You know what PS2 is missing?

[p0intman]

base design in ps2 is missing something for me (and im sure others). Because its really only something that ps1 guys will 'get', I'm going to explain it with a story.

One of the things CR5s in ps1 did, was act as a fast response group of sorts. Whenever any base was hacked that wasn't on the current empire primary cont or even the secondary cont (when we had those..), we were often the ones to arrive and deal with the situation so that maybe our empire could stay where it was and finish capping the cont.

Heres a map of Esamir, the better one:
http://i50.tinypic.com/osv7v8.jpg

I was responding to a particular hack at Ran Bio Lab, which for reference is the southwestern connection to the continent. It had been hacked by the TR through their connection to the continent via ishundar if i recall. Anyway, I dropped on top of it and looked around the courtyard for signs of an ams. None available, but then they are cloaked, so there shouldn't be any signs of them. There wasn't any CE (mines, turrets, etc) out, either.

So it was either a ghost hack or they weren't concerned about the courtyard. I had seen on my way in that the generator was at critical, so I dropped down from the roof and checked the gen room out. Nobody there, but there was a single boomer on the ground, it would have been used to kill the generator had I brought the spawns up first.

The small problem this presents is if I kill the boomer, they know where I am and can come straight for me. If I go bring the spawns up, they can kill the gen - without the gen, spawns don't work anyway. So, I shot the boomer and defused it. Hit surge (fast run mode) and run downstairs through the base. If you're fast enough in PS1, you can evade others shooting at you by literally dodging bullets.

On my way down, I saw six guys, and two maxes. I had figured it was a 50 percent chance of being a ghost and being serious. Six softies and two maxes: Serious. At this point, there are two choices to make. I can wait, and wait for my backup who was two minutes behind me, or I can sound the alarm and bring some pretty serious firepower in. It turns out, the second one could very well be *exactly* what they wanted. I saw eight guys in the stairs, and didn't check the control room. There could have been more there, but I didn't check and didn't have my command uplink device with me, no idea why.

Anyway, why would they want me to escalate? In order to draw forces off of another continent and tip the population in their balance. So, I chose to wait for the 4 or 5 others and hoped we could deal with fighting outnumbered. Sure enough, three minutes later a friendly cr5 mentions on command chat that he saw their ams and is taking it out. Turns out, they also had a router set up, which would have allowed for rapid respawning and returning to battle.

This effectively amplifies the amount of force you can have present. A minute after that, five guys drop at the back door and surge to the spawn room, we bring the spawn tubes up and barely resecure the base with a couple of minutes left on the 15 minute hack.

So, what about that is awesome you ask? I was able to evade 8+ enemies long enough to get a good idea of their actual strength and plans by being fast, sneaky and efficient. Through actual player skill, game knowledge and fast decision making, I and a handful of others fought above our belt and stopped what was going to become a massive headache for the rest of the empire.

That is, in essence, the bar that I hold planetside 2 gameplay up to as a standard it needs to achieve. Is it possible it can be achieved? Maybe. Probably not. In order to do so, we need to stop catering to those who don't want to actually use their brains ingame.

Mindless zerging, ghost capping, and deciding fights with numbers only need to all go out the window, though. That is pretty much the only real way forward, IMO.

No tldr. I wrote it, GO READ IT. If you ask for TLDR, you will be blocked.

[Dougnifico]

I think with a good lattice and more continents the same can still be done. Nothing is PS2's gameplay mechanics prevents this, only meta-game mechanics. It sadly could be a while, but I have faith that eventually the game will evolve and we can have the exciting adventures we all used to love.

Start a campaign, 10 continents in 2014! lol

[ChipMHazard]

So... You want to emulate an experience you had in Planetside 1 in Planetside 2?

Got any specific gameplay improvements in mind? Base design changes? Spawning changes? Spawn room changes?

From what I understand this is just a lenghty anecdote which in turn leads to the conclusion that numbers play a bigger part in PS2 than it did in PS1, that there's less focused gameplay to be found and there needs to be a reason to defend.
It might be prudent to wait for the new lattice-like system + base design changes to hit the live servers, and the new continents of course (When we finally get to see them that is).

Edit: There is one thing that will never change. Numbers will have a greater impact in certain situations than they did in PS1, simply because there are more players.

[Ghost Runner]

I was gonna say maps but this falls in with that thought. :)

[Qwan]

Gameplay like this is what got me playing PS1 so much, and having fun while doing it. Dont see much of this in PS2, playing PS2 has turned me into a cert and XP whore. :cry: each night I find my self at the crown selling my body for the next big cert or xp pay out. I feel so dirty afterwards, but its the only way to improve my weapons and be competative in the game. The sad thing is Ill be doing it again tonight, standing on the hill south of the crown, waiting for my target to presend itself, or running up the hill charging the crown dropping C4 on unsuspecting vehicles in my path. But this is what PS has come to, this is what it has evolved into. BR means nothing, and CR is totally non-existant. I enjoyed reading your post, it brought back to cool memories, but tonight ill be signing in and going back to the crown to whore for more certs and XP.

[Assist]

You can do almost all of that currently, there's just no reason too. The only thing is right now you really can't prevent that zerg from coming. There's no real preparation to taking a base right now, so the zerg has no reason to send a force ahead to scout or prepare a base.

The two main problems with that scenario in PS2 currently:
1 - No reason to prep a base. Zerg can do it just as effectively and there's just not enough reward for being the scout team in the front.
2 - Bases are too easy to take, with no reason to defend one once it already has a zerg in place. In your PS1 scenario, if they were going to go full out on that base, you had time to respond and get people there. There's no reason for people to leave their base that is about to capture and defend a base that you're losing. The player mentality is that the zerg will just take that base back once the one they're at captures, and unfortunately it's the more efficient way for the zerg to act currently. I don't think there needs to be more incentive for defending a base, but there needs to be way more incentive to re-take a base that is flipped already. The two ways of creating that are to either create penalties for losing bases (Players think 'oh shit, we're losing X benefi't sort of like the loss of all tech plants), or they could just add rewards for resecuring bases ('oh shit, we can get mad XP if we stop X faction from taking our base!')

I think this all goes back to resources and bases having no meaningful impact on game play.

[NewSith]

You can do almost all of that currently, there's just no reason too. The only thing is right now you really can't prevent that zerg from coming. There's no real preparation to taking a base right now, so the zerg has no reason to send a force ahead to scout or prepare a base.

The two main problems with that scenario in PS2 currently:
1 - No reason to prep a base. Zerg can do it just as effectively and there's just not enough reward for being the scout team in the front.
2 - Bases are too easy to take, with no reason to defend one once it already has a zerg in place. In your PS1 scenario, if they were going to go full out on that base, you had time to respond and get people there. There's no reason for people to leave their base that is about to capture and defend a base that you're losing. The player mentality is that the zerg will just take that base back once the one they're at captures, and unfortunately it's the more efficient way for the zerg to act currently. I don't think there needs to be more incentive for defending a base, but there needs to be way more incentive to re-take a base that is flipped already. The two ways of creating that are to either create penalties for losing bases (Players think 'oh shit, we're losing X benefi't sort of like the loss of all tech plants), or they could just add rewards for resecuring bases ('oh shit, we can get mad XP if we stop X faction from taking our base!')

I think this all goes back to resources and bases having no meaningful impact on game play.

...and the reasons for that are so multiple, you can't even begin to say that there's something particular to blame.


Here're just a few things different from PS1 that affect the game in relation to what you describe:
CE pool size
Expendability of overpowered resources (as in material resources, not THE resources)
Base interior designs
Base outer designs
Weapon Balance
TTK
Lack of directional assistance
No full capture of continents (in a sence that the enemy has nowhere to spawn)
and there's much MUCH more...

[Assist]

...and the reasons for that are so multiple, you can't even begin to say that there's something particular to blame.


Here're just a few things different from PS1 that affect the game in relation to what you describe:
CE pool size
Expendability of overpowered resources (as in material resources, not THE resources)
Base interior designs
Base outer designs
Weapon Balance
TTK
Lack of directional assistance
No full capture of continents (in a sence that the enemy has nowhere to spawn)
and there's much MUCH more...

eh, I'd remove some from that list.
I'd take out interior base design, weapon balance, TTK, and directional assistance. Directional assistance doesn't fit on the list, as that goes with incentive to do something. It's one of the reasons I've never fully understood the implementation of the lattice-hex system, as it doesn't solve the problem of where the fight should go. There's nothing in the lattice-hex that prevents what currently is happening on live servers. But, the lattice-hex does pave the way for changes to everything we want, so I'm all for it.

Weapon balance is really good between factions, exceptionally good for a newer FPS IMO. Either way, it doesn't really effect anything in what Pointman described. TTK I personally have an issue with, but I think it could be overlooked by adding in some of the things to make Pointman's scenario possible. I don't think changing TTK will change how the game plays from a strategic/meta-game point of view.

I also don't have a problem with the interior design of bases. I think it's just too easy to get to the interior. Fights inside Amp stations are fairly good, the problem is as a defender it is very hard to stop an assault on an Amp station. Bio labs I feel the same way, the interior is fine, but the exterior is just.. bad. Rarely do people use the lower areas of the Bio Labs for defense, everything is just pushed inside.

[leifnielsen]

Because its really only something that ps1 guys will 'get'

^This.

It's been 10 years. I fully expect PS2 to eventually surpass the awesomeness that was PS1 by the end of it's lifetime. Hopefully a hell of a lot sooner.

[Ironside]

game lacks soul, it will never run on a linear path to ps1, higby and co will make sure of that,
i leave my brain at the door, jump in and rack a few kills up then log

[leifnielsen]

It'll get there. PS1 didn't start out perfect either.






Disclaimer: In the event that it does not get there, I will go into a blind rage and wear Higby's skin. :evil:

[ChipMHazard]

Indeed. Sadly it does seem like it will take quite some time for that to happen.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l162/Lord_crapalot/gbushbeard_zps1ce20c36.gif
Dibs on the beard.

[Figment]

So... You want to emulate an experience you had in Planetside 1 in Planetside 2?

More or less: being able to fight superior numbers through smart decision making and outwitting your opponent.

Currently, there are too many factors that mitigate that sort of thing for the numerical superior force.

Got any specific gameplay improvements in mind? Base design changes? Spawning changes? Spawn room changes?

I'd say a bucket load of changes, an all encompassing vision. This isn't just "one thing" you can change, it's a large combination of changes.

From what I understand this is just a lenghty anecdote which in turn leads to the conclusion that numbers play a bigger part in PS2 than it did in PS1, that there's less focused gameplay to be found and there needs to be a reason to defend.

Not really, it's a summation of factors and a scenario showcasing a sequence of events and the effect of decisions, base layout and TTK.

I'd even say third person, though he didn't mention it. Third person after all, allows you to observe and make decisions without giving your presence away. It showcases the current game is not big on stealth and timing your attack, the current game is far more immediate action oriented (due to being spotted as you try to spot the enemy, not being able to look around corners and thus finding yourself spotted, often before you spot the enemy), which is largely due to the lack of third person. The lack of observation makes for hasty and poor decisions, which favour the larger group.

It might be prudent to wait for the new lattice-like system + base design changes to hit the live servers, and the new continents of course (When we finally get to see them that is).

Those won't impact this.

Edit: There is one thing that will never change. Numbers will have a greater impact in certain situations than they did in PS1, simply because there are more players.

Wrote a long essay at first, but decided not to post it, it'd just be seen as a wall of text. Problem is it's simply too complex to describe in an alinea.

You're right that numbers in PS2 can lead to larger differences in group size and therefore leverage differences, but that's all the more reason to reduce the leverage of groups, rather than increase it.

Currently basically any of the PS2 systems independently strengthen groups. In combination, these effects get far more powerful. The end result is that the power of a group is not just a bit greater, but so great you can't overcome it.



We beat 10:1 odds or greater in PS1 by playing smart and using the systems in place to our advantage. In PS2 95% of those systems have been turned into convenience solutions, negating any advantage we could get over them and turning it into a group advantage.

Small groups simply can't compete by outwitting the enemy and taking time, patience, stealth and observation is irrelevant to current PS2 gameplay, simply because everything enforces and rewards AND punishes direct action. It's a lose-lose situation. It's why things like solo-MBTs + seat switching are far more impacting than they may appear to players who don't actually understand the different consequences of the design and the consequences of combining those things.

It's probably why we see so many rather naive players keep stepping up to defend current design. As P0intman already said, they just don't get it: they can't compare it to anything else. I'm also often under the impression that a lot of those players are in outfits that can field large numbers, or they're farmers of sorts. :/

[Crator]

What is needed to make this happen?

Something that can easily be interpreted on the map by the defender which tells them how long it will take to capture a location. *The test server has this now!

The capture time must give enough time for the defender to respond.

*Side Note: The distance between locations in PS2 is a lot less then it is in PS1. Therefore the pains of having to travel farther are almost non-existent in PS2. This, along with how fast current capture times are, doesn't give enough time for defenders to realize they need to get to the base to secure it. Also, like someone else already said, it really doesn't matter because it doesn't take that long to re-capture a location so you get this back and forth of capturing locations, especially towards the center of the map where the 3 empires meet. PS1 also had 1 to 2 choke-points on many of the bases where players HAD TO clash or gave combat engineers locations to put deployables to slow down enemy ground movements and give enough time for defenders to recognize and respond before the base was reached by the enemy.

Of course, the cloaked AMS and Router combo were great tools to use to sustain an attack on a base in this manner as well.

[Fenrys]

Casinos, with blackjack, and booze, and hookers (NC).

[NewSith]

Directional assistance doesn't fit on the list, as that goes with incentive to do something. It's one of the reasons I've never fully understood the implementation of the lattice-hex system, as it doesn't solve the problem of where the fight should go. There's nothing in the lattice-hex that prevents what currently is happening on live servers. But, the lattice-hex does pave the way for changes to everything we want, so I'm all for it.

Directional Assistance is purely psychological thing. The alerts system is entirely a directional assistance feature and look how many players got attracted by it apparently... I assume you realise that I by no means imply that the new rush lanes are a complete feature, however it gives brainless (I don't mean it in a bad way, I mean players that want to play without being obliged with descisions, constantly or temporary) player the much needed directions and directives.

Weapon balance is really good between factions, exceptionally good for a newer FPS IMO.

ES balance will always be a subject of endless arguments, I'm talking more about some common balance, like shotguns vs rifles, RoF weapons vs hard-hitters (and no, I don't mean TR vs Everybody. Just compare Mercenary and GD7F on NC and you'll see what I'm talking about).

But, true that, "either way, it doesn't really effect anything in what Pointman described."

TTK I personally have an issue with, but I think it could be overlooked by adding in some of the things to make Pointman's scenario possible. I don't think changing TTK will change how the game plays from a strategic/meta-game point of view.

It will, but I am a fan of the current TTK. The items I included are "what's different", not exactly "what's bad". This is especially valid with TTK.

I also don't have a problem with the interior design of bases.
Just to clarify - Doors, Windows, ramps, it's all part of the designs. In additio, I say that I have a problem with inner designs, also because of LAs.

[wasdie]

game lacks soul, it will never run on a linear path to ps1, higby and co will make sure of that,
i leave my brain at the door, jump in and rack a few kills up then log

That kind of goes against everything my outfit did this weekend.

The mindless zerg existed in Planetside 1 as well. However when you go from 133 players on your faction to 600, the zerg gains quite a bit more momentum.

The map changes coupled with some improved bases should do wonders for corralling in the zerg.

[Figment]

It will, but I am a fan of the current TTK. The items I included are "what's different", not exactly "what's bad". This is especially valid with TTK.

It would make a HUGE difference tbh. But that's an entire debate in and on itself, but basically a longer TTK allows for more and better decision making, reduces the luck factor and reduces the capacity of large groups to drop people before they can do any damage. :/

We've had a long discussion on that before.


But in the above scenario, a shorter TTK would have made it a lot harder for P0intman to kite those players using hit and run tactics and keep himself alive: any time he'd have gotten into view with a shorter TTK, he'd risk not just taking some quick damage, but getting offed (which is the case today) and thus out of the fight.

He'd need a lot more luck to for instance surge through a pack of enemies, since with a shorter TTK the chances of having sufficient time for that move are reduced drastically.

The viable tactics, strategies and therefore the options for combat are reduced and with it the chances of success.

[ChipMHazard]

More or less: being able to fight superior numbers through smart decision making and outwitting your opponent.

Currently, there are too many factors that mitigate that sort of thing for the numerical superior force.

Still takes place. Although the lack of important secondary objectives does limit ones ability to do so, when it comes to base fights.

Yes there are, the gameplay does and will presumably continue to favor those with greater numbers.

I'd say a bucket load of changes, an all encompassing vision. This isn't just "one thing" you can change, it's a large combination of changes.

There are indeed. Nothing we haven't seen before presented via less anecdotal means. But I guess I shouldn't fault someone from wanting to remind the devs of what needs still needs changing nor for wanting to do so in a bit more creative fashion.

Not really, it's a summation of factors and a scenario showcasing a sequence of events and the effect of decisions, base layout and TTK.

I'd even say third person, though he didn't mention it. Third person after all, allows you to observe and make decisions without giving your presence away. It showcases the current game is not big on stealth and timing your attack, the current game is far more immediate action oriented (due to being spotted as you try to spot the enemy, not being able to look around corners and thus finding yourself spotted, often before you spot the enemy), which is largely due to the lack of third person. The lack of observation makes for hasty and poor decisions, which favour the larger group.

Again. Although I will note that I don't really have a problem with the TTK with most infantry weapons, just too many have OHK capabilities. I would like to see a slight increase though, but overall I'm generally happy with how fast most weapons kill.
I am fine with the MBTs' health in their current form, although I do not like their current form.

Not something I miss, nor like in tactical shooters. Gives players too much situational awareness and promotes camping behaviour, based on my own experience.
It's fine in vehicles, but I dislike it when it comes to infantry. Would most certainly prefer being able to peak than having third person view.
You're right about the lack of situational awareness favoring the bigger group, in some situations. Running around a corner and right into the enemy will certainly be a more lethal mistake if there's a lot of enemies waiting than if there's just a few. Of course there are ways to quickly look around corners without also presenting oneself to enemy fire, or rather without presenting the whole body.
In other situations it favors the lone soldiers as they will be able to sneak up on enemies or run around between groups of players more easily(Making use of the limited FOV that first person view has).

Those won't impact this.

It should help in making the zergs meet each other, limiting ghost capping more. From what I've seen many bases have had their defensive capabilities improved, although there's still air spam and LA's to contend with. As to continents, who knows. We have no idea what kind of base layouts will be seeing there. But alone? No, other changes will be required. Like a revamp of the generator system (Make them more important while also placing them inside defensible rooms), spawn room location etc.



You're right that numbers in PS2 can lead to larger differences in group size and therefore leverage differences, but that's all the more reason to reduce the leverage of groups, rather than increase it.

Currently basically any of the PS2 systems independently strengthen groups. In combination, these effects get far more powerful. The end result is that the power of a group is not just a bit greater, but so great you can't overcome it.

We beat 10:1 odds or greater in PS1 by playing smart and using the systems in place to our advantage. In PS2 95% of those systems have been turned into convenience solutions, negating any advantage we could get over them and turning it into a group advantage.

Small groups simply can't compete by outwitting the enemy and taking time, patience, stealth and observation is irrelevant to current PS2 gameplay, simply because everything enforces and rewards AND punishes direct action. It's a lose-lose situation. It's why things like solo-MBTs + seat switching are far more impacting than they may appear to players who don't actually understand the different consequences of the design and the consequences of combining those things.

It's probably why we see so many rather naive players keep stepping up to defend current design. As P0intman already said, they just don't get it: they can't compare it to anything else. I'm also often under the impression that a lot of those players are in outfits that can field large numbers, or they're farmers of sorts. :/

You mean having a 2 man crew requirement for MBTs, walls without big holes in them (Making sure that LAs have a harder time getting past the defenses in what ever way possible), base design that not only favors the defenders more but also favors infantry fights more (Interior design that prevents armor and aircraft from deciding the outcome.), important secondary objectives that forces the attacking force to split up while also being defensible etc. Is that some of the types of changes that you're referring to?

In most cases, yes. In a few cases it is possible for a smaller force to take out a larger force by taking out the Sunderers (Basicly just taking out the enemy's spawn capabilities) then focusing on enemy armor/air. At which point it's actually a boon that MBTs have the health that they do.
For the most part it seems like it's the enemy's airforce that makes it impossible to counter an attack when outnumbered, imo.

There aren't that many systems to take advantage of, true. The only real system you can take advantage of is the spawn system. It's rather simple, if not always easy, to deprive an enemy force of its spawn points.
You can still outsmart and beat your enemy, even if you're outnumbered 10:1. PS2 just doesn't have any systems/designs that really focus on helping with that, for example it's too easy to camp defenders and the attackers all focus on that tactic.
Of course the problem is that while it may be possible for a single skilled player to take out ten enemies, can the same be said about sixty players taking out sixhundred? My point being that from what I've seen the more players that are involved the more the difference actually matters.
This doesn't distract from your points thought, simply something to keep in mind.

Seeing as we will be getting static capture times back it should allow for patience and observation of enemy position to play more of a role than it arguably did before.. uhm, does now.
The reason why many, if not most, players disregard the issues caused my soloable MBTs is probably the same reason why I disregarded them; soloable tanks work in more closed environments with far fewer players being capable of using them. The scale of Planetside 2 simply doesn't allow for this sort of balancing.

The devs certainly do need to make it far more feasible for smaller outfits to have an impact, besides grouping up into bigger alliances. But, so far I've only seen the devs make changes that favor the larger outfits, hopefully that will change soon.
Don't misconstrue being part of a big outfit as being incapable of understanding the issues in the game.

[ringring]

My personal opinion is that underlying it all is the decision to 'hand craft' continents is to blame. I can understand why this was done and who am I to say it was wrong.

But because of that we only have 3 continents and are possibly looking at another couple of years before we get 10 if we ever do.

And since the game launched with only three continents (and it nearly was two) each cont had to be treated as an independent map, so all we really have is a larger scale fps and that's it.

[Qwan]

Casinos, with blackjack, and booze, and hookers (NC).

Ill be your hooker for certs and XP. :D :rofl:


Guys we know whats missing in the game, alot of people sign in get certs, and to them its just a big shooter. But for use thinkers, and stratagist we want more, we want strategy, mixed in with team coordination and actions that will change the face of continents. We want epic battles which arent just a bunch of guys worried about there K/D ratio. Idea's that change the course of a battle turning it into your factions favor and being known as the outfit, clan, or group of grunts who turned that battle. The object is to get your outfit known not because of numbers, but because of what they have done on that battlefield. Outfits like M.A.P., VVG, Azures Twighlight, 666 devil dogs, outfits that have come over from PS1 and showed in PS1 that they can make a difference. Unfortinatly with the way the game is run right now, its hard to shine in the chaos but I think that as time goes by a lot of the rules will change into our favor and outfits will be able to make a name for themselves. But all of that is in the future, as the game developes I hope that the Dev's see that this mindless back and forth battle which calls itself Planetside 2 will have to evolve and make the right choices on were this game needs to go.

[Figment]

Oh I know Chip, that's why I speak in terms of leverage and group differentiation and power distance a lot.

Something which I see too few players do. Especially those in favour of the status quo, don't seem to think much in those terms.



The thing is, we can talk about individual changes a lot, but a scenario and anekdote like P0intman shared provides a context, background and an idea on how different details, systems and concepts work together and how the player interacts with them.

We've talked a lot about single concepts, because limiting the scope is easier for people to grasp. But whenever I propose an idea, or talk about something, it is part of a big, all-encompassing multi-facetted vision. I've said before "these changes on their own will probably not provide the desired effect", for instance with regards to my suggestions for the bio dome flow.

All those things together provide a good new flow, but if one would only make certain changes on their own (without compensatory changes for instance), those would even provide detrimental effects to the flow.

That's one reason why I feel people that say "but I like to drive a MBT solo so screw you" are simply not looking at the bigger picture. Their egocentrism creates a buttload of problems elsewhere in the design of the game.





PS: I'm not saying that anyone who's in a bigger outfit cannot see it. I'm just saying the average player in there is less prone to suffering the consequences of it and may not give it the same weight to it, if they perceive the problem at all because they don't encounter it. There are simply a lot of people that will remark things like "join a good outfit then", by which they mean a big outfit, not a good outfit.

[p0intman]

base design needs to change and there need to be reasons to go and prep a base. chip, see my n+x problem thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=54225) for your other answers.

imo, current base design and capture mechanics are trash and need to be reworked. biolab is a step in the right-ish direction, but doesn't go far enough.

[AThreatToYou]

Myself being a former PS1 player for many years through, I cannot really tell you one thing that PS2 needs in order to allow that sort of tactical gameplay that PS2 lacks. Even so, right now PS2 is all strategy and even then the strategy is extremely thin, so what we are left with are thin tactics. Thin thin thin.

The tactics portion (in-combat decisions) of PS2 could be expanded immediately by increasing the TTK. This would give every player more time to make decisions that affect the outcome of an individual engagement. I don't know if that's a good idea though.

PS2 does have a recoil mechanic over PS1, but you can't exactly abuse the recoil mechanic of an opponents weapon. You can abuse their range limitations, just like in PS1, and this is good.


Right now, the HA and LA have tactics advantages because the HA has a shield it can decide to use in combat and the LA has a jetpack they can decide to use in combat. The Engineer and Medic have their advantages too, but they are less so for in-combat use.

In the meta; or the strategy, or your plan for combat, what you are going to do, where to go, how to conquer and such, PS2 is practically empty. We have hexes on the map to take over and these mostly insignificant bonuses for holding an entire map, except we can't actually hold an entire map and actually dominate the enemy by locking them into single locations. They can fall back to any one of three immediately and you can't, well, that's not really the problem, but... there are no sancs, there is no lattice, bases have too many entry points. That's not all, of course.

Pre-planning where an attack can be is hard, but it will be made easier. What can we actually do before that attack happens, though? Really, all I think we can do in PS2 is go out and attack them, maybe laying a few cherry-picked mine traps every once in awhile. It's probably better move to attack an enemy where they are rather than try and defend in the first place, since you'll just be giving them ground and letting them surround you and abuse an absurd amount of entry points all at once.

Basically, it encourages battling for territory around the central bases rather than actually fighting for the bases, right? That's a problem. Biggest problem is the bases and the terrain around the bases, not any incentive to defend or attack the base; correcting the areas around the base, providing a lattice-like system, and the bases themselves should be enough.

But we'll need things to do with this base. Minefields, convenient routers, keeping the terms up (PS1 had a limited number of vehicle/equipment terms per base! This is kind of important!), securing the tubes, etc.
I really think PS2 should not have done away with "Defend the spawn tubes!"
Right now its just defend a very distant series of generators that all end up in the enemy destroying the SCU. That really isn't fun.

I would mostly suggest moving the spawns underground with a tunnel network (the tunnels don't have to be nearly as narrow in PS1), and having the capture point remain inside the base at a central location, but a good distance away from the spawns. That way, it's like a tech plant in PS1: a long extended fight that has a good chance of going until the hack is nearly complete, since the enemy's generator and spawn tubes are underground where they can easily defend it with fewer numbers.

[Rivenshield]

We beat 10:1 odds or greater in PS1 by playing smart and using the systems in place to our advantage. In PS2 95% of those systems have been turned into convenience solutions, negating any advantage we could get over them and turning it into a group advantage.

That's perhaps overstating things a bit, but... yeah. Right there with ya. Good teamwork and lots of CE toys and the *incentive* to fight like a rabid wolverine -- to delay and attrit the enemy until reinforcements arrived, until they got bored and left, until they were threatened elsewhere and left -- all of this is completely absent.

We hollered for the AMS. We hollered for bases that weren't wet tissue paper to defend. We hollered for the lattice. In each case, we got what we wanted begrudgingly, belatedly, and incompletely. At risk of sounding like a prima donna bittervet, we don't have time for this.

How about some smaller continents, perhaps half the size of the monsters we have now? How about turning the VR training centers into islets and *calling* them sanctuaries? Wouldn't that *save* development time, potentially, compared to the paroff in play value? How about randomly rotating warpgates connecting them all, with a timer on the map that counts down when they're rotating and what they'll be connecting to an hour beforehand, so people can think strategically again?

How about kinda-weak-but-plentiful PS1 mines -- call it the General Purpose Mine, maybe -- and Spitfires and motion sensors and deployable barricades, so we can once again alter our environment and plug the holes in those outlandishly huge bases and delay (but not hold off indefinitely) an overwhelming enemy? How about bringing back Spheres Of Influence within which IA will not work? and an IA button that, from sanc, works as often as you want it to and plants you wherever you want to be? How about a continental queue that works? so you can measure your finite play time against the need of your own empire to keep a vital continent pop-locked?

And in the sinning-by-omission department: Why are we still getting XP for ghost-capping empty bases? Why are griefers and ADS teenagers still able to swap sides at the drop of a hat? Why don't we have a bloody freaking USER'S GUIDE????11!!1??? How the bloody Christ is *anyone* supposed to make sense of the map, the interface, the varying factions, the cert system, or anything else without something they can download, print out, and refer to without breaking gameplay? Who the fuck decided it was okay to release a piece of major enterprise software without a user's guide? or even a series of cheat sheets....?!? And why do they still have a job?

/senior level tech writer nerd-rage mode on

[ChipMHazard]

PS: I'm not saying that anyone who's in a bigger outfit cannot see it. I'm just saying the average player in there is less prone to suffering the consequences of it and may not give it the same weight to it, if they perceive the problem at all because they don't encounter it. There are simply a lot of people that will remark things like "join a good outfit then", by which they mean a big outfit, not a good outfit.

True enough.

base design needs to change and there need to be reasons to go and prep a base.

imo, current base design and capture mechanics are trash and need to be reworked. biolab is a step in the right-ish direction, but doesn't go far enough.

Agreed.

[Zeta]

It's been 10 years. I fully expect PS2 to eventually surpass the awesomeness that was PS1 by the end of it's lifetime. Hopefully a hell of a lot sooner.

I cannot stress enough how much they need to hurry. In this day and age when someone stops playing a game, or uninstalls it, they rarely ever come back. For better or worse, it's all about first impressions, and I sure hope PS2 didn't miss theirs.

Yes, PS1 had been around for 10 years, but in those 10 years the game was mostly finished within the first 2.

Also, when PS1 first came out it had all 10 continents, working warpgates, implants, buggies, and a lot more little features, like orbital strikes. PS2s release was much more sparse than PS1s.

[AuntLou]

I experience very similar situations to this story in Planetside 2 all the time. If your not experiencing this then your not looking.

[Carbon Copied]

While I joined PS1 late in it's life and only for a short while; I know what Pointman is getting at and the issues raised are ones that are at the forefront of the majority of topics. Without reiterating all of them base design and layout is the number one offender. Even with the simple King of the Hill gameplay there doesn't feel anything to them, no character or substance; they're just another deathmatch arena of crates and huts.

The rehauled outposts on test are a good start to what I hope is something that's going to snowball into something bigger and better - they definitely have that feeling of going in the right direction for the "speed bumps" with catwalks and second tier platforms (although they do need tweaking with regards to that age old spawn room placement problem) - minor adjustments but definitely the right direction.
Test is actually great at the moment for just jumping in and looking around the continent; and that's when it hits how seemingly random and scattered the designs (mechanics aside) are from the air. Not only do they feel random but they seemingly have very little practical logic to them. Now you can be critical and most will see the tiniest flaws in "defense" but I'm not sure how it can be expected to convince a player with that "suspension of disbelief" if basic defense and layout principles just don't seem to be there? It's like you're trying to convince me that Nanite Systems pitched up, established defensive outposts on an alien world but forgot to actually make them defensive??

Theres no substance inside these mega structures either - I think that they're seriously impressive on the outside and the tech labs at least are very imposing and when I first saw them as an attacker (leaving out the defense side as there's plenty on it already) I had this feeling of "shit this is going to be amazing" then you're greeted by (attached image) inside:

Bit of anticlimax unless looking for a deathmatch arena - and that's not what I thought/hoped PS2 was about.. It's like watching a film trailer with epic scenes and music only to find out the best bits were actually only in the trailer.
This isn't a whine as I seriously hope that better designs are being played around with along the lines of "moat/road block/speed bump" analogy, neither is it a problem thats solved overnight. It's just clearly one of many burning issues and concerns.


Edit: Ever since that FNO interview with Mat Broome and the way he describes how he comes up with what he styles and designs made a huge impact in how I look at things in this game and at things with regards to that suspension of disbelief (or the lack of it times). In the video below listening to him describe the character he's creating I think about sums up my take on "suspension of disbelief" (8:10 onwards)

http://youtu.be/9FGwl2gh6EE?t=8m12s

[Illtempered]

I experience very similar situations to this story in Planetside 2 all the time. If your not experiencing this then your not looking.

This. I know PS2 isn't Planetside. I loved Planetside as much as anybody, but I'm having too much fun in PS2 to worry about the differences.

Then again it may just be the server I'm on...

[Figment]

Rivenshield, completely agreed.


That's perhaps overstating things a bit, but... yeah. Right there with ya.

Usualy it was just our group as an insertion force, we'd go in with one (infil) to three people and would simply sneak by or one of us would cause a distraction so I (infil) could sneak in and claim the CC. Through sneaking, we've resecured facilities containing the entire enemy zerg while we were the only NC on cont. So without killing them all, you could actually take them on and beat them.

A lot of other outfits had the manpower to do that by force with gal drops, where they technically don't take on 10:1 at the same time, but by concentrating their firepower on the CC, they could punch a way through and technically defeat them by resecuring.


But there's also the drains and holds where by avoiding direct combat and using CE and AMS/Router, chokepoints and knowledge of the terrain and base layout, you could hold out for a long time against far superior numbers. Provided they didn't group up.

1:3 odds were common for us and we'd pull it off a lot against all odds, but we actually had 10:1 odds at a Bio Lab before, Nexus and of course Laka. Oh my. Laka. Such a wonderful base to hold after a drain. Our target often being to hold out long enough for reinforcements to arrive, which sometimes was 40 mniutes, in case of a drain and hold (especially if we had to wait for enemy ANTs :p).


Funny anecdote though:

Recall holding Chuku against 32 VS with three people. We each died once and each got around 20-40 kills. Went from 17/18 to 52/19. I was using Wall Turrets, Fury, Gauss, Sweeper, Magscat pistol and Suppressor, also, THEIR Galaxy rear gun (lol hacking vehicles). And of course some CE to slow them at the Chuku gate and BD.

Went out with the Fury to duel three ATVs at a time and would win. :p Killed a full Sundy, would bail from Fury to Magscat pistol a couple AV users firing at the turret, jack the Gal and wait for them to close in before opening up on them (rear gun faced east, covering hills and road - was very nice of them).

We didn't use MAXes, they did. They used atvs, Mags, Sundy, Galaxy, Mossies. Thing is, they mostly came in in groups of 1 to 5 players over a few hundred meters distance of open field, where we'd kite them with Suppressors or would hit and run, after which the other would open up from above, or while they were busy taking out CE, we'd drop behind them and boomer them.

After about an hour of that, we actually went on the offensive after a Mossie (Crazybunny) came over to help and we took Ekera (blew spawns while they were in the CY), they just fell back to Faro. >.>

I was really surprised though, since I'm not the best of shots (good Fury/Thundy driver though), usualy infil, don't have HA or MAXes and therefore didn't get too great K/Ds in PS1 unless on Oshur and even ground.

[Baneblade]

In PS1, the Persians didn't always win.

[p0intman]

In PS1, the Persians didn't always win.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2u42935.jpg
This, pretty much.

[Qwan]

Myself being a former PS1 player for many years through, I cannot really tell you one thing that PS2 needs in order to allow that sort of tactical gameplay that PS2 lacks. Even so, right now PS2 is all strategy and even then the strategy is extremely thin, so what we are left with are thin tactics. Thin thin thin.

I think the lattice system is going to help alot with Tactics in the game, it will give leaders an Idea of what major bases are under threat and an idea of where to send troops on the map whether to defend or to attack. Right now its really hard to keep the rythm of a battle going because the minute you start to get foward momentum, you have to turn around and jump back two hexes because the enemy has started a back hack, this gets frustrating. And soon this starts to thin out your fighting force, and unless you have a outfit with 300 people all on at the same time, the idea of defending becomes pointless, not to mention unfruitfull (no xp). No you fall in with the zerg and become a xp and cert whore. I think with the new latice system you get a better Idea of were the attack is coming from and can better set up a defence to prevent the enemy from getting a connection to your Tech plant or bio lab, or amp station. As of right now the only strategy we have in the game is when a large faction of players (about 3 to 4 outfits) get together chose a region of the map and we push forward in a coordinated assault. And even then the enemy has that one hex touching somthing and start a back hack and the momentum is stopped just to secure that back hack. I feel that until more content is added to the game Ill just keep my cert and xp whore mentality, and maybe when I feel the game is worth putting together a plan to take over and lock a continent, then ill jump on it.

[Rolfski]

And another "we need PS1-like secondary objectives" thread. Thks for the reminder, I'm sure the devs have totally forgotten about this issue.

[Bocheezu]

When I look back to PS1, and some of the crazy defenses I had just as a solo player, there's a few things that really stand out to me that allowed it to happen

1. CC resecure was a full resecure -- no tickets where you resecure, die, and all you did was lengthen the cap time by 5 seconds. A PS1 resecure meant attackers had to start the hack from 15 minutes all over again.

2. Key equipment terminals/hallways that funnel attackers. I remember being able to cover a few key areas by just abusing equipment terminals. Especially tech plants; the lobby had an equipment terminal, just down the stairs from the CC. If you controlled that equipment terminal, you could hold off a lot of guys by switching in and out of MAX or insta-repairing your armor. Equipment terminals are very underrated defense mechanisms.

3. Radar all the time, either by interlink or by audio amplifier implant. Defenders always knew where attackers were. You could camp quietly and ambush guys. I used to count the number of flights of stairs so I would know how many loops on the radar a guy had to go before he would get to the door or the tower CC. Clockwise meant he was going up the stairs, counterclockwise meant he was going down the stairs.

4. Attackers were vulnerable while hacking doors, hacking CC, or trying to blow up spawn tubes. While hacking, you were a sitting duck, and all types of hacking had a tell-tale sound. You could hear a deci going off and immediately know that they were in the spawn room, and they were easy kills with the pain field helping you.

[Figment]

And another "we need PS1-like secondary objectives" thread. Thks for the reminder, I'm sure the devs have totally forgotten about this issue.

Great Rolfski, except it isn't that type of thread.

It's about how mechanics, players, layout and objectives interacted to create very specific good gameplay.

[Rolfski]

Great Rolfski, except it isn't that type of thread.

It's about how mechanics, players, layout and objectives interacted to create very specific good gameplay.
It's exactly that thread. All detailed nostalgia rambling about complex mechanics & objectives that are completely alien to non-PS1 players, without making any constructive connection to the CURRENT game.

This forum is named "Planetside 2 Discussion"
If you MUST fulfil your bitter PS1 vet role and cry about how God-like the good old days were, I suggest you do the following:

Explain PS1 mechanics very clearly so ALL readers can easily pick it up (WTF is a "boomer")
Stick to PS1 mechanics/concepts that are RELEVANT for the current game, don't dive into stuff that wouldn't work in PS2 in the first place.
Make a CONSTRUCTIVE connection to how you see these mechanics working in THIS game.


I'm sick & tired of nostalgia PS1 talk I can hardly understand that does nothing constructive about explaining how certain concepts could work in the CURRENT game. These irrelevant & poisonous topics should be moved immediately to the PS1 discussion forum.

[p0intman]

It's exactly that thread. All detailed nostalgia rambling about complex mechanics & objectives that are completely alien to non-PS1 players, without making any constructive connection to the CURRENT game.

This forum is named "Planetside 2 Discussion"
If you MUST fulfil your bitter PS1 vet role and cry about how God-like the good old days were, I suggest you do the following:

Explain PS1 mechanics very clearly so ALL readers can easily pick it up (WTF is a "boomer")
Stick to PS1 mechanics/concepts that are RELEVANT for the current game, don't dive into stuff that wouldn't work in PS2 in the first place.
Make a CONSTRUCTIVE connection to how you see these mechanics working in THIS game.


I'm sick & tired of nostalgia PS1 talk I can hardly understand that does nothing constructive about explaining how certain concepts could work in the CURRENT game. These irrelevant & poisonous topics should be moved immediately to the PS1 discussion forum.

dude, fuck you. figment has it right. its about how design in ps1 worked and interacted to make shit meaningful. you want a thread about specific goals pertaining to base design? Go make it. I might even do that myself, but that isn't this.

[AuntLou]

This. I know PS2 isn't Planetside. I loved Planetside as much as anybody, but I'm having too much fun in PS2 to worry about the differences.

Then again it may just be the server I'm on...

Nah man it's not the server. There are plenty of base saves to be had in Planetside 2 that are just has heart pumping as this one. I know dozens of times I've dropped onto a base to save it and the force there was way too big for me to take on alone. So I've put down a spawn beacon so my squadmates could rain down and help me take the base back. I could easily turn just one of those experiences into a story just as intense as the OP's. IMO it's what Planetside 1 was missing, I run into way more situations like this just on one continent alone and raining down squad mates w/ the beacons just makes it that more intense.

I'll fully admit though I miss huge armor bridge battles allot. It's at the top of my list for things missing in PS2.

[Rolfski]

its about how design in ps1 worked and interacted to make shit meaningful. Exactly, it doesn't belong here if you can't explain this to non-PS1 players in a meaningful, constructive way and how that helps THIS game.

There's another forum for your incrowd war stories.

[p0intman]

Exactly, it doesn't belong here if you can't explain this to non-PS1 players in a meaningful, constructive way and how that helps THIS game.

There's another forum for your incrowd war stories.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltsomig4fc1qmf6dp.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/9998b827ba5d007a02d8002e4635faae/tumblr_inline_mgr3gbpZB01r22lig.gif

my only other responses to you involve being a complete asshole beyond all justification.

You're tired of war stories as you put it, and yet, sometimes, there is literally no other way to explain it from a players point of view that anyone would read. Could I have put it another way? Yes, I chose not to, because it is easier to relate to when you have specific context.

You have added fuck all to this beyond crowing about why I shouldn't have written my OP like I did. please kindly actually say something of worth, or go create a thread that says something of worth from your pov.

[Dougnifico]

P0intman, don't just go "fuck you" to someone like that. He didn't play PS1 and just wants things explained. Its reactions like this that make new people feel unwelcome in the community which is not good for PSU or PS2. I don't want to be a part of a forum where people just snap at one another. There is a reason I don't post on forumside.

Rolfski, I get your frustration. So many people think planetside was the best game ever. What is was amazing at was the sense of scale, persistence, and the use of mass coordination. The last is the one everyone wants back. I will probably catch some wrath from this but even Higby has said this, PS1 was not a solid shooter. Its base mechanics were good for the 90's, but not a game which released the same year as the original Call of Duty and in a post Halo world. Many people want much of the old gameplay back, even though it would just drive off new gen players. We just want metagame and occasionally bark up the wrong tree. Too much looking back and not enough looking forward.

[Crator]

I don't think he wants things explained. I think they were pretty well explained in the OP. What he wants is for us to somehow relate what is being talked about to PS2. How could it be implemented in PS2. I don't have the answer to that. But I also don't see a problem with talking about how it worked in PS1 and having people discuss how they think it could be in PS2. Not everyone has all the answer. This is a discussion forum after all, isn't it? I don't understand how someone can get so upset over a discussion like this really. And if so, why even bother to read or respond to it. Just move along.

[Hamma]

Please utilize the ignore list Rolfski and pointman. If you don't think the thread contributes anything.. coming in and saying it doesn't contribute anything while not contributing anything defeats the purpose you attempt to accomplish. :P

[Baneblade]

I believe the word for it is trolling.

[Figment]

Rolfski, you should realise that you could just ask politely if you don't understand something, or use the PS1 wiki, most people here use technical PS language for almost 10 years. What do you expect? Do you honestly expect people on a PS forum that they explain each long term PS term in detail every new post when the majority of their peers will not even blink at the terms used because they're so common? >.>



But to answer your question Rolfski, a Boomer is one of the Advanced Combat Engineering (ACE) tool options, we just have the ammo pack and turrets in there now in PS2. The ACE can deploy into motion sensors/disruptors (radar/anti-radar), Spitfire (automated AI, AA, cloaked AI turret), mines (EMP/damage) or the Boomer:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5967/boomersmiw9.jpg

A remotely detonated sticky bomb (think C4, but instead of being thrown, placed like an ammo pack or engi turret: ie, must be possible to place it). It could not fit on vehicles however due to engine limitations.

After placing it, there's a green smoke of nanite construction before it becomes active (say 3 seconds deployment time). Instead of controlling all boomers with one controller, each boomer had it's own detonator, so you could only make one explode at a time, aside from one situation: if you dropped a detonator it would turn neutral and could be destroyed with an EMP grenade from your own team members. Six were needed to kill a generator (sometimes more due to one boomer killing another without detonating it).

Enemies could use EMP grenades to detonate them.

Dropped detonators could be picked up by others, provided they had the appropriate certification (Advanced Engineering, 3+2 CP out of 26 cert points per character, ie. not available to everyone).

That satisfy you? ;p



And yeah I still don't get why C4 is called C4 instead of Boomer.

[p0intman]

Please utilize the ignore list Rolfski and pointman. If you don't think the thread contributes anything.. coming in and saying it doesn't contribute anything while not contributing anything defeats the purpose you attempt to accomplish. :P

i take a certain level of pride that an entirety of three people in all of planetside's history have met my permanent ignore.

edit: im not certain why "boomer" needed an explaination. wtf else goes boom in a war setting besides explosives? I've got them in my sig ffs.
24 Bricks of C4 - YouTube

[Dougnifico]

Well normally a boomer means a submarine armed with SLBMs... just sayin. lol

[Falcon_br]

This thread really have me that nostalgia feeling.
But all those non sense in the last two pages really ruined it.

I always asked myself, why in the future we still use c4 to blow things? I think the future must be developed so a explosive from the XX century is no longer in use.

Boomer was a great name for it in my conception.

[p0intman]

Well normally a boomer means a submarine armed with SLBMs... just sayin. lol

but... we don't even have subs in ps1, or ps2.

[Dougnifico]

but... we don't even have subs in ps1, or ps2.

But what if we did...

http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/img.news/NEiaD05QMTvilo_1_1.jpg

[Rolfski]

Please utilize the ignore list Rolfski and pointman. If you don't think the thread contributes anything.. coming in and saying it doesn't contribute anything while not contributing anything defeats the purpose you attempt to accomplish. :P
I think I was pretty detailed in explaining what topics like these need in order to become meaningful to ALL forum visitors. Not sure what else there is to contribute honestly. It's all incrowd talk average PS2 fans cannot relate to.

What do you expect? Do you honestly expect people on a PS forum that they explain each long term PS term in detail every new post when the majority of their peers will not even blink at the terms used because they're so common? >.>

I actually do yes. As far as I know this particular forum is THE Planet 2 fan site for ALL PS2 fans. Making it an incrowd hang-out where average visitors don't feel welcome because topics are not related to their game is NOT helping PSU and the PS2 community in general imo.
Thks for the Boomer explanation btw.

[Figment]

If you ask what it is, you will get an answer, but it's expected to be common knowledge. Despite being PS2 now :p

[Crator]

I don't think it's expected to be common knowledge for those that are not familiar with PS1. But I also don't think that just because it isn't common knowledge that it can't be discussed in relation to PS2. If someone doesn't understand something, then by all means, please ask. We want to have meaningful discussions between past PS1 players and PS2-only players alike. There's absolutely no reason to get upset just because you don't understand something that is being talked about. Just ask.

[Mietz]

The post is completely readable without understanding the word "boomer"

I didn't know what it is, I didn't look it up.

It's completely irrelevant to the post and the point its trying to make.

[Blynd]

As crator pointed out the distance you have to go between bases is just too short there is no where where a good armour fight and be held in talking proper armour fight of around 100 units not the 20 tops we currently have.

Add in some changes to the bases and an actual benefit denyal system like a gen that can be knocked off and held for a while by well organised force.

Other then those and more conts (too obvious) I can't think of too much too add in that isn't just fluff.

[Shogun]

i totally agree with the OP!

ps2 is just a massive battlefield 3 with no soul right now.
you can jump in, take part in a big clusterfuck for some time, and log out.

almost none of the great gameplay from ps1 is still possible in ps2, and this needs to change, to make ps2 really big!
sure, people who have never played ps1 might have problems understanding, what we veterans are talking about, but we try to illustrate this very colorful so it should be possible to comprehend with a little fantasy.

in my eyes the lists of problems that have been postet on page 1 is totally valid!

the bases are too open and confusing. that´s why they are impossible to defend. in ps1 there were some chokepoints everybody knew, so if somebody called BACKDOOR everybody in the base knew where the enemy was attacking and it was possible to set up defence and entrenchments.
in ps2, enemies are coming from every side, everywhere.

the ttk is also a problem. in ps1 you had the chance to survive and heal back up after being shot at. in ps2 almost everything kills you in under a second. i am getting slaughtered all the time, without even seeing an enemy (another big problem...the uncustomizable colored armors of ps1 were great for battleawareness).
sometimes i run with soldiers for almost a minute, before i or the other soldiers even notice, that we are not on the same team, and who shoots first usually wins immediately.

but the biggest problem for me is the lack of advanced playstyles.
the only valid playstyle is the "killer"
in ps1 we could play as dedicated supporters, even unarmed! (instead of carrying weapons, we could stuff combat deployables and repair/healtools into the backpack en masse)

we could mix and match our soldiers to our playstyle and decide to be a cloaking medic, whose only offensive weapon would be the knife because the medic tool and its ammopacks would take up all the backpack space. playing this way could turn you into a powerful supporter who would be able to revive the heavy grunts right at the front if timed right. and that´s just one example.
another example would be the extremely dangerous cloaked advanced hacker, who could sneak into a base in midbattle (splintercell like) and turn the tide by disabling the bases enemy radar, or opening up all the doors, change the Friend or foe detection of autofire turrets, etc. etc.

basically you could play ps1 as everything you wanted. a shooter, a sneaking game, a flightsimulator, a tactical simulation, and almost everything you could come up with.

ps2 is just a shooter and a flight simulator. nothing else.

[Figment]

sometimes i run with soldiers for almost a minute, before i or the other soldiers even notice, that we are not on the same team, and who shoots first usually wins immediately.

That can indeed be really funny when you're going after an AMS position. :lol:

[Baneblade]

But what if we did...

Mine would be named Quizno's.