect that. If the base was empty, the reward for the capture
was insignificant. Basically, you were rewarded for taking risks. High risks held the promise
of high rewards and encouraged players to always move towards the areas with the heaviest
fighting.

[thegreekboy]

Change rate in beta was way to slow imo. Only 3 months for beta, a "true" beta where player feedback (a lot of it, almost too much for just 3 months) was given and listened to.

Although a lot was listened to they just didn't have time to try everything.
I don't think devs could have kept up, technically, making so many changes in just 3 months. It was hard to get them to budge on the G-AMS ordeal too. That was the biggest one. Beta should have been much longer!

Sony is multiple millions of dollars in debt. I guarantee that the suits went down to them and said something along the lines of "Release before the end of the year or you can kiss your funding goodbye"

[GLaDOS]

I may not be a fan of BuzzCut, but I've been pushing for the return of dynamic XP and he mentioned it in his post as well:

I'm not sure if you saw it, but someone tweeted that post of his to Higby (I think on the 31st) and he replied, saying there would be (something like) "major changes to the reward system." I was going to make a thread about it, as people hadn't seemed to have noticed it, but I can't figure out how to "embed" the tweets in a post like I've seen.

Edit: Well, I figured out how to link it, at least. Twitter is damn confusing, or maybe I'm just stupid.

Second edit: Well, I guess linking it embedded it, somehow. I give up.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/285949826498170880

[Sturmhardt]

Great, thanks, I hope they get a patch out soon... I'm getting tired of the 1 month old bugs like bugged sunderers, mass freezes etc...

[Electrofreak]

I'm not sure if you saw it, but someone tweeted that post of his to Higby (I think on the 31st) and he replied, saying there would be (something like) "major changes to the reward system." I was going to make a thread about it, as people hadn't seemed to have noticed it, but I can't figure out how to "embed" the tweets in a post like I've seen.

Edit: Well, I figured out how to link it, at least. Twitter is damn confusing, or maybe I'm just stupid.

Second edit: Well, I guess linking it embedded it, somehow. I give up.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/285949826498170880

Awesome, thanks for that. On the downside, I was posting about dynamic XP back in first-round beta (the thread is gone due to the beta forums being nuked but the text is virtually identical to the link in my signature) but I suspect that Buzz is going to get credit for the idea now.

/sigh

c'est la vie...

[Shenyen]

http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=218230&from=1353362400000&to=1357250400000

Sadly if you've monitored steam statistics on player numbers at all, the peak player count has effectively halved since launch weeks. Most of my friends don't play anymore either, sigh...

Duh, see this:

Look, all the "OMG - people are LEEAAAVING" hysteria on the forums is completely misplaced. You are looking at the steamgraphs - so, do some comparisons. Here - I'll do some for you:
http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=200710q49520q218230&from=1346475600000&to=1357279200000

This thing you're seeing - where people pile in early and then dive out just as quick? That happens to every game, in even greater percentages than PS2 is seeing.

Finally someone who is not going "The sky is falling" and posts a reasonable and researched post on this topic.

Kind of a pathetic comparison if you ask me, especially considering planetside 2 is the only free to play game amongst the three shown, which makes it even worse, but thanks for sharing that.


F2P-games require not investment before you can play them, all you need is to create an account and download the game.

On a single afternon, you can try out 10 different F2P games.

Regular games cost 50+ Dollars or more, so you have to think what you want to play, while you can try out PS2 and if you don_like it - you haven't lost anything.

A decrease in the playerbase after the release is normal, ESPECIALLY for F2P games, because most of the players aren't invested in them as much as with a normal game they paid lots of money for.

Yes, Planetside 2 requires a quite larger playerbase to have fun - but they will merge some servers when that time comes.

Unlike you, they understood that many players will try out the game and some won't like it and leave the game - that's why names are unique across all servers, so that it would be easy to merge servers.

Something else you forget in your Sky-Falling-Sermon: Christmas!

Yup, some people will have more time to play but LOTS of people have other, better things to do than play a game - they have to visit their families, dress up as Santa for their children etc... And of course, they maybe also got some presents, like new games they would like to play for a while.

Do you know why SOE gave us Double Exp for over a week?

Because they wanted to give us a present?

NO!

Because they knew that server populations would decrease over the holidays and to keep the game more playable, they gave an incentive to all those nerdy guys that were torn between playing Far Cry 3, visiting their parents and playing Planetside 2 to choose Planetside.

"Hm, do i want to play Far Cry 3 or do i want to get the most out of the double exp in PS2? - Hm, Far Cry will still be here next month, Double Exp won't, so i'll choose PS2"...

[Vashyo]

Look, all the "OMG - people are LEEAAAVING" hysteria on the forums is completely misplaced. You are looking at the steamgraphs - so, do some comparisons. Here - I'll do some for you:
http://steamgraph.net/index.php?action=graph&jstime=1&appid=200710q49520q218230&from=1346475600000&to=1357279200000

This thing you're seeing - where people pile in early and then dive out just as quick? That happens to every game, in even greater percentages than PS2 is seeing. People are actually responding really well to Planetside - and if they keep improving it over the months, you will start to see something like Torchlight 2 is experiencing - where the numbers actually start to creep back up as it increases the community over time.

Just because the passionate few in the forums rip their hair out and argue ceaselessly over game problems - that pretty much par for any forum these days. In fact, the louder the forums sound, the more people care. That's a good thing.

Borderlands and torchilight 2 get massive battles like in PS2? :P

We have way less people playing when you compare to the max server cap, those two other games don't need more people.

Woodman I can't even wage war anywhere else but in the middle of indar, crown. Otherwise I have to run around huge massive continents of emptiness or fight 1 vs 20 against the stack ghost cappers. :rofl:


So now we have about 10,000-13,000 people playing at peak times on steam + non steam players divided by continents divided by servers how many people do you have left once the population filters into a smaller and smaller group :groovy:

I haven't had to wait in line to join a continent since...day 2 of launch

"Size allways matters" my ass. I get just as big 32vs32 battles in BF3 and it's much more focused and it isn't tank/airplane spam. :lol:


We'll see what they do in the future, I hope they fix it and improve, but as of now they handled everything poorly. The game was launched not as a true sequel to planetside, but as another game for the BF3 crowd. I don't blame em, if I got money for making games even I would have focused on the big crowds instead of my games fanbase.



Duh, see this:



Finally someone who is not going "The sky is falling" and posts a reasonable and researched post on this topic.




F2P-games require not investment before you can play them, all you need is to create an account and download the game.

On a single afternon, you can try out 10 different F2P games.

Regular games cost 50+ Dollars or more, so you have to think what you want to play, while you can try out PS2 and if you don_like it - you haven't lost anything.

A decrease in the playerbase after the release is normal, ESPECIALLY for F2P games, because most of the players aren't invested in them as much as with a normal game they paid lots of money for.

Yes, Planetside 2 requires a quite larger playerbase to have fun - but they will merge some servers when that time comes.

Unlike you, they understood that many players will try out the game and some won't like it and leave the game - that's why names are unique across all servers, so that it would be easy to merge servers.

Something else you forget in your Sky-Falling-Sermon: Christmas!

Yup, some people will have more time to play but LOTS of people have other, better things to do than play a game - they have to visit their families, dress up as Santa for their children etc... And of course, they maybe also got some presents, like new games they would like to play for a while.

Do you know why SOE gave us Double Exp for over a week?

Because they wanted to give us a present?

NO!

Because they knew that server populations would decrease over the holidays and to keep the game more playable, they gave an incentive to all those nerdy guys that were torn between playing Far Cry 3, visiting their parents and playing Planetside 2 to choose Planetside.

"Hm, do i want to play Far Cry 3 or do i want to get the most out of the double exp in PS2? - Hm, Far Cry will still be here next month, Double Exp won't, so i'll choose PS2"...

Double XP didn't bring in anymore players than we normally have the numbers dropped anyway if you checked the chart at all, so I'd say most people just don't like the game enough or are too bored to even play when they most benefit. :D

[Crator]

Sony is multiple millions of dollars in debt. I guarantee that the suits went down to them and said something along the lines of "Release before the end of the year or you can kiss your funding goodbye"

No doubt about that. Smed even Tweeted about this before release saying they signed a contract to release when they did. In the same Tweet he stated they wouldn't release if it wasn't ready but that is a broad statement open to interpretation.

[infinite loop]

Steam statistics are irrelevant. If you are on this forum you probably either played PS1 or care about the franchise. How many of us are in outfits and/or have friends that have stopped playing? This is not about the normal drop you see in F2P games, it is PS vets and outfits leaving in droves. The evidence is all over the place and if you don't see it you're in denial.

[Highstall]

Steam statistics are irrelevant. If you are on this forum you probably either played PS1 or care about the franchise. How many of us are in outfits and/or have friends that have stopped playing? This is not about the normal drop you see in F2P games, it is PS vets and outfits leaving in droves. The evidence is all over the place and if you don't see it you're in denial.

I'm sorry to keep dropping reality - but, there are some things everyone here would do well to keep in mind.

1. Planetside 1 vets (which I agree- most everyone on this forum probably is) just aren't very numerous. Planetside 2 will in no way live or die from their support (or lack thereof.)

2. All games drop in population after the initial excitement of release. This is common in both paid-for, and free-to-play games. The community will have to be built over a long period of time.

3. As an example, League of Legends - arguably the crushing win story of F2P games - did not have a giant community on its release in late 2009. It took them years to build up their current player base, and that entire time the forums were packed with people bemoaning it's death, the exodus of all the players, and the massive problems of bugs and imbalance. Just like here.

4. The fact that they haven't rolled out any huge features in the few months after release is irrelevant. The fact that they haven't made any huge balance adjustments is irrelevant. What will keep PS2 strong over the long term are exactly the sorts of things that people in this forum don't care about: referral rewards, facebook promotions, and a healthy advertising budget. This whole roping in of internet celebrities to wage war is interesting - I haven't seen that tried before, but it's a clever attempt to keep building a community.

5. It also would really help to find a way to add some sort of spectator support, and/or find ways to pit outfits or squads off in competitive play.

I know none of that is super electrifying, and I know that everyone wants big amazing things dropped every week. But if we're talking about the long term health of the game, so far everything looks great. The game works - they have giant wars of hundreds of people and (for the most part) it really works, and responds well. It's a minor technological miracle. Let's be happy about all the amazing things we already have. The long term status of the game is directed by a different set of goals and standards than most people here seem to even be aware of.

[Legolas]

1. Planetside 1 vets (which I agree- most everyone on this forum probably is) just aren't very numerous. Planetside 2 will in no way live or die from their support (or lack thereof.)

I think you would be surprised how many there are, relative to the active population. Once the core of a game leaves, it usually is not long before everyone else does too. They are the first to come, and the last to leave. This has happened in SOE other online games. They never learn.

3. As an example, League of Legends - arguably the crushing win story of F2P games - did not have a giant community on its release in late 2009. It took them years to build up their current player base, and that entire time the forums were packed with people bemoaning it's death, the exodus of all the players, and the massive problems of bugs and imbalance. Just like here.

PS2 won't have time to build up a playerbase if it doesn't fix the main game breaking problems with it like spawn camping, vehicles and population imbalances.

4. The fact that they haven't rolled out any huge features in the few months after release is irrelevant. The fact that they haven't made any huge balance adjustments is irrelevant. What will keep PS2 strong over the long term are exactly the sorts of things that people in this forum don't care about: referral rewards, facebook promotions, and a healthy advertising budget. This whole roping in of internet celebrities to wage war is interesting - I haven't seen that tried before, but it's a clever attempt to keep building a community.

Translation:

Things that don't matter:
- Meta-game.
- New user experience.
- Comprehensible GUI.
- Overabundance of servers.
- Critical gameplay mistakes that affect both old and new users alike.

Things that do matter:
- Referral rewards.
- Facefuck promos.
- Ephemeral youtube "personalities".

Wat.

I know none of that is super electrifying, and I know that everyone wants big amazing things dropped every week. But if we're talking about the long term health of the game, so far everything looks great. The game works - they have giant wars of hundreds of people and (for the most part) it really works, and responds well. It's a minor technological miracle. Let's be happy about all the amazing things we already have.

Just keep lying to yourself then, but don't expect anyone with a clue about the game to agree. I don't like your out-of-touch and patronizing tone in this last paragraph either, by the way.


Indeed.

[Shenyen]

According to Wikipedia, Planetside 1 had a subscriptions peak of 75.000 players in 2003 with around 20.000 players in 2007.

20.000 players (You know, those that are the last to leave, according to your post) are NOTHING, that is laughable...

I doubt that there have been more than 200.000 players over all all time in total, even that is a very small number in comparison to Battlefield or Call of Duty.

I have no idea about the real sales numbers, but i don't think that it is overestimated if i say that Call of Duty still sells more than 20.000 units per day per game, a year after its release.

So ten days of CoD-BO2 sales in november of 2013 will still be more than 10 years of Planetside 1 sales.

Forget about the Planetside 1crowd, they mean absolutely nothing to the success of a game with a budget like Planetside 2.

This game has lots of features of Planetside 1 because some of them worked very well and it uses the same setting and brand, because SOE owns them (and creating a new franchise always takes much more effort and is more prone to being a failure), not because attracting the PS1 players would make PS2 a financial success.

[Crator]

This game has lots of features of Planetside 1 because some of them worked very well and it uses the same setting and brand, because SOE owns them (and creating a new franchise always takes much more effort and is more prone to being a failure), not because attracting the PS1 players would make PS2 a financial success.

Why is it being argued that what PS1 players think would make the game better is ONLY to attract PS1 players? That's an asinine line of thinking.

PS2 has lots of features of Planetside 1? I wouldn't say that is true. Did you even play PS1?

[Legolas]

CoD CoD BF3 CoD CoD

Is this what you are looking for?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/06/dining/06cod-span/Cod-articleLarge.jpg

[Highstall]

...I don't like your out-of-touch and patronizing tone in this last paragraph either, by the way.

How interesting. I don't like your inability to respond to my comments with anything constructive - or even contrary - so there we have it.

My broad point is that the game works and is relatively balanced. From a short-term perspective (which you can only have so soon after release) that is a huge win.

All the comments here seem to focus around small balance adjustments somehow racing against some doomsday clock - and that's just not the case.

If you're reading this forum post, you will load the game back up every new major patch. You will probably give SOE some money. You will make posts on a fan-site forum and contribute to the overall "internet social awareness" of the game. If the PS2 devs are sharp and keep rolling out good quality work (like the stuff we've seen so far) the game will continue to keep people passionate about it.

[Legolas]

My broad point is that the game works

I disagree. Massive single faction zergs split by the three continents = a broken game. Lack of any real fighting on at least one map on a Medium population server = nonexistent game. Constant Spawn Camping = a highly flawed game.

and is relatively balanced.

I disagree. The vehicle balance is totally out of whack.

All the comments here seem to focus around small balance adjustments

I disagree. Base defense and the Meta-game aren't small. Neither is a proper new user introduction.


Replied.

[Highstall]

<I like to respond within the quote and turn the text red>

I would quote your words, but you make it harder than it has to be - so you just get my response:

Clearly you disagree with what I'm saying, but your opinion is based on faulty assumptions. All of those assumptions boil down to some sort of Jerry Maguire fantasy that - scorned by game developers that have ignored your cries for justice - will see everyone marching away in the first mass-exodus of protesting game nerds ever.

How many hours have you put into the game? I've put 125, so far. That already puts the game into the top 10% of all games I've ever played (time-wise.) I think most people here probably beat me out, too. If the game is so broken and "nonexistent," then how are so many people having so much fun? There's a bigger picture being missed here.

I know the game has problems, and it's good to point them out. There's tons of room for improvement. All signs point to the developers making changes and releasing more content that will see people continuing to subscribe and grow the community.

My posts here are an attempt to keep expectations reasonable, and judgments rational. The game can really show you some cool stuff - amazing stuff, that you just can't get in any other fps. Its better FPS war than anywhere else.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RPuY2hvYjnw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[GTGD]

And we continue on our slow but sure march to replace everything they thought was a good idea with a better idea that actually works, from PS1.

[RykerStruvian]

I don't mean to be a debbie downer but I don't believe anything is going to change, at least nothing we're proposing. They have their own gameplan set out and we'll find out soon enough this month...but I'm not holding my breath as it is unrealistic to do so.

And I am not saying the world is ending and that the game is going to die, but what I am saying is that I don't believe our vision of what PS2 is really matches up with what SOE has in mind for PS2. They wouldn't come this way just to change everything after a couple of months. If they do change something, it will probably be something along the lines of an XP buff for burster MAXs, possible anti tank mine change, and some minor weapon adjustments. But anything major, like a new overhauled resource system or bases is really unrealistic.

SOE might try to find a middle ground between their vision and something PS1 vets would like (or PS2 players). But whatever they have set is what they're going to go with.

[james]

I don't mean to be a debbie downer but I don't believe anything is going to change, at least nothing we're proposing. They have their own gameplan set out and we'll find out soon enough this month...but I'm not holding my breath as it is unrealistic to do so.
.

I really hope you aren't right. But when you look at the gameplay decisions it seems so. It seems they went for a cash grab to pull in COD and BF players, and based off the current player numbers they missed.

The current state of the game IMO is getting really close to be nothing more than Farmside 2.

When it comes down to it, if the devs aren't willing to make major changes, the future of the game is not promising. Some of the basic game play mechanics are heavily flawed. The huge changes that where made late beta, did nothing but hurt the game.

When you have people who have spent 100's of dollar in your game, leaving after one month. There is a major problem with your game, especially at the number of them.

[infinite loop]

If the game is so broken and "nonexistent," then how are so many people having so much fun? There's a bigger picture being missed here.

Who around here is actually having fun? I can't seem to find that thread.

[Shenyen]

Who around here is actually having fun? I can't seem to find that thread.

So, you put about a hundred hours into a game that is not fun?

Is this what you are looking for?


I would like to say stuff that would get me banned from this forum.

Well, that wouldn't be that bad, because this forum has become a meeting point for whiners...



I am not a fan of Call of Duty, i never was into Battlefield, before i played BFBC2 and BF3.

I loved Planetside 1.



BUT:

Planetside 1 is no more.

The servers are empty, they will never again attract enough players to make it worthwhile.

So focusing on PS1 is futile.

There have never been many people who have played PS1, I don't think there have been more than 200k combined.

What made PS1 great was the large scale of everything, a squad consisted of more players than in a game of Counter-Strike and a platoon consisted of more players than a Battlefield/Tribes-game.

But: The FPS-gameplay was never good.

The game had tons of lag and low fps (Planetside 2 runs great in comparison to PS1 2 months after release), the number of WHOAH EPIC-moments was imho much lower than in PS2.

PS2 has much better gunplay, performance is much better, it looks as good as regular games, firing a weapon feels like in BF3, CoD or CS - and not like in EverQuest^^.


To attract a crowd, the basics have to be in the game - firing a gun has to be fun.

And it is.

The metagame (Uuhh, whatever that is - and in PS1, i NEVER cared for continental lock-stuff) will be improved over time, but it is something that Battlefield never had, so the BF3-crowd won't miss that metagame they never had.

And to be a success, this game has to attract the BF3-crowd.

Because even if they attracted ALL Planetside 1 players (and i know of 1 that didn't enjoy PS1 at all, so they could get only 199.999 PS1 players^^) - that would be only 10% of the audience they want to attract.

This game is very young, only a bit more than a month.

1. Every MMORPG has a lack of endgame content a month after release - because most of the players will still be running around in the medium level range.
The 10% that have rushed through all the content will be bored - but they are a minority, it is unreasonable for a developer to spend the months before release developing mainly stuff for the 10% or even delaying the release of the game. The content for the 90% has to be finished!

And in Planetside 2 - that content is in - for 90% of the playerbase, this game is fun.

(Or they don't like it at all, but not because of a lacking metagame but because they expected something completely different - and that's okay, this game doesn't cost a thing, so many will try it out and many will leave after a short while - but enough will stay)

2. In Planetside 1 - there was a lack of more interesting stuff this short after release,too!

LLU? (Whaa whaa, the capture mechanics are boring, every capture is the same!)
Core Combat? (Whaa, whaaa, we want CQB!!!)
Skyguard
Loadstar (We have no way to transport larger vehicles!)

So if not being in the state that Planetside 1 was a year after releases dooms Planetside 2 a month after release - Planetside 1 would have never survived the first 3 months.
Because Planetside 1 a month after released was NOT the same as Planetside 1 a year after release.

[artifice]

Who around here is actually having fun? I can't seem to find that thread.

I am having fun, but I don't feel the need to make a thread on just how much fun I am having unlike all these people that insist on making threads on just how much they aren't having fun.

[Gatekeeper]

I really agree with Highstall, and various others here, who are saying that the game is fun and that its problems (which are very real, I agree) aren't the end of the world.

I loved PS1, and I was (and am) very disappointed at how many great ideas from PS1 were dropped for PS2 (first and foremost the fact that MBT drivers now also get the main gun).

But that said, PS2 gunplay is immediately satisfying in a way that PS1 never was, and it's more stable and graphically much more impressive than PS1 ever was.

PS2 may not be a deep game, but it is a fun game - and there's plenty of time yet to fix the flaws. Take a breath people, and give it a little time.

[Crator]

I am having fun, but I don't feel the need to make a thread on just how much fun I am having unlike all these people that insist on making threads on just how much they aren't having fun.

Yeah, we should just shut down the forums. No need for them.

[Hamma]

People who have fun are typically playing the game and not posting. ;)

[Legolas]

I would like to say stuff that would get me banned from this forum.

Sorry. I take that all back. I was being a judgemental douche and I should know better.
*sadface* :/ *sadface*
I see what you said there and agree totally. Let me just leave this analogy here though:

SOE made a small red car, fueled by apples. It was highly ambitious and flawed, but it kinda worked for what it was. Until they broke it.
DICE made a large blue car, fueled by oranges. It was less ambitious and worked better. They made a series of them.

SOE wanted to be a big success like DICE, so they tried to repaint their red car to blue but it became purple instead. They also saw how the DICE car was larger and fueled by oranges, so they made their car much larger and fueled it with oranges. But now their engine is too small and still works much better when fueled by apples.

DICE now has another large blue car. People by it. It smells of orange.
SOE now has a large purple car that has too small an engine to drive it and is constantly coughing on oranges. It has a faint whiff of apple.

Long story short: there is nothing wrong with red, blue, purple, large, small, apples, oranges or engine size. It is just that the car has to work as an ensemble.

Clearly you disagree with what I'm saying...

My problem is not that old players are leaving. It is that new players are. These are examples of serious and well known flaws in the game. Can't you see how detrimental they are to the immediate experience and long term enjoyment of the game?

- The empty base captures problem.
- Highly unfriendly new player experience.
- The serious imbalance between vehicles and infantry. See farming.
- Lack of base defense.


If the game is so broken and "nonexistent," then how are so many people having so much fun?

Debatable. We will have to wait another few months to see whether the major problems are fixed and whether they have had a significant effect on the playerbase population.

I think the errors are severe enough to be potentially crippling if they are not dealt with sooner (within a month) rather than later.


All signs point to the developers making changes and releasing more content that will see people continuing to subscribe and grow the community.

All signs? SOE always rushes games then dumps and ruins them a short time later. Look at PS1, SWG and Everquest II. As for DCUO... yuck.


My posts here are an attempt to keep expectations reasonable, and judgments rational.

No one is expecting the moon to be delivered to their door. And I could deal with the lack of vehicle types, maps and even depth to the game if what we had actually worked right. It doesn't. This is what is causing the "whining" from many sectors of the population.

[RodenyC]

Why is it being argued that what PS1 players think would make the game better is ONLY to attract PS1 players? That's an asinine line of thinking.

Can someone please answer this? Why do people assume this. Perhaps one of you guys who are suggesting that PS2 is such a great game already will explain.

So, you put about a hundred hours into a game that is not fun?



I would like to say stuff that would get me banned from this forum.

Well, that wouldn't be that bad, because this forum has become a meeting point for whiners...



I am not a fan of Call of Duty, i never was into Battlefield, before i played BFBC2 and BF3.

I loved Planetside 1.

Doesn't seem like it but hey I'm not you so I can't say.

BUT:

Planetside 1 is no more.

The servers are empty, they will never again attract enough players to make it worthwhile.

Yes because who in this day and age plays a game that shows its age and you still have to pay for it? I(and know many others) don't pay for subscriptions games anymore.Hence why majority of games are heading that way.


So focusing on PS1 is futile.

Really?So ideas that made a game great is futile? I don't understand that logic.Most if not all games that have a sequel(s) brought back ideas from the previous game.But so far the only thing that has been brought back are names and the game being big.Names and the game being big? Is that all PS1 is worth? I don't think so.

There have never been many people who have played PS1, I don't think there have been more than 200k combined.

And you are stating a obvious fact.Is this suppose to be a insult to PS1? I keep hearing people say this but it's something that was bound to happen.
Let's look at it.
PS1 had very little market,had a smaller player cap,and you had to pay a subscription fee.Not everyone is willing to put out 15 bucks.PS2 has a much higher player cap,no subscription fee,and had pretty decent marketing.And yet people make this claim that PS2 is superior numbers wise?!?! Well no shit.It was setup to be bigger.


What made PS1 great was the large scale of everything, a squad consisted of more players than in a game of Counter-Strike and a platoon consisted of more players than a Battlefield/Tribes-game.

If that is all that made PS1 great for you then I feel sad for you.

But: The FPS-gameplay was never good.

I can agree on this easily.

The game had tons of lag and low fps (Planetside 2 runs great in comparison to PS1 2 months after release), the number of WHOAH EPIC-moments was imho much lower than in PS2.

That depends on who you ask.When I first started playing PS1 the only thing wrong was internet connection.On PS2 still getting some performance problems.But I'm on a semi decent computer.

PS2 has much better gunplay, performance is much better, it looks as good as regular games, firing a weapon feels like in BF3, CoD or CS - and not like in EverQuest^^.

To each his own.I personally cannot stand any of the games that you have mention.I regret purchasing in CoD and BF3.

To attract a crowd, the basics have to be in the game - firing a gun has to be fun.

To attract a crowd, firing the gun doesn't have to be fun,the game has to be fun.Firing the weapons in PS1 weren't the best,but as many will and can tell you the game was fun as hell.

And it is.

No it's not

The metagame (Uuhh, whatever that is - and in PS1, i NEVER cared for continental lock-stuff) will be improved over time, but it is something that Battlefield never had, so the BF3-crowd won't miss that metagame they never had.

How long have you actually played PS1? To not know what the metagame is and say you loved PS1? Idk about that.How do you know they won't miss it? How do you know that the BF3 crowd won't want something that actually doesn't feel like they are stupid kids just shooting stuff and saying "meh I'm done shooting" That metagame that is missing is that endgame the BF3 crowd will be missing.Idk about you but I have yet to get that feeling that after taking a base I've accomplished something.That was the "endgame" in PS1.Why won't they missed that endgame?

And to be a success, this game has to attract the BF3-crowd.

No.For this game to be a success it needs to be different.What is the point in copying another game? Why not stick with the original?

Because even if they attracted ALL Planetside 1 players (and i know of 1 that didn't enjoy PS1 at all, so they could get only 199.999 PS1 players^^) - that would be only 10% of the audience they want to attract.

Why wouldn't you want to attract players who know more about a game than those who don't? The players who know about the game know that the game needs this so this can be correct.Not players who say"why isn't such and such in?BF3 and CoD did it why isn't it in?" If I was a game developer I wouldn't want the crowd who wants my game to be a carbon copy of another.

This game is very young, only a bit more than a month.

No,this game isn't young.It was released about a month ago.But it is not young. This game must have been in development for about 5 years.They had 10 years to say go"hey this works let's keep this".10 years to make improvements.Not downgrades.

1. Every MMORPG has a lack of endgame content a month after release - because most of the players will still be running around in the medium level range.
The 10% that have rushed through all the content will be bored - but they are a minority, it is unreasonable for a developer to spend the months before release developing mainly stuff for the 10% or even delaying the release of the game. The content for the 90% has to be finished!

And in Planetside 2 - that content is in - for 90% of the playerbase, this game is fun.

You speak for all the players? I see more ingame and outgame chat saying they aren't having as much fun as PS1.I'm not speaking for all the players but I've seen more negative then positive(not including this or the official forums).

(Or they don't like it at all, but not because of a lacking metagame but because they expected something completely different - and that's okay, this game doesn't cost a thing, so many will try it out and many will leave after a short while - but enough will stay)




2. In Planetside 1 - there was a lack of more interesting stuff this short after release,too!

LLU? (Whaa whaa, the capture mechanics are boring, every capture is the same!)
Core Combat? (Whaa, whaaa, we want CQB!!!)
Skyguard
Loadstar (We have no way to transport larger vehicles!)

Planetside 1 wasn't a sequel.It didn't have the time to work and decide what should stay and go.PS2 had 10 years.10 YEARS!

So if not being in the state that Planetside 1 was a year after releases dooms Planetside 2 a month after release - Planetside 1 would have never survived the first 3 months.
Because Planetside 1 a month after released was NOT the same as Planetside 1 a year after release.

Again 10 years.

[infinite loop]

So, you put about a hundred hours into a game that is not fun?

Yep. Kinda sad isn't it?