[Feedback] Colorful "Self-Entitled Opinion"

[NewSith]

With that PC Gamer article and video, I just realised that you people (community folk, I mean) need to rethink stuff, here it is as follows:

I will do 2 lists, and include EVERYTHING I think on them, including small details.

Things PS2 did fantastically:

Gunplay.
Starting with sniping, ending with vehicular gunplay.
Resources.
Potential is huge, but the devs are too lazy to build a complex system around resources, so it's not even a metagame atm. That fact is saddening.
Vehicle Customization.
As a matter of fact vehicles are closer to freeform inventory, than infantry classes. Go figure.
In-Game Recording and Streaming.
Pacing.
Some say it's "modern", but tell you what - PS2 is way more flexible in terms of pacing as compared to PS1.
Territory System.
Note that I'm not saying "Hex System", because from my perspective 6 edges is just way too much.
Shredder Liberator.
I love helicopters, they added a helicopter, that's as much as I can say.
Leadership Smoke.
Another fantastic and immersive teamplay mechanic.
Spawn Beacons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things that can be done in PS2 that PS1 had nice and tight. Let's start small:

Ability to holster weapons.
This one comes to mind first because I was doing a screenshoot not so long ago and had to use a game bug to remove my weapon. What's the point of adding in-game recording and not letting people to holster weapons.
Ability to see the squad numbers in vehicles.
Ability to have minimap zoomed in and out.
And not just expand it to half of your screen.
Character models inside vehicles.
Liberator, Galaxy, ESFs, Sunderer, why the heck are they controlled by invisible forces?
Ability to customize your HUD.
As in move your minimap, your vehicle HP status, your chats, your character status bars.
Ability to refit vehicles.
Chat Macros.
Many MANY people know what "/macro MED \#8ADV MEDIC HERE! No need to respawn!" added to the game.
Ability to quickly select your loadout (class) with digit keys.
Like ""Use Button" on a teminal->1->3" = Infiltrator Class, Loadout Slot 3.
Deployed Vehicles That Don't Slide.
Deploying an AMS in PS1 made it so the AMS sticked to the ground, even if it was sliding on it undeployed. In PS2 it works the other way around.
CE (Mines and such) Count HUD Element.
Heavy Projectiles Visible On The Minimap.
You think PS1 Liberator wasn't OP? It was. But red shell-like silhouettes alongside with a distinct "Buzhhhhhhhhhhh, bang bang bang!" made it very easy for troops to realise that they need to run for cover from above.
In-Game Tutorials.

Now tell me these changes are somehow BAD for PS2...


And then we get global changes:

Limited Certification Points.
There are amny people claiming that many things can be balanced by increasing certcosts. You can't do that if your CP income is infinite. Limit the amount of CPs you can get per BattleRank and there you have a wonderful balancing factor.
Sanctuaries.
Continents that can be completely captured.
Defensible designs.
Hell that's the best joke there is - "We don't want defensible designs, because Defense = Farm". So, bloody instead you go camp spawnrooms, because that is obviously "NOT FARMING, OMG L2P, SPAWN SOMEWHERE ELSE". And that is not only about spawnrooms - shell-proof windows (why not just use the vehicle gate shield model we already have), higher walls, more indoor designs, generators in position where they can be defended from a zerg.
Freeform Inventory/Freeform Classes.
Does anyone really think that classes appeal to anyone more than a freeform type? Excuse me, but CoD doesn't have classes, despite the common misconception. BF2142 or BF3 also don't have preset classes. You can arm a recon with a PDW or a shotgun and he's no longer a sniper.
NTU-Like Mechanic.
NTU was a slowly draining resource that the bases used to self-repair turrets, terminals and everything of that kind. Eventually the defense failed because once the NTU ran out, the base turned neutral. You think defense may cause stalemates? This is a wonderful anti-stalemate mechanic.
Valuable Vehicles.
A vehicle in PS1 was a gamechanger, because of how bothersome (BOTHERSOME!) it was to get one. It's a question of how HARD it is, it is a question of effort-to-reward ratio. Zerg doesn't want to do any kind of activity that involves not doing anything before action starts. This balances itself out wonderfully.
Valuable Base Benefits.
In particular - Tech Plant Benefit. One of the KEY features that prevented MBT and rocketpod spam in PS1 was the fact that if you had no Tech Plant Benefit, you had to pull your vehicle from the Sanctuary and that was a long and boring trip. This is exactly the factor I mentioned above.
OP Vehicle Weapons Bound To Tech Plant Ownership.
Metagame.
There is GAZILLION metagames you can come up with. But the only metagames we have right now is killing people and capturing points. And NOTHING ELSE.
Triangle or Square Territory/Non-geometrical Territory.
As I said - 6 edges give too many attack angles. Of course some bases have only two adjacent terrotories, but that's deceiving. In all fairness I would rather go for a Compamy of Heroes type of territory design.
Complex Landscape.
Areas with natural ceilings, areas disadvantageous to ground vehicles, urban combat, areas that do not allow ground vehicles or air vehicles or neither. Alongside with more impassable terrain, like water+bridges (metagame, I should point out) in PS1.
More Capture Mechanics.
Just like with the Metagame, there's plenty of capture mechanics you can add. Take every known multiplayer game-mode and redesign it for PS. 1-way progressing objectives (Rsuh from BF3), 2 way progressing objectives (Tug Of War from World In Conflict), Capture The Flag, Take and Hold, King of the Random Hill, Bombing Run (UT), Oddball (Halo) there is more than enough material to draw inspiration from.
No Solo MBTs.
At all.
Separate Squad Leader and Command Chats.
More Missiles, Less Flak.
Like ES Ground-To-Air MAX weapons, or same weapons for lightning. AA to AIr balance will be much more easily reachable that way.
Indirect Fire.
Flails never ruined PS1, they were a fantastic addition, considering all the empire-wide requirements to get one. All the hate came from people that didn't like their K/D ruined by a random factor. I for one enjoyed the feeling of being under artillery fire. Immersive as hell.
Ability to Give Away Vehicles.
Nobody will ever be able to "supply the entire Empire", now that we've seen the resource system in action, despite the original belief. Unlocking vehicles should allow people outside the squad to drive it.
Dynamic XP.
You know why spawncamping wasn't really fun in PS1? Because you only got what has to be the analogue of current 1-2 XP with premiuim bonus per kill. Not to mention that spawnkills didn't count towards any rewards.

Now most of these changes we will never see, because some of them are too cardinal to make in Launch Product.





EDIT:
Post Scriptum:
I would also like to add that I am obviously exaggerating about the absence of metagames, other than 2 - Killing and Capturing. The game has loads of them: Combat Engineering (or Explosives now), Generators Mechanic, Resources Tied to Territories having influence on the vehicular and consumables flow, Satellite Bases of Facilities, etc...

Now, of course, the lack of defensible designs contributes to the issue alot. But the influence is still partial. The reason for things being the way they are, at this point, is that there is no encoragement for metagames. There is nothing that makes these meta games obvious, plain and simple.

For example - Imagine that a spawnroom had only one door out and right outside the door, the SCU was situated. With a giant icon, telling, in a way "I AM NOT A STATIC OBJECT! TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT ME!". Almost everyone coming out of the doorway would at least wonder what the f*** that thing is and why it is there. Some advanced individuals would probably try and press "Use" on it. Bottomline - everyone would know the thing exists and would try and learn what it does. Or a more simple example - a CE count HUD indicator, we're talking about with Brusi in the bottom of this page.

I update my post with that, generally because if we want to apply the "crystal clear" approach, we DO have to have it "crystal".

[Hamma]

Good post, I was going to create a "what did PS2 do well" thread but this about covers it. ;)

[DirtyBird]

I like what you've done there NewSith.
Some of the stuff I'd forgotten about (chat macro ftw)

And yes lots of those global changes we'll never see unfortunately.

[RykerStruvian]

I don't really see where our current thinking is necessarily wrong (not necessarily the right word but whatever). No one is really arguing the points you are making are wrong nor saying they aren't important. How are the points presented in the PCGamer article any different? If anything they should be considered as small steps to greater changes.

[NewSith]

I don't really see where the our current thinking is necessarily wrong (not necessarily the right word but whatever). No one is really arguing the points you are making are wrong nor saying they aren't important. How are the points presented in the PCGamer article any different? If anything they should be considered as small steps to greater changes.

Points mentioned in PCG look like a bad perception of the problems we're trying to voice. I wanted to make it crystal clear what I want.



Now, on a side note, I do consider my "I" to be representitive of quite a few other opinions, but I tried to be objective about my subjectiveness, by calling the thread what it is.

[Zulthus]

I completely agree with everything, nice post.

[gunshooter]

Gunplay.
Starting with sniping, ending with vehicular gunplay.

Matter of opinion. For many of us, copying Battlefield gameplay 1:1 is not our ideal fps. The vehicle controls especially are incredibly basic. I'm glad you mentioned sniping - sniping exemplifies many of the problems with the modern FPS. "Press Shift to aim." Doesn't add anything to the gameplay, just an extra arbitrary button that you have to press, but it's there for 'realism' because I guess this far-future space FPS needs to have realistic mechanics. This extends to practically everything. ADSing with non-sniper weapons is another thing that neuters gameplay in the name of realism and of course like every other modern shooter the game forces you to do it.

Resources.
Potential is huge, but the devs are too lazy to build a complex system around resources, so it's not even a metagame atm. That fact is saddening.

So resources weren't done fantastically, as you said yourself.

Pacing.
Some say it's "modern", but tell you what - PS2 is way more flexible in terms of pacing as compared to PS1.

What does this mean? All I can think of is the fact that players are slow moving while death is instantaneous. I guess that's pretty flexible.

Territory System.
Note that I'm not saying "Hex System", because from my perspective 6 edges is just way too much.

The hex system IS the territory system. Again, how was this done amazingly when you said it wasn't?

[Soothsayer]

Good stuff.

[NewSith]

This honestly looks like arguing for the sake of arguing.
Matter of opinion. For many of us, copying Battlefield gameplay 1:1 is not our ideal fps. The vehicle controls especially are incredibly basic.

Subjective, idd I will not argue that. Though, let's agree that with all the FPSes out there there is simply NO way to innovate without taking a tremendous risk of horrible failure, and PS2 simply couldn't risk THAT much. Now, let's think about other "copies" we can get - Counter-Strike, CoD, Quake, Global Agenda (Especially its generic Hitbox-less model, like in PS1), Halo...

What does this mean? All I can think of is the fact that players are slow moving while death is instantaneous. I guess that's pretty flexible.
Pacing - is the speed the game forces on you to make descsions with. PS2 was a turn-based strategy in that regard. By flexible I mean that you may aswell go for an AA MAX or a long-range sniper, in that case the pace is slow. You go in a Bio Lab, while pads are already breached and you have to think quickly.

So resources weren't done fantastically, as you said yourself.
Reasource system has potential, and it is really only a design-work away from being outstanding. Hence I named the line "Resources", not "Resource System".

The hex system IS the territory system. Again, how was this done amazingly when you said it wasn't?
Territory system is the system that allows territory denial for greater purposes. While I mentioned hexes I was talking about the shape of territory segments, which I prefer not to be hexes. Hexes have maximum of 6 adjacent territories. To simplify - hex shape allows 6 "lattice links". PlanetSide 1 only had 4 at max.

[Hmr85]

Great Post:cheers:

[OCNSethy]

I like the way you think NewSith... good post.

[Sledgecrushr]

Great job NS. I hope the devs are working furiously to start making this game what it needs to be.

[Brusi]

I agree with Almost everything you have written! So many of these things were really great contributors to PS. For the relatively complicated gameplay (compared to FPS's these days), many of these game play and HUD elements made the game far less frustrating for new and veteran gamers alike.

One thing that caught my attention in your list of awesomeness though...


CE (Mines and such) Count HUD Element.


Although this may be a godsend for Combat Engineers, trying to maintain a prescence of their defensive devices, i think now that every class can get either Anti-Infantry mines or C4, i don't know if it's entirely Valid any more.

Personally i would rather have the Infiltrator or Light Assault who is mining or C4'ing the capture point have to stick close by, to check if his/her trap has worked. The way CE works now is far more interactive, not a fire and forget and i personally don't mind this so much.

[NewSith]

Although this may be a godsend for Combat Engineers, trying to maintain a prescence of their defensive devices, i think now that every class can get either Anti-Infantry mines or C4, i don't know if it's entirely Valid any more.

While I understand where that is coming from...


Actually, hell, I'll even tell you - that's the thinking the class system got you into. Let's remember - you could have no CE in your inventory in PS1 at all, being armed with an MCG and a Striker (being a "Heavy Assault Class"), but you still could see your CE. I would totally agree with you if explosives disappeared after switching classes, but they don't.

Personally i would rather have the Infiltrator or Light Assault who is mining or C4'ing the capture point have to stick close by, to check if his/her trap has worked. The way CE works now is far more interactive, not a fire and forget and i personally don't mind this so much.
Though, as I said - I am subjective on this.

[Mastachief]

Good stuff newsith.

[NewSith]

I updated the OP with some extra honesty.

[Ghoest9]

You are wrong about unlimited cert points.

1 You can only play one class at a time. It doesnt matter if you are good at 4 things or 1 thing since they are done seperately unlike PS1

2 You can only equip one weapon at a time - its doesnt matter if you have upgrades on 1 or 20 weapons. Because unlike PS1 you only carry one at a time.

3 Most of of the most expensive upgrades exist primarily as sinks and only offer marginal improvements.


Now if you want to complain about the nature of a class based game in general - thats reasonable(and has been said plenty of times.)
But within a class based system like this the unlimited certs dont hurt anything.
Now that I know whats useful and what works for me personally I could be just as effective with a small fraction of the cert points I have spent - but the game would be more boring just for having lost some variety.

[Brusi]

To tell you the truth, i bought Anti-Tank mines but i don't even use them any more. They are not the same as PS... they are now just another way to suicide bomb tanks. Not to mention, no one defends bases anymore for various other reasons.

I guess I've just resigned myself a little bit to our new Planetside :(

I really hope they put in a lot of these gameplay improving and simple 'Quality of Life' HUD elements down the track.

[igster]

The PCG article also had to summarise the news in a way people who had never played planetside before would understand. So it gave lowest common denominator summaries to the key points of Buzz's post. Stuff that a Starcraft player or FPS player would understand k/d, weapon balance etc.

Generally for me, this is the root of the gameplay issues of PS2 - dumbing down to the lowest common denominator so we can get more players in.

Two points I'd like to add to your great list of things that PS1 did really well that should be re-introduced:

1) Capture Mechanics : The capture timer. A fifteen minute base capture well known and understood by attackers and defenders. For the last few minutes you would be on high alert if you thought a small team would come in to try and recapture the base. Last minute resecures.... "shit we have to get this base within 2 minutes or we're stuck here for the next hour"
Remember even the generator holds that were done by a neutral empire on one of your bases that actually became hacks. Genius in terms of gameplay variations.

2) Gal Drops: Iconic gameplay element that has become redundant in PS1.
In conjunction with Capture timers, Base Resecures, Base Captures and Gen holds these truly defined PS1. The whole CE metagame to help you defend against a gal drop / early warning system has been discarded completely in favour of a lowest common denominator simplified system of get to the capture points and camp the spawns.

[RykerStruvian]

To tell you the truth, i bought Anti-Tank mines but i don't even use them any more. They are not the same as PS... they are now just another way to suicide bomb tanks. Not to mention, no one defends bases anymore for various other reasons.

I guess I've just resigned myself a little bit to our new Planetside :(

I really hope they put in a lot of these gameplay improving and simple 'Quality of Life' HUD elements down the track.
Thats funny because initially when tank mines came out, people were complaining that people were deploying them in front of spawn terminals. Great, whatever. But then people stopped doing that and simply started using them as hardcore C4 on vehicles. I wonder what the development team said to each other when this started to happen :P I wonder if it was something which was brought up during the development process, a potential situation where the tank mines are not necessarily being used the way they were intended.

[igster]

Tank Mines like PS1 Please. More mines, Less damage. Used to be a fantastic gameplay element where a tank crew could place minefields and 'assist' enemy vehicles over their mines.

Even take a bit of damage to make them pursue you right into your tank trap!!

I think tank drivers that played against us the last few years on Gemini learned not to chase us too far.
:) *waves at other PS1 tank crews*

[Figment]

You are wrong about unlimited cert points.

And I think you are wrong, entirely.

1 You can only play one class at a time. It doesnt matter if you are good at 4 things or 1 thing since they are done seperately unlike PS1

Unlike ps1, you spawn much faster (respawn is up to 7.5x as fast: 4-8s vs 10-30s!). On top of that, you don't need to change suits since you do this bedore spawning. That means that adapting to your opponent, given that you have more options available, and circumstance need (medic, engineer, AV, aa, max) is done not only more rapidly, but also more frequently and also more freely, since a PS1 player is restricted over all his or her lives in certs, while a PS2 player is not.

2 You can only equip one weapon at a time - its doesnt matter if you have upgrades on 1 or 20 weapons. Because unlike PS1 you only carry one at a time.

Wrong. ps2's HA carries AV or aa and a rifle and a pistol and a grenade, by default and could have something in the utility slot like c4 without any trade-off in ammo (always optimum ammo, unless a suit change is made for shield vs ammo). A ps1 rexo carried one rifle and one AV (OR shotgun OR sniper rifle, never all three because that would be too costly an ammo trade-off) and unlike the PS2 version had to trade-off ammo, did not carry a pistol, but a Rek, grenades, engi and/or healing tool, medkits, again at the cost of ammo. The thing with trading-off against ammo is, that the more diverse things you can do in one life-time, the shorter you can actually do that.

An engineer carries recharging turret, ammopacks, mines, a glue gun for both armour and vehicles at once and unlimited ammo, a rifle and a pistol and a grenade. A ps1 engineer, certainly not one in agile, would hav to give up loads of space for a fdu, two different glueguns, two sets of glue gun ammo if they wanted to upgrade or repair for longer than once, again trading out ammo space for any extra's.

A snipefil has built-in rek and hacking certs, carries a sniper rifle, a pistol, grenades, a scout tool and maybe a mine or somesuch. A ps1 infil had one pistol with one box of ammo, a rek, maybe a cud, one pair of emp grenades, maybe, or 4-5 aces at the cost of no gun, perhaps no rek, no cud, no grenades, no medkits, etc. Let alone a long range rifle.

A medic had less issues than an engineer, but would still give up on other certs and would not have unlimited healing. And again, ammo trade-off. And could medics toss healing grenades and work at the range PS2 medics can? No.

A max couldn't have dual weapons UNLESS TR.

No unit in ps1 could jetpack, aside from VS MAXes. Which couldn't enter buildings by themselves, unlike PS2 MAXes, since there are no doors.


Bassically, PS2 classes do not limit players and aside from forcing combinations, require less personalised trade-offs. And over time, none of the class restrictions matter. So you can't snipe and AV? Who cares? You can't repair and heal? Actually, you can! Because armour has been replaced with recharging shields, so you only need to be medic now.

3 Most of of the most expensive upgrades exist primarily as sinks and only offer marginal improvements.

One c4 or two c4 is a huge difference. If you are talking about quickest reacquisition or last shield upgrade of 1-5% each, sure, but nobody cares about those, it is the variety of options in different classes that matters. Not their best level since as you stated yourself, most of those have little to no influence.


Now if you want to complain about the nature of a class based game in general - thats reasonable(and has been said plenty of times.)
But within a class based system like this the unlimited certs dont hurt anything.
Now that I know whats useful and what works for me personally I could be just as effective with a small fraction of the cert points I have spent - but the game would be more boring just for having lost some variety.

Your first and second alinea disagree. At least from the perspective that one wouldn't be able to do everything, which is the point. Over time, you can do everything you want in PS2, no questions asked. Max crash? No problem. Need medic? Next death. Need repairs and ammo? Spawn beacon, kill self, spawn back in. Need an ams behind enemy lines but don't feel like walking and too dangerous to land? Fly any air you want, bail with light assault, place beacon, die, spawn as infil, no hacking cert needed; just steal ams from enemy term. You got all vehicles anyway. Need tank? You got it. Need aa? You got it... And so on and so on.

You are not being forced to be creative with the limited options you had, like in ps1. You don't make trade-offs, you simply exchange sets of traits at will.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Your first and second ... don't make trade-offs, you simply exchange sets of traits at will.

I like the way you think with those quick switches. That's putting time and tools to best use ingame, even if it does hamper fun.



I like most of NewSith's post but I'd like to put out an idea for why the devs have moved the way they have and why the logic that it's based on is flawed. The gunplay, base design, vehicle design, class logic, and customization all come from the same place. Higby has said how they're fans of other first person shooters and that they wanted to update PS and bring it up to scratch with modern shooters. And they've done it. Everything in Planetside 2 follows the design lessons that have been learned by the industry in its making of fps games after the last few years.

And that's their downfall.

The last mmofps was made 10 years ago and there hasn't been another until now because, as Matt said, they're really hard to make. As such the lessons on how they are constructed haven't been taught yet. There's just not the pool of experience to say what makes a good one and besides a tiny hand full of devs most haven't worked on a project like this before. They're all doing their best and the results show in the technical polish of the game but the logic they're gripping like a man on driftwood was never designed with this kind of game in mind.

Take a base and break it down to a two way fight with 2 ESF, 1 lib, 2 tanks, and 24 players per side and suddenly the bits of base layout make sense. The doors, windows, multiple entrances, and capture point positions all work with smaller forces. The building's intended flow however breaks in half when you bring in large forces with no vehicle restrictions.

The gun logic also breaks down because there's no way to unbalance the game correctly. Yes, unbalance. Modern fps balance has 3 positions for its weapons: overpowered; acceptable; and not worth it. Assuming all other things equal you can think of these as how long does it take to respond to the threat? Overpowered (rocket pods) require a significant time investment in order to either not die or fight back. Acceptable (most firearms) falls into the range where the time it takes to respond equals the time it takes to kill making player skill at manipulating engagements important. Not worth it (default gunner weapons (m20 basilisk?)) gives the target much more time to respond lethally than it takes to kill them.
Using this scale go back and think about other fps games. You know which guns are crap and which are annoyingly good. The rest are a bland morass of personal preference. PS2 fits right into this system with the majority of weapons sitting in the acceptable range which is what a modern arena shooter aims for as in those games players who know the map can manipulate where and how they get into fights with enough skill to make the game less about weapon choice and more about personal ability. You can't do that in Planetside as the map is too large and the population too unruly to be able to predict player movement. I imagine this is another reason why people like biolabs as the insides can be memorized easily when compared to everything else.

Armor is also a tricky issue in fps as modern games lean to having a default hp pool that only gets expanded to the difference of one or two more bullets. There's no difference in approach when a lighter armor faces a heavier one as more accurate gunfire will always beat the armor difference. And speaking about armor here's a question, why do shields care about headshots? Arena games suffer if there is any great difference in armor as the time to decide on fight or flight is so tiny and they don't have the ability to put in mechanics to hinder the large effective hp armors that could balance them out. In PS1, MAXs were able to have a significantly different armor because they couldn't: Control their own move speed very well; change weapon type easily; heal or repair; use a few implants; and hack anything. They also had a vulnerability to AV weapons which meant that AV weapons were useful indoors as well as out. PS2 MAXs are infantry with large amounts of health and are treated as such rather than offering a markedly different puzzle.

Planetside isn't an arena shooter and can't use the same lessons to make a good game. It's ok to make mistakes with the game as long as you have the ability to admit to what happened and learn from it. It is not the mistake but the demonstration inability to learn from them that destroys player's hope. NewSith has done a good thing in trying to compile a list of items to spark discussion even if I can only agree with him on 3 of the positives. I really think that the devs would benefit from asking us to think about things well in advance so when they reach that point in development they have a thread or two of research they can look at rather than the jumble of threads and complaints that are around now.

[bpostal]

...
Generally for me, this is the root of the gameplay issues of PS2 - dumbing down to the lowest common denominator so we can get more players in...

While true, you gotta get people on board with drinking the kool-aid first, then tell them that their thetan count is high and they need to purge it by giving you all their money.

Planetside, while not overly complicated, had much more moving parts that tightly interacted with each other. Each part had to be explained, examined and understood before it's effect on the overall could be perceived. That is why the dumbing down has occurred. We're long past the days of large player manuals that were required to be read before playing the game. Games now a day are much more 'plug and play'.

Personally I would have preferred if a large portion of these in depth systems were in place for beta, for those who understand or are willing to research these mechanics. That way they would have been able to be tested prior to their 'real' implementation, sometime after the game had launched.
I can understand why this did not occur, but it saddens me nonetheless.

[Ghoest9]

disingenuous crap.

I stopped reading when you brought up the HA AV as an example of of how I was wrong about classes only certing for one 1 weapon.


Seriously just go away since you wont grow up.

[RykerStruvian]

I just don't see why SOE can't implement a test server where they use the mechanics of PS1 in PS2. We should be the judge of what works and what doesnt....just give it a whirl.

[NewSith]

You are wrong about unlimited cert points.

1 You can only play one class at a time. It doesnt matter if you are good at 4 things or 1 thing since they are done seperately unlike PS1

2 You can only equip one weapon at a time - its doesnt matter if you have upgrades on 1 or 20 weapons. Because unlike PS1 you only carry one at a time.

3 Most of of the most expensive upgrades exist primarily as sinks and only offer marginal improvements.


Now if you want to complain about the nature of a class based game in general - thats reasonable(and has been said plenty of times.)
But within a class based system like this the unlimited certs dont hurt anything.
Now that I know whats useful and what works for me personally I could be just as effective with a small fraction of the cert points I have spent - but the game would be more boring just for having lost some variety.

If you allow me I will give you a certain example:

PlanetSide 1. TR.

Loadouts Bookmark:
1. Infiltrator
Agile Exosuit
Boltdriver
AMP Pistol
2 ACE Set to Motion Sensor
Ammo
2. Light Assault
Agile Exosuit
Cycler
AMP Pistol
Ammo
Mosquito to bail on rooftops
3. Combat Medic
Agile Exosuit
Punisher
AMP Pistol
Ammo
Medical Applicator (With Advanced Medic certed)
4. Engineer
Agile Exosuit
Cycler
AMP Pistol
FDU set to Turret and Aegis
Gluegun - to repair vehicles and upgrade Aegis with ammo terminal
BANK Kit to repair MAXes
Ammo
5. Heavy Assault
Reinforced Exosuit
Mini Chaingun
Striker
AMP Pistol
Ammo
Personal Shield Implant
6. MAX
Burster/Pounder/Dual Cycler
Ammo


As you can see class system is in fact not a system parallel to freefrom inventory, it is its direct derivative. Thus the limitations you see are not really limitations.

That with the fact thet you already spawn in a class alongside with quicker respawn times and there you have it.

[Figment]

I stopped reading when you brought up the HA AV as an example of of how I was wrong about classes only certing for one 1 weapon.


Seriously just go away since you wont grow up.

So bassically since you were wrong by default, didn't even read the actual points made you just decided to not just not read the argumentation (ha having three weapons on them by default), but to also declare any disagreement crap, thus ending debate with a random insult?

Nice depth to your argument. You said classes carried one weapon while each class carries at minimum two guns, including the pistols. AT MINIMUM, since the HA indeed does carry a third and while a different category, it is exactly the same as a rexo with AV and rifle/shotgun/HA.

No there is no Sweeper + Gauss. And why would you possibly bring two weapons in the same range and target category? I don't even see the point of certing them. Besides, pistols in ps2 work almost as well as shotguns close range. And even if you did, who would care? I brought dual Suppressors in PS1, one loaded with AP bullets, just so I would have some form of AV as I could not afford to have a Phoenix or Decimator due to limited certcost. Did it make me invincible? Does it make me more powerful than a default HA or player who can always switch to HA in PS2? No! It does not!

So what? You ignore that you can respawn much faster and next engagement you do have it. Since you don't care about over time use, why should you suddenly care if a person has two rifles? By the same argument you use, one can argue they may carry two, but only fire one. And if they share the same ammo inventory space (like in ps1), you can't even argue they can switch and maintain that longer. All you can argue is that they can better adapt to circumstances encountered with the same weapon. But again, that is fine with your argument that one can only use one thing at the exact same time.

Bassically, you are an insulting hypocrit who doesn't understand his own argument and thus resorts to childish insulting.

Who needs to grow up exactly?

[ShadetheDruid]

I think the class system is fine, they just need to add more stuff (and I would be surprised if they didn't). Class systems are a lot more flexible and allow for a lot more variety than people give them credit for, especially if the time is put into it by the designers.

It's also a hell of a lot easier to keep balanced, because at least the combinations of gear are somewhat predictable and the limits mean different playstyles can (or should, if the devs do it right) be kept equal. An open system on the other hand is very easy for people to break in dozens of ways the devs could never predict (any horror stories from PS1 vets of an innocuous combo of random things that were horrific if someone happened to combine them?). Of course a badly designed class system is also easy to break, but that's another matter entirely.

Just to be clear, it's not that I think the system as it is is perfect (I don't think i've seen a class system ever that I would call great as-is; the key is to have as much variety as possible within the theme*), or that an open system is bad per se.

Whether it should be as easy as it is to switch classes is debatable (I feel there's a middle ground somewhere), but what I do like is being able to switch specialisations without having to make extra characters. Sometimes I start playing only to find out I don't really feel like playing that class today, so I switch over. I like that freedom.

I'm also someone who specialises. A lot. Even within classes, and even with the "limited" number of options currently. Not everyone switches between what's needed depending on the situation to the point where everyone is "everything"; some of us prefer to specialise in the things we enjoy and ignore the rest (while still having that freedom to say "well, I feel like doing X instead now").

*Small reference point: I come from a D&D background, 3.5 specifically. Obviously a class based system, decent amount of variety.. not the best balance (because the designers didn't really think about what they were doing most of the time and just added things willy-nilly). But i've seen what the class system can become if you fix the broken stuff (mages :eek:) and add a ridiculous amount of variety. Classes within classes, options upon options out the butt, to the point where two people of the same class could be almost as different than two people of different classes.. all while keeping the different roles easy to manage, especially in regard to each other. As you can probably guess, i'm the kind of person that has a homebrew version of D&D that looks completely different than the version it's based on. :p

[NewSith]

I think the class system is fine, they just need to add more stuff (and I would be surprised if they didn't). Class systems are a lot more flexible and allow for a lot more variety than people give them credit for, especially if the time is put into it by the designers.

And once again, I said it - freeform inventory OR freeform classes.

What I mean by freeform classes is what you mentioned in the continuation of your post, "classes within classes". The only class that does that atm is MAX. Because it can either be AA, AV or AI or a mixture of 2.

Just to clarify what I mean by "freeform classes", take Infiltrator as example:


Tools (1 tool Equippable):

IFF
Radar Disruptors
Spotting Disruptors
Laser Designator (More G2A missiles, why not?)
Virus Installation Tools
Sticky Cameras
Holographic Decoys

Passive Abilities (1 Ability Equippable):

Advanced Spotting (Shows HP Bars, lasts longer)
Bullet Tracing
Stealth Knifng
Vehicle Temporary Shutdown Hacking
Group Radar Cloaking
HE Grenade Spotting Enemies in X tradius

Suits (1 Suit Equippable):

Ghost Cloak - Only Pistol, invisible to enemies while static
Hunter Cloak - And any modifications of it.
Standard Armor - No cloak, allows the use of Carbines (or SMGs if we still want to limit them).



There you have it, it is not a freeform inventory system, at all. But it is pretty much a freeform class, because it allows crapload of options.

[ShadetheDruid]

And once again, I said it - freeform inventory OR freeform classes.

Well, technically you used a "/" which could be interpreted as something other than an "or". :p I guess just take my post as a general thing, since that stuff is always in my mind when classes come up (they, as a concept, always take a beating). I wasn't trying to pick on you specifically.

Just to clarify what I mean by "freeform classes", take Infiltrator as example:

Potential for specialization, on exmple of Infiltrator Class:

*Stuff*

There you have it, it is not a freeform inventory system, at all. But it is pretty much a freeform class, because it allows crapload of options.

Yeah, that's pretty nifty stuff. I really hope they add all that sort of thing. Particularly this stood out to me, because it was exactly what I was thinking about when I was making my post:

Standard Armor - No cloak, allows the use of Carbines (or SMGs if we still want to limit them).

I'd also include shotguns in that. After all, it wasn't shotguns themselves that make infils OP in beta, it was the combo of shotguns + cloak. Plus they're already more flimsy than everyone else, so giving them better weapons at the cost of the cloak isn't going to make them CQC battlehouses.

[Ghoest9]

So bassically since you were wrong by default, didn't even read the actual points made you just decided to not just not read the argumentation (ha having three weapons on them by default), but to also declare any disagreement crap, thus ending debate with a random insult?

...stuff i didnt bother reading

No I was right but since you repeatedly engage in bad faith arguments Im no going to bother with details for you

You are wrong over all and dishonest frequently. Im not going to bother sorting what you say to separate the arguable points from the dishobesty - its not fair to me to have to do that.

Just go away or at least dont talk to me. Ive called you on bad faith arguments before and you persist - you are a bad and dishonest person(or at least your forum persona is.)

[Figment]

You and your "dishonest" crap. Admit you just aren't mature enough to debate.

All you do is insult and whine that someone else is wrong, without having even the courtesy to read and then retort argumentation. Grow some balls and debate.

If you think I'm being dishonest, point out the flaw in the argument instead of throwing a childish tantrum.

[Furber]

One thing to add to what PS2 could easily have that PS1 did right: auto walk

[Emperor Newt]

If I understand the op right:

Limited Certification Points.
There are amny people claiming that many things can be balanced by increasing certcosts. You can't do that if your CP income is infinite. Limit the amount of CPs you can get per BattleRank and there you have a wonderful balancing factor.

I would disagree here. At least not until there is an option to regain and respent certs.
It's currently way too easy to make a purchase you later regret and also there is just a shitload of stuff to get and prices aren't balanced (some sidegrades 4x the price of others etc)
If you cap it so that a BR40 can get everything, well then the whole capping of certs is pointless.

[Figment]

Newt: that you could reset would come naturally.

The only thing to look at would be station cash purchases.



An alternative you could do is overlay the current system with a certsystem skin to ps1 based on battle ranks, while you research equipment based on earned certpoints: you unlock groups of weapons as a class, in which you can only use those items you spent your certpoints on. The remainder of certs would be used to research things you can't quite use.

Could call those battle rank acquired points: equipment points, or if you want players to make choices between specific options, you could even call them suit points, vehicle points, weapon class points, etc.

Once you have that, you could also re-evaluate class customization in terms of weapons. Engineer or medic with AV or carbine or lmg shouldn't be an issue. Nor should a HA with shotgun and rifle (opposed to AV).

But people will find a bullcrap reason to call that op and happily fire their high rof he rounds in the meantime..

(I find it really ironic that the only thing people thought were sometimes silly to combine was ps1 medic and engi (which wasn't even op if you didn't lemming into their optimum range and simply beat them by getting and keeping them in your own optimal range or working together), resulting in the combination banning of pretty much every combination of weapons vs support abilities for grunt classes). I'm still rather annoyed with that and I personally never even certed medic in ps1 and only got about 150 kills with HA out of 60K kills or so.

People just wern't that bright to deal with it or too stupid to ring EMP grenades to disable pshield and check if there was someone there. (Always fun to blow a boomer they were just placing too).