Top cause of players leaving PS2 (2014)

[Mordelicius]

This is a new version of a similar thread I posted last year: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=56506

There are obviously many reasons, but there's one that's sticking out as the primary root cause of players leaving PS2 in 2014: Developers has a propensity to 'fix' things that aren't even broken as a result breaking it themselves.

I'll give 5 examples:

1) Sniperside buff - Snipers were given a headshot kill at long range.
Effect: Newbs got farmed hard.

Before the buff, the snipers were fine for as long as I can remember. It had 2 advantages: stealth + long range hit + but they cannot one-hit headshot all.

After the buff, the snipers has 3 advantages: stealth + long range + instant headshot kill. Downside? Nothing. It doesn't need to be close to kill so what's the downside? The best way to balance this is not through death cam, but to remove their ability to stealth. Stealthers are for CQC infiltrators.

2) Liberator buff - Just because there was Lib update, the Liberators were given huge, gamebreaking buffs.
Effect: They destroyed all spawns and farmed everything.

The liberator was in equilibrium with PS2 gameplay since their AOE nerf. They were buffed for absolutely no reason. It was so bad that I didn't log on to PS2 for 3 months after a single destruction of my Sunderer spawn on the first day of the Lib update. I'm a Sunderer spawn specialist, I knew it was that horrible.

3) WDS Preseason 2 - Stopgap meta that interfered with the Alert meta and gameplay flow.
Effect: Server faction population imbalance and server migration.

The Alert meta was fine. They didnt' need to add this to invalidate the alert and give dual, conflicting objectives. This is aside from it disrupting the flow by rewarding caps of empty bases.

Back in Waterson, the VS would ignore the alerts that caused so much upheaval to the VS populace who hate losing. It's funny seeing them rage at us when we have 40%+ population on an alert, all to be shutdown when you point out they got 50%+ on the other continents ghost capping it.

When the VS narrowly lost WDS Preseason 2 to us NC, it was double blackeye to them because they lost the WDS and a lot of prime time alerts. These players packed their bags and move to Mattherson and Connery. Hence, that's why NC got so much population advantage after WDS Preseason 2 ended.

4) Quartz Ridge remake - The Quartz ridge was fully remade.
Effect: The grand flow between these suite of bases along these lanes were disrupted and broken.

Quartz Ridge + Indar Excavation + Coramed is an example of a suite of bases that almost act as a complex. If a faction takes all three, this faction moves on to the next suite. In this case the Dahaka complex or the Hvar complex. They introduced this base that ruined the suite and the flow is broken. Nowadays you very rarely see a faction move forward after taking Quartz Ridge. That middle road bisecting the whole base on the old Quartz Ridge alone helped facilitate the flow. Today, the whole vehicle swarm breaks up when this base is attacked and has to be remade again to move forward. Yeah, nobody bothers anymore especially towards Hvar.

Solution: Bring back the old Quartz Ridge and move this New Quartz Ridge close to the Seabed Listening Post lane and form a new suite of bases there.

5) New, extra lattice connections in Indar - The devs introduce new connections to a nearly perfect Indar Lattice lanes.
Effect: Zergs avoid fights and the sustained battles for a bases are gone since it is easy to circumvent chokepoints. Therefore, it is hard to find good, sustained fights in Indar anymore.

It's called Indarside for a reason. It's the quintessential continent. These new connections they added (ex: Quartz Ridge - Indar Comm, Regent Rock to NS, etc. are messing the battle flow in Indar.

The current meta in Indar Emerald is:
1) Who zergs/stack harder will win the base.
2) Who steals the undefended base will win.
Why? They introduced so many new connections that many bases will be undefended and that's where the Redeployside zerg goes. This is particularly true with the VS Emerald. They look for the undefended base, redeploy and rush to it en masse. If defenders notice and redeploy in time, these guys will disappear only to find the new vulnerable base. Rinse and repeat. And that's why alot of VS players are starting to lose faith with their leadership. NC Emerald has caught up with this lame strategy with a wack-a-mole counters. Redeployside intensifies.

Solution: Remove many of these new lanes you created especially the Quartz Ridge to Indar Comm, Regent Rock to NS,
and even the Ceres to Ti Alloys.

Indar was fine and a model for other continents. So why fiddle and ruin it? I've been arguing for the longest time, that it's the new Amerish lanes that need opening up since the major chokepoints are too close to each other. Instead, they opt to change the Indar Lanes that are already that great. :doh:

How are these 5 instances of blunders possible? The developers don't even play their game.
1) The devs don't know what to fix or not to fix since they lack personal gameplay connection to PS2.
2) They can poorly predict what are the effects of the changes they are making, since they can shallowly relate to the current in-game metas.
3) The devs overly rely on graphs and charts that doesn't paint the complete picture. (I'm sure that's how they arrived at the lane changes).
4) The devs are slow to respond because listening to and reading feedback is one thing, while understanding the implications and nuances of PS2 gameplay is another.

If one is to look at their latest PPA balancing fix, you'll realize how out of touch the devs are. It's akin to when they proposed rolling out damage buff to mines as a counter to the harassers (spoiler: mines don't even hit the fast Harassers in the first place :lol:). They simply look at their graphs and say 'oh look mines vs harassers are low. Buff the mine damage! See what I mean when graphs don't paint the complete picture?

PPA has:
- high rate of fire (point quickly)
- long range capable (point from anywhere)
- no drop (point anywhere)
- AOE (point and forget)
- good damage (point and kill fast)
- high ammo pool (point and sustain point)

It's a perfect AI weaponry with no downside whatsoever. Their proposed "nerf" is to kill that ammo pool. This thing has been killing Hossinside with Magriders at every hill blasting buildings, chokepoints and spawn rooms.

Without the Lib buff, the sniper buff and even the WDS preseason 2, one can argue that Planetside 2 population would have continued to grow as it had early this year. Instead, the population skydived and they were forced to merge Waterson and Mattherson.

Now that Lib nightmare has finally been fixed, hossin released and PS2 running regular events and promos, population hopefully will rise again.

Finally, PS2 Devs, please stop fixing stuff that's not even broken. If the developers are really so averse to playing their own game, then at the very least don't make impromptu changes that the community has no opportunity criticize.

Post every minutiae of details of the changes they are going to make so it can pounded and pulverized with constructive criticism before it can make it to even to the PTS or worse Live servers. It it makes it out of PTS alive, at least the probability of it being completely broken and disruptive to PS2 ecosystem will be minimized.

Stares at Valkyrie, Air Harasser 2.0....(hint: this vehicle needs sufficient downsides)

[BlaxicanX]

What's your source for these reasons being the primary reasons for playerbase reduction?

[Calista]

It's called repetition.

[Mietz]

The top cause of players leaving PS2 is as its always been since 2012: the Grindwall and the F2P model.

[Skittles]

And here all along I thought it was just because it is a shitty game. Who would of thought there are actual reasons?

[Mordelicius]

What's your source for these reasons being the primary reasons for playerbase reduction? Sure. Using your own definition of the the word source, list as many possible 'sources' - that you can think of on top of your head - that can satisfy your question.

I'll pick the correct one from your list.

[ringring]

None of those are the reason I've stopped playing.

[Azzzz]

I've always liked Mordelicius's posts because they were well written, organized, and made actual points. Plus they have color. Even more impressive, is that I agree with all of it.

1) Snipers were fine before the OHK range buff. Still hate them regardless of what they get or take away.

2) Libs are perfect how they are now imo. They still have the survivability to do their thing yet are easily taken down with the right amount of force. Dalton splash radius I'm still trying to adjust to.

3) WDS I never cared for other than free XP boosters. Pointless.

4) Oh my god, Quartz sucks now please change it. In fact, I find myself avoiding that base at all costs. I just don't like the feel of it. It's like a light assault haven there now.

5) Lane wise I really can't comment on because I lack the sufficient knowledge on that because after a good fight I usually check my map and find where the next big fight is which can be anywhere, any continent.

[HereticusXZ]

IMO This list doesn't have much (if any) merit to it. It sounds like personnel grudges and not hard data.

[Mietz]

IMO This list doesn't have much (if any) merit to it. It sounds like personnel grudges and not hard data.

hard data is whats killing PS2

[KesTro]

IMO This list doesn't have much (if any) merit to it.

I gotta agree with Hereticus here.

1.) What buff are you talking about? Snipers could always one shot head shot people as far as I'm aware that sniper change they did in fact limited the range at which they could do that to people depending on the rifle

2.) I will agree with you on this one, that liberator buff was absolutely hell to play through but it's largely been fixed now and I'd almost say the lib has been overnerfed because of those three months.

3.) People actually cared about this?

4.) What your describing with vehicle zergs disintegrating here happened before the remake too. That's just quartz and it always will be as long as those chokes in front of the gates remain.

5.) I don't notice this one at all honestly. On Connery there are almost never big fights not happening for at least an hour or so on Indar. People are excited to fight each other not run away from one another because at the end of the day all people care about is how many certs they're getting.

And about your stab at the Dev's; perhaps I'm just a fanboy but I doubt anyone here understands the whole process the PS2 team goes through when they decide to balance something. Graphs and hard data certainly have a big role in it but they have also done a wonderful job of talking with the community. Do the changes we want always get through? No but at least they're not mysterious codemonkeys hidden behind bricks walls that we can only assume exist.

And lastly the PPA bit. I will agree that compared to the other two ES equivalents the PPA is downright broken. On it's own I think it could do with a slight nerf, magazine size getting obliterated is a great start and perhaps maximum ammo pool. Nerf it too much and no one will bother to use it and you'll be in the same situation that NC and TR face right now. Rather a small to moderate nerf to the PPA and a rework of the Canister and Marauder would do everyone better I think.

[War Barney]

1. Definitely agree snipers are just an annoyance right now, you can NEVER stand still as you'll instantly die, even when running to bases you'll find yourself head shot with nothing you can do to prevent it. And its even worse for TR/NC as the VS have the best starting sniper rifle so you see SO many of them, I hardly ever see infs as NC and can't honestly remember the last time I died to a TR sniper, but VS.. about half my deaths are to VS snipers since this buff.

2. The main problem I have with libs is the amount of power they have compared to the lack of teamwork they require, get 3 people and you can slaughter huge numbers of people with almost no effort, the only way to deal with them is to pull 3 skyguards and hope the lib pilot is a idiot, in which case they'll be sitting still farming at a very low altitude, smart ones however keep moving at the sky ceiling so you can hardly hit them and they get away easily while still bombarding an area. Basically the only counter to air is air right now as skyguards shots scatter way to much at extreme range.

3. Anything that makes population imbalance worse doesn't even need explaining as to why its bad...

4. They just seem bad at designing bases in general, they've got combined arms but most bases tanks get trapped outside doing nothing, those where they can help its a flat open area where they easily farm people.. theres no middle ground it seems.

5. As for lattices, I like being able to sneak behind a enemy BUT it shouldn't be too easy as it does make zerging very easy. Its a tough balancing act but honestly I think they should do anything that counters zergs first and foremost as its the main thing that makes the game un-fun. Theres nothing worse than fighting a ppa zerg of never ending explosions...


The saddest thing about PPA is its still going to be powerful as hell with half ammo but the VS are already claiming it will be the end of the PPA making it a worthless gun in attempts to stop it.. I'm surprised the devs listen to anything the VS say, they even keep trying to claim the magrider is the worse tank as if being able to hit max speed in seconds, strafe, and bypass walls is a bad ability...

[Mietz]

I gotta agree with Hereticus here.

1.) What buff are you talking about? Snipers could always one shot head shot people

As far as i know you couldnt one-shot headshot. The other player always stayed at like a sliver HP after the first shot, with stock rifles vs stock chars without nanoweave at optimal range. The only exception to this could be infiltrators themselves as they have 100 less HP i think.

In fact checking a backup of the weapon spreadsheet confirms this.

Afaik bolt-actions were specifically introduced to reward good aim but at the cost of long refire times and non-hitscan properites.

[KesTro]

As far as i know you couldnt one-shot headshot. The other player always stayed at like a sliver HP after the first shot, with stock rifles vs stock chars without nanoweave at optimal range. The only exception to this could be infiltrators themselves as they have 100 less HP i think.

In fact checking a backup of the weapon spreadsheet confirms this.

Afaik bolt-actions were specifically introduced to reward good aim but at the cost of long refire times and non-hitscan properites.

Are you talking during Beta times or something? Because I can remember one shot headhsotting peopel as the NC infil with the stock Bolt Action since Nov 20. O.o

[ringring]

Are you talking during Beta times or something? Because I can remember one shot headhsotting peopel as the NC infil with the stock Bolt Action since Nov 20. O.o
Yea, I've one-shot as a sniper before. My memory is that only blot rifles could do it though.

Maybe the buff was to overcome the fact that as the game progressed many more people used high levels of nanoweave negating even the bolt rifle one-shot.

But, it's an annoyance it's nowhere near game breaking.

As far as libs are concerned that was one area where I did moan and complain but I mainly took it as a base design issue regarding cover rather than libs being OP.

[War Barney]

Aye I think the buff was so that nanoweave didn't affect head shots as if you had full level nanoweave a head shot wouldn't OHK you, so it wasn't a buff to snipers so much as a nerf to nanoweave, thus why its probably the least used skill now, surviving a extra bullet in close range was never really that great it was useful to let you survive snipers.

Now flak is the best option for survivability at all times, theres never ending explosions from tanks, nades, air and traps while nanoweave will let you survive 1 perhaps 2 more shots. They really need to either buff nanoweave or nerf ALL explosives, cos right now I honestly can't ever see myself using nanoweave again.

[Rahabib]

I havent left completely, but I rarely login. The top reason for me has nothing to do with that list - its boredom. The only reason to login is to grind out a few more levels. Theres no "winners," no real competition or competitive aspect like other old games like CS have. Theres no real persistence, taking a base really doesn't do anything for your team, yourself, or your faction. Locking a continent is a bandaid and doesn't do much but steamroll other teams with bogus bonuses to heap on the likely already over pop empire and remove choice.

The game needs a certain "quest" aspect to it. Something meaningful that adds a level of strategy to the game. Whether you take a bio or amp station, it doen't really matter. But if resources meant something, and were tied to types of bases, then making a choice for territory would add a level of fun to the game that will evolve the game into something more than just a TDM.

Anyway, I keep holding out hope, but until the game has something more to offer than just unlocking stuff, its going to be boring.

[War Barney]

True a reason to fight is very lacking, I thought locking would do it but it still doesn't feel like a worthy goal, most of the time because its not a very interesting bonus (though its a stupid one that gives a bonus to the winning side) and locks tend to happen while 1 side zergs with 60% pop.

[HereticusXZ]

The win condition or victory is completely irrelevant, even unnecessary, There's no reason whatsoever to win the war. The only thing you need is the "fight" itself and seeing as it's a video game it benefits no one if the war ends because of a win condition.

The "Top Cause" of players leaving if you want to attribute it to anything is the lack of content to busy yourself with.

You enter a fight and hold the objective. During this process you get XP by killing in the most efficient or effective method possible, Rinse and repeat. (This is where the hate is mistakenly directed at Liberators and needs to instead be focused at the broken Vehicle system in general, Or the hate against Snipers instead needing to be directed at PS2's lack of properly understanding the application of Long. Medium, and Short Range combat ) The game needs to get away from a XP incentive and reward contributions like Squad/Platoon leading, the Mission System needs to finished.

Continent locking and Continent bonuses in there current form are sufficient and serve the intended purpose. But considering the large time gap between these events, It's not enough to hold your attention.

The new Directive system being introduced (Achievements by any other name) is beneficial to the health of the game but ultimately serves as a temporary bandied solution seeing as its just polishing the Auraxium system that we already have, so outside of Aesthetics it's nothing new.

The eventual Ants and Resource system will provide logistical mindset type players with something to do and cater to a wider audience then just the action rambo inspired players.


With all that said, Strictly in my personnel opinion if I had to name -one- thing that needs to be done to improve the experience and expand the games health, Thus retaining player attention, is redo the Vehicle system entirely. Vehicles right now are only cardboard boxes that give the player a extra HP bar. What vehicles need to do is properly behave and perform like a vehicle with moving parts.

Ideally I'd like to see the vehicle system that's in War Thunder: Ground Forces or Red Orchestra 2 where you have hard-points over health bars.

Another thing that could be done to improve the health of the game and retain players is implement the base-modules of PS1 as part of the Outfit Capture system. Put a control console in a Facilities spawn room that is only accessible to the Outfit Officers of the Outfit who last conquered the facility.

Outfit Officers could use this control terminal to switch out base turrets or move generators to different structures at the cost of Certs, This way every Facility becomes to a degree a unique experience. Outfits could decide if they want to put all AA turrets onto a Tower, or we could see more use out of the rare Anti-Infantry turret.

I dare say to even allow Outfits to modify Phalanx guns with zoom optics or Thermal optics.

[End Rant]

[Chefkoch]

I Agree, base mods would be cool together with real sanctuarys !! Personally the biggest flaw is the respaw aka teleport redeploy system. You can travel way to fast around conts.. thats why ppl can avaoid fights so easily

[War Barney]

A major improvement would be a LOT more detailed commands for platoon leaders, all you have right now is waypoints, smoke and the attack/defend icon. This makes being a leader a thankless chore, you end up making less exp and spending your whole time on the map managing numbers (as instant redeploy means there are no tactics, just numbers management).

It would be nice to see more commands and abilities for leaders, perhaps an artillery bombardment somewhere they can use once an hour or something (just an example, not a good one at that..). Basically leading needs to have depth, right now it has non.

[Mietz]

Are you talking during Beta times or something? Because I can remember one shot headhsotting peopel as the NC infil with the stock Bolt Action since Nov 20. O.o

The NC sniper was the only that could do it from all the stock snipers, later when alt snipers were introduced the NC one still was the only one that could do it.

Then they introduced cross faction bolt actions that could do it.
Now every sniper hits the same to the head. (now every sniper has a 2-2.1 headshot multiplier, before the semi-autos had i think 1.5, but i would need to check and cant be bothered, please someone confirm)

Predictably the VS snipers rule now since they have no bullet drop and the bolt actions all had them.

[BlaxicanX]

Sure. Using your own definition of the the word source, list as many possible 'sources' - that you can think of on top of your head - that can satisfy your question.

I'll pick the correct one from your list.

I ask because this seems less like "these are the reasons players are leaving the game" and more like "these are things that I don't like about the game but if I present them as more than just my personal opinion people will be less inclined to question them."

So I'll just ask you again. Do you have any data that would distinguish these grievances as being more than just your personal issues with the game?

- - - - -

As far as the current discussion, I think there's a difference between why people are bitching about the game versus why people are leaving the game. People complain about the game for a myriad of reasons- the game is not perfect and its issues are many- however, there is no game, especially competitive games, where that isn't the case.

The reason for why people are leaving the game in droves is the same reason for why people always leave popular MMO's in droves... because there isn't new content. People get tired of doing the same shit every day, and Planetside 2 is set up in such a way that it really emphasizes how much of a grind every game session is. On a macro level you quite literally do the same thing, with the same general goal every single day. That's true for most MMO's, however it tends to be hidden from the player longer by virtue of giving him a constant sense of accomplishment- in most cases, this sense of accomplishment is gained from completing quests. Meet the NPC, get a plot blurb from him explaining why the quest is important within the context of the universe, do the quest, meet the boss NPC who talks shit to you and kill him, then go back to the first NPC, get an earful about how your actions have made the world a better place, and collect your XP/gift reward. The objective of the quest, along with its locale and the NPC's within them almost always deviate somewhat- you don't often do the exact same quest twice, and you rarely fight the same enemies twice. In fact, as you level up you can even go back to told areas or do old quests and casually destroy enemy NPC's that you once found challenging, physically displaying to you how much your character has grown.

All of these things together give the illusion to the player that he's doing a variety of things that all contribute toward some final success, or destination.

In PS2, by comparison, it's never explained why these bases are important, and we can't even infer why they're important because the benefits of owning most of them are literally non-existent. So there's no real practical benefit of owning a base, and there's no in-universe implication that the bases are important either. That's a strike. Next, as capturing a base is basically our "quest", with each base being its own quest, there is no variety in our quests. Our objective is always the same, "kill everybody inside of it and hold onto the point until the base is yours", and our enemies are always the same. They may act different, since they're People and People can use different tactics, but the types of enemies are always the same. There is never a chance that we might fight a giant robot, or a weird monster, or something unique. It's always going to be predominantly chumps with guns, supported by tanks and planes, and they and their bullets always come in one of two color schemes. No variation-that's strike two. Strike three is that after completing a quest, we're given some exp, a 5 second voice over telling us good job, and we're then pointed in the direction of the next quest, which is exactly the same as the quest we just completed- with the exact same objective and the exact same enemies, perhaps just behaving a little differently. It's the same fucking quest, and you realize that, woah: it doesn't matter how many quests I complete. There will always be another quest to complete after it, and that quest will always be the same quest I just completed.

For some people, that's not game-breaking. I myself still play the game almost every day, and have been for almost two years now. But for looooots of people, that shit gets old eventually, and so they get bored and leave the game.

This isn't an issue exclusive to Planetside 2, in fact it's a common issue for most MMO's. The problem is that you feel it more with Planetside 2 because the game is exclusively a shared experience. In WoW, where you can only have X amount of people in a raid, or you can only have X amount of people in a PvP match at one time, there is no difference between 50,000 players in the game and 10,000 players. You interact with NPC's 90% of the time anyway. But in a game like Planetside 2, where are there no NPC's, and the only way the game can engage you, in any way shape or form, is via human players, it becomes very noticeable when the population dips and rises. Bases are either devoid of enemies and your time is spent capping empty buildings, or your faction is out-popped and you're getting reamed at every turn. Both capping empty base after empty base and getting pushed back by enemy zergs in battle after battle highlight to the player just ultimately pointless and repetitive this game is. It's only when we're in the middle of a good fight do we temporarily forget how ultimately meaningless the battle actually is.

So with that being the case, the game direly needs to do two things: A) it needs to compensate for the lowered population. This means it needs to merge servers (which it's already done), and cut out half the fucking irrelevant bases so that the already reduced player base isn't stretched so thinly across a continent, and B) it needs to focus on retaining what player base it still has, and the only way to do that is to improve the game's ability to hide the realization that you're basically doing the same thing over and over again. MMO's do this by providing fresh content- giving the illusion that there's always "something to new to do", and by making everything you do seem like an achievement and a progression. Alerts and continent-locking have done a lot to give us that latter feeling, but it's not enough. And the other half of the equation, new content, is sorely missing in this game. I understand that the PS2 dev team is undermanned, and I understand that it takes time to make new vehicles and new continents, but there comes a point where one has to simply realize that the video game industry is an extremely competitive environment, and gamers don't care about developmental problems. They're fickle people, and will jump ship to any game that looks more promising.

[Baneblade]

The problem with the Lib was never the ability to deal damage, nor the ability to take damage. It always has been, and still is, the ability to fly it like its an ESF. Same with the Galaxy.

[KesTro]

The NC sniper was the only that could do it from all the stock snipers, later when alt snipers were introduced the NC one still was the only one that could do it.

Then they introduced cross faction bolt actions that could do it.
Now every sniper hits the same to the head. (now every sniper has a 2-2.1 headshot multiplier, before the semi-autos had i think 1.5, but i would need to check and cant be bothered, please someone confirm)

Predictably the VS snipers rule now since they have no bullet drop and the bolt actions all had them.

The VS snipers do have bullet drop last I checked. The only one that doesn't is the one they all hate, their new one the Phaseshift. And when I speak of sniping I am usually only referring to bolt actions as the Semi-Autos I see as more of a support weapon than anything. Back to the Phaseshift though I actually really love this gun because of the zero bullet drop and higher skill cap. The lack of bullet drop makes it have the slowest velocity (Percieved, perhaps statistically too.) to compensate and if you miss your headshot you can finish 'em up with the Semi-Auto shot, just have to learn to lead your targets properly and gauge distance based on how large people appear.

[War Barney]

The problem with the Lib was never the ability to deal damage, nor the ability to take damage. It always has been, and still is, the ability to fly it like its an ESF. Same with the Galaxy.

Hmmm this is actually true, in real life bombers are slow lumbering things that get protected by fighters, in planetside 2 as you said Gals and libs can very quickly get out of range of anti-air, especially if they fly at the sky ceiling.

That is part of the problem with libs/gals.. they don't need teamwork they just come in solo get 20-30 kills, then come back again.

[Gatekeeper]

I agree - the fact that powerful vehicles in PS2 don't require much teamwork is a key problem with the game design IMO. Clearly SOE wanted the game to appeal to more casual players (which, honestly, I appreciate to some extent) and hence we get MBTs without dedicated drivers, Lib-gunners jumping from belly to tail gun and back and Libs that can dogfight (or roll in place and have their belly-gunner one-shot fighters...).

As a lone-wolf type of player, I do appreciate that not everything in PS2 requires teamwork and I can still make an impact on my own - but I'd be happy to see a return to PS1's teamwork ideals for the more powerful vehicles.

[Boildown]

I actually agree with everything the OP said, including the comments about VS redeployside, and the hypothesized thought process directing SoE's hand.

[Mordelicius]

I ask because this seems less like "these are the reasons players are leaving the game" and more like "these are things that I don't like about the game but if I present them as more than just my personal opinion people will be less inclined to question them."

So I'll just ask you again. Do you have any data that would distinguish these grievances as being more than just your personal issues with the game?


Who said these are just 'personal issues' with the game? Saying it is a personal issues means I stand to benefit the most if these things are fixed.

Can you name from any of the 5 points I made where I can stand to benefit from more than any other players if they are to be fixed/remedied/avoided? And what are these benefits? :lol:

My points are about balancing:
- Gameplay (1&2)
- Battle flow (4)
- Lane flow (5)
- Server pop, faction pop stability (3)
And none of it is selfish, self-centered, self-serving. So your premise are all wrong.

Secondly, sure. Again I repeat, using your definition of data, can you make a list of examples of 'data' - that would differentiate them from these perceived (in your words) 'personal issues with the game'?

I'll pick the correct answer from your list.

[Mordelicius]

IMO This list doesn't have much (if any) merit to it. It sounds like personnel grudges and not hard data.

In my post (point #5), I described a phenomenon in Emerald Indar:

New Lanes = Undefended base.
Undefended bases + Redeployside = factions (especially VS ) mass redeploying to steal a base. Then they use their superior VS Suppression weapons to stop you from getting to the points. If they fail, they just disappear in a wink (literally). They then wait and look for the next 'target'. This happens on and on and on. Is this a good battleflow?

This result in lack of fights that make the current Indar Emerald insufferable. Indar hasnt' been this bad post-lattice, outside of WDS events.

Now, can the PS2 Dev graphs and charts and red-dots-on map explain and transmit this phenomenon? Do they track these player movements chronologically? In able to make sense of this phenomenon, order of action, reaction and effect has to be known. This can only be understood while playing the game.

They can graph and plot all they want. These dots have no real-time date or order or contextual message that can convey this phenomenon is even affecting gameflow.

Lastly, if their faulty interpretation of gameplay through graphs made them create these new lanes in the first place, then how can they figure out this change was bad or flawed?

[BlaxicanX]

Who said these are just 'personal issues' with the game?

I did. My assertion is that your argument lacks objectivity; my evidence is the complete and utter lack of any empirical data. Allow me to provide an example:

"People are leaving the game because they don't like getting OSK'd by snipers."

What data can you provide that points to snipers having such a detrimental effect to new player morale that it's producing a note-worthy influence on population hemorrhaging rates? Do you have anything at all to offer beyond anecdotes? If all you have are anecdotes, I can provide plenty to the contrary.

[Figment]

None of these affected my choice to stop playing (even if I agree with the snipers shouldn't be infils thing, but mostly for CQC reasons that anything heavier than a pistol is broken with cloak).

To me the most important things are a combination of:

TTK: too short to get situational awareness and respond to a threat. Especially the amount of one hit kills.

Base design: main reason at first was the constant spawncamping. Well, my topics on this have been legendary enough I would say. Main bases too big, spawns in the wrong, open locations, disconnected flow.

Examples of disconnected flow base design:
- One side can teleport in and the defender has to cross long distances to take over a nearby base while also defending the teleport room is just "meh".
- Frequently can't even exit spawns to reach objectives as defender to get to objectives without going through a crossfire of vehicles with one shot kills + infantry with super-low TTKs.

Jetpacks and open bases: (vertical) ease of access + horizontal defenses on huge base design simply make defense next to impossible and a counter offensive virtually unthinkable.

Zerg-overpromoting gameplay: medics with infinite revive/healing juice, engineers (and therefore others) with infinite ammo.

Whack-a-mole gameplay: largely fixed, still exists here and there.

Vehicle combat design: instant seat-switching, solo-heavy tanks (resulting in surges of tank spam that can hardly be countered, overwhelm everything and then die out because of resources, rather than there being a somewhat constant, even fight),

Too many bases leading too information overload, combined with short timers make it next to impossible to "read the map" proper, since anything could happen (lattice improved this a little). Too few continents, non-optimal command features and warpgates that are sanctuaries: leading a campaign for global conquest is practically impossible.




Those are my main reasons.

[Gimpylung]

Maybe PS2 has seen declines in population like any other FPS such as BF3/4 or CoD because the game was aimed to appeal to exactly the same demograph. Pops of those games are nowhere near their highest a year and a half later, hence why EA and Activision just rewrap them with a few new maps and some gameplay tweaks year after year. SOE obviously don't have the same ability to relaunch like that.

I honestly think blaming a few base redesigns or weapon/gameplay adjustments is kinda missing the larger picture.

This game is probably perceived as an FPS first and an MMO second by a casual player and as such gets the typical investment of time an FPS gets rather than an MMO.

Hopefully it'll just find its natural level with a playerbase that actually is invested in the game as opposed to a fickle FPS crowd that are always just moving onto the next thing. Whether or not that playerbase is enough to sustain the game as a viable business proposition for SOE remains to be seen. I hope it is.

[Rolfski]

Whether or not you agree with these "sources" (I think they're highly debatable), I don't think these are the main reasons people stop playing the game.

Judging by my own outfit experience, most veteran players quit because the game gets stale to them at some point and/or they get burned out with it. You will often see many of them return from time to time though to check the changes.

Judging by the forums, most newer players quit because they have a hard time getting the hang of it and find themselves getting killed over and over again. Most of them never got to joining an outfit.

[Mietz]

Whether or not you agree with these "sources" (I think they're highly debatable), I don't think these are the main reasons people stop playing the game.

Judging by my own outfit experience, most veteran players quit because the game gets stale to them at some point and/or they get burned out with it. You will often see many of them return from time to time though to check the changes.

Judging by the forums, most newer players quit because they have a hard time getting the hang of it and find themselves getting killed over and over again. Most of them never got to joining an outfit.

Those seem to be the same reasons as mentioned in the OP, except without the explanation of the underlying cause.

[Mietz]

TTK: too short to get situational awareness and respond to a threat. Especially the amount of one hit kills.


Man i remember those threads...

[Rolfski]

Those seem to be the same reasons as mentioned in the OP, except without the explanation of the underlying cause.

They're definitely not the same reasons and hardly underlying, except for maybe the sniperside buff, which is hardly a newbie issue in this game imo as players are used to one headshot kills in other shooters.

And that "buff" (which imo was more of a nerf as it put a cap on sniper range) only made a negative, if any, impact to players who heavily invested in nanoweave armo, which is not your average newbie.

[Baneblade]

Frankly, I think headshots need to be removed or there needs to be a way to stop that shit.

[KesTro]

Just thought I'd chime in on this again.

We can debate this as much as we want but at the end of the day..

..I'm still the greatest.

"KesTro 2016: A Cleaner Auraxis!"

Stupidity aside someone hit the nail on the head (Or infantry as far as the above poster is concerned hehe) with the game becoming stale, everything else is sort of arbitrary when the core game has essentially been the same with tweaks here and there.

The only thing that has been keeping me playing straight is that I'm in a great outfit and I have an obsession with hunting Auraxiums down on weapons.

So achievement whoring I guess? I really do think directives will do marvels in keeping populations healthy.

[Mietz]

They're definitely not the same reasons and hardly underlying, except for maybe the sniperside buff, which is hardly a newbie issue in this game imo as players are used to one headshot kills in other shooters.

Other shooters hardly have over 100 people shooting at you at a time from 8 directions and vehicles.

Yes, the causes you listed are symptoms, and they overlap with that one thread i posted in way back when. Except back then it was liberators and rocketpods that were killing everyone.
Now its snipers.
Next month it will be something else.
Fact is TTK is too low for newbs to matter, and that can manifest in many symptoms.

Game is repetitive? Could it have anything to do with bad combat flow and redeployside?
Back when my outfit left it was base zerging, then it was repetitive lanes, now its pointless connections and flow, quartz redesign is just the most egregious example.

Of course its not exclusively those specific examples but they are symptoms of the larger picture that has plagued PS2 for a LONG time.

I mean the newbie unfriendlieness isnt because there wasnt a tutorial, we now have one, it didnt retain anyone more.

Of course Mordes speculation on WHY these things are (devs not playing the game) might or might not be correct, its an opinion, however i agree with that opinion as it seems to be consistent with the other design blunders.

[ringring]

I think the devs do play the game certainly higby plays it lots.

Perhaps the problem is that they also play many other games, after all their profession is game developers so knowing about the topic in the round is important.

But I would reckon Higby won't play as a member of an outfit, I think he only plays solo, which given his position is understandable.

I also think he never played ps1 properly and that's why he never quite 'got' what it was all about.

He has played a lot of the BF series and the COD series and maybe that's the reason there is less planetside and more BF and COD pollution in PS2 than there should be.

[BlaxicanX]

I've never really understood the rage over headshots in this game.

Objectively, the TTK from getting OSK'd by a sniper that you didn't know was there isn't significantly higher than the TTK from getting killed by random joe with his assault rifle that you didn't know was there- and in a game where there's often 50+ enemies stuffed into one base, the average player will die vastly more times at the hands of a front-line class or a vehicle then they will at the hands of a sniper, and in all instances you probably won't even know they're there until you're dead.

So, why the seemingly arbitrary hate for snipers?

The infiltrator class bugs me because when most people play it they contribute nothing to the war effort- a good sniper will get maybe ten kills in 5 minutes, more in a target rich environment, but killing infantry one at a time from 100 meters away is one of the least vital tasks you can perform in this game, where dozens of players are respawning infinitely and medics can revive a downed player in 1.5 seconds.

When I get killed by snipers though, all I feel is a resounding "meh". If it hadn't been the sniper who got me, it'd have been the light assault, or the heavy assault who entered the room the moment I turned my back, or the Liberator, or the MBT, or the rofl-podding ESf, or or or...

[Mietz]

I've never really understood the rage over headshots in this game.

Objectively, the TTK from getting OSK'd by a sniper that you didn't know was there isn't significantly higher than the TTK from getting killed by random joe with his assault rifle that you didn't know was there- and in a game where there's often 50+ enemies stuffed into one base, the average player will die vastly more times at the hands of a front-line class or a vehicle then they will at the hands of a sniper, and in all instances you probably won't even know they're there until you're dead.

So, why the seemingly arbitrary hate for snipers?

Because their effect is cumulative.
Its not like theres only one guy that you 1v1 in this game.
Its "one more thing" you get OHKd by.

Besides explosive OHKs can be prevented with the right equipment, like FLAK armor, which you should be wearing anyways because Nanoweave is even more pointless than it was before now, sniper OHKs can not.

From experience ive yet to consistently die from explosives unless its an LA doing suicide C4 runs because between flak armor and all the healing from medics the damage from explosives is mitigated easier as it comes in smaller chunks.

Also I dont think its really "rage" here.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I think my deaths to snipers can be counted on one hand, personally never had a problem with them. C4 and Mine cookie tossers are way more annoying imo.

Maybe less people would snipe with the infiltrator if there would be an alternative. But as a newbie any cqc weapon/smg is atleast 1k certs away, so there is simply no point to do anything besides sniping. So if the amount of snipers is a problem, open up more playstyles for the infiltrator from the start.

[Gatekeeper]

Although I do hate being killed by snipers, and even being somewhat careful it does happen quite a bit, I agree that it's the general TTK that's the real problem here. None of the friends I recruited to PS2 play anymore - and frankly I think that's mainly because they got sick of dying before they could even figure out what was happening.

The thing is, a fast TTK is something people cope with ok in other shooters - like CoD say - but those are much, much simpler environments with a lot less to keep track of. In PS death can come in countless forms and from more or less anywhere - that death being more or less instant means new players often spend their time trying to guard against the last thing that killed them, and instead instant-dying to something else they hadn't noticed. Surprisingly, this is not fun.

Mind you, none of my friends got on with PS1 either - so maybe the complexity is the real problem. Could be that a massive, super-complex FPS is just always destined to be a bit niche ;)

[Mordelicius]

I did. My assertion is that your argument lacks objectivity; my evidence is the complete and utter lack of any empirical data. Allow me to provide an example:

"People are leaving the game because they don't like getting OSK'd by snipers."

What data can you provide that points to snipers having such a detrimental effect to new player morale that it's producing a note-worthy influence on population hemorrhaging rates? Do you have anything at all to offer beyond anecdotes? If all you have are anecdotes, I can provide plenty to the contrary.

You've proven yourself that there's no alternative to 'anecdoctal' examples. I asked you for 'sources' or 'data' (your words!) and you can't come up with any list, not even a single one. I was hoping you'd figure out by now, but I guess not. :D If you can't come up with 'data' or 'sources' that would appease you yourself, then why are are you asking me for it? :confused:

Secondly, If I were to say PPA is overpowered, is that really personal? Balanced gameplay benefits everyone, and is something I've advocated since launch (check my old posts if you wish). All I need is get hit by it and see its context within the fight. The devs dont' play the game. That's why they are nerfing just the ammo to see if the other attributes of the PPA is really OP.

They will then will a week or so, until they have enough numbers and dots to show if it really is the monster it's maligned to be. I've listed its advantages. It's a perfect ammo weapon, now with average ammo pool with the 'nerf'.

[BlaxicanX]

You've proven yourself that there's no alternative to 'anecdoctal' examples.
Okay, so this thread is basically nothing more than your personal opinion on the game's balance and mechanics. Fair enough, though trying to paint it as something objective is disingenuous.

Also, asking me to provide sources and data is dumb, considering I've yet to paint my claims as objective.

Because their effect is cumulative.
Its not like theres only one guy that you 1v1 in this game.
Its "one more thing" you get OHKd by.

Besides explosive OHKs can be prevented with the right equipment, like FLAK armor, which you should be wearing anyways because Nanoweave is even more pointless than it was before now, sniper OHKs can not.

From experience ive yet to consistently die from explosives unless its an LA doing suicide C4 runs because between flak armor and all the healing from medics the damage from explosives is mitigated easier as it comes in smaller chunks.

Also I dont think its really "rage" here.

Sure, but why is the "OSK" part of it significant? The TTK in this game is so incredibly low that there's almost no difference between a one-shot kill and simply being shot to death, in most cases. Even the damage-mitigation weave only increases the number of bullets required to kill you by like one or two shots when fully maxed out. That's not going to save you when the Heavy Assault you didn't know was in the room with you unloads his clip into your back, or when you turn the corner and surprise! there's an NC scatterMAX staring you in the face, etc. It's not like it takes more skill to kill someone at full-auto range than it does from a distance.

I don't see how flak armor mitigating explosives is all that relevant. With that same logic, you shouldn't be bothered by snipers since merely staying indoors or not standing around when outdoors will almost completely nullify a sniper's ability to one-shot you.

Just about everything in the game that can kill you can be mitigated, either by via upgrades or by changing up your play-style.

[Mietz]

I don't see how flak armor mitigating explosives is all that relevant. With that same logic, you shouldn't be bothered by snipers since merely staying indoors or not standing around when outdoors will almost completely nullify a sniper's ability to one-shot you.

Thats not even in the same ballpark as the "same logic", its not even an analogy.
I cant buy, equip and wear a room. :rolleyes:

Sure, but why is the "OSK" part of it significant?

If that is not "significant" i would ask you why not every gun in PS2 is OHK as apparently its not significant :rolleyes:

[Taramafor]

I'll give a few reasons why I stopped playing.

1: Because it's too fast for its own good sometimes. I don't mind speed but it's become more of a twitch game with less room for planning and tactics and not everyone has that good reaction timing (Which seems to be changing now fortunately).

2: Sniper nerf. A semi auto being more effective then a bolt at long range? Really?

3: That biolab update that just... Failed so hard with the arrows for dummies and being farmed because of bad base design.

And not something that caused me to quit, but something that's adding to keeping me away. lightnings going as fast backwards as forwards. Which is just plain stupid. Now people will just drive foward into sight, shoot and drive back at choke points, not resolving traffic jams at all. Which is what it was supposed to help fix? :huh:

All that aside, some things are drawing me back, But if immersion breaking things are going to continue to be added then I may not stay. We'll see what happens.

[Babyfark McGeez]

I played now and then for the past two months or so, but my interest is dwindling rapidly again.
Everything is just so half arsed lol.

Best example, the new resource system. Once again we get unfinished crap, i'm sorry "phase one" of a game mechanic, that will/may be cool once it's finished, but is stupid untill that happens (See cont locking, mission system, etc.).

I like the unified resources, and the idea behind it is good - you no longer can acquire resources by performing actions, so the performance of your empire matters. in theory...
...but in reality territories don't matter anymore, since you get a flat +50 resources every minute or something - regardless of how many territory your empire controls.

That completely removes any incentive left to actually defend or capture bases. So untill "phase 2" or "3" of the resource system comes out bases and territory control have no meaning whatsoever aside from trying to lock a continent. Badbadbad.

Guess i'll check back in once intercontinental lattice and resource system are actually "in the game".

[BlaxicanX]

Thats not even in the same ballpark as the "same logic", its not even an analogy.
I cant buy, equip and wear a room. :rolleyes:That's good, because you shouldn't be allowed to buy your way out of being punished for your mistakes. Even the best sniper will have a hell of a time head-shotting you if you don't stand around out in the open... and that's free.

If that is not "significant" i would ask you why not every gun in PS2 is OHK as apparently its not significant :rolleyes:

They pretty much are. You're starting to get it now.

The only difference between getting killed by a sniper and getting killed by a heavy assault is that sniping takes more skill.

- - - - -

The new resource system is pretty lulz. Has anyone else gotten the chance to experience the thrill of organized, platoon-level abusing of the fact that we pretty much have unlimited resources now? At +50 resources per minute, you get back the resources spent buying an MBT in ~5 minutes. So you can basically spawn an MBT or equivelent once every five minutes... forever.

I was playing with HMMRD(sp?) last night, and the Platoon lead had all 48 of us spawn ESF's and air raid enemy zergs 6 times within the space of one hour.

[Crator]

The new resource system is pretty lulz. Has anyone else gotten the chance to experience the thrill of organized, platoon-level abusing of the fact that we pretty much have unlimited resources now? At +50 resources per minute, you get back the resources spent buying an MBT in ~5 minutes. So you can basically spawn an MBT or equivelent once every five minutes... forever.

I was playing with HMMRD(sp?) last night, and the Platoon lead had all 48 of us spawn ESF's and air raid enemy zergs 6 times within the space of one hour.

I know right. I feel a resource nerf coming... Either they up the cost of things that use resources, they reduce the amount of resources you get, and/or they increase the tick-rate (amount of time) you get resources.

[Calista]

Are these numbers correct?

http://borderlinetactical.net/rsnc/world-population/?world_id=0&zoom=4&totalpop=true

[ringring]

Are these numbers correct?

http://borderlinetactical.net/rsnc/world-population/?world_id=0&zoom=4&totalpop=true

as far as I know they can't be because there is no way to get the pop info from the API. What sites usually do is count the number of login's per hour, which you can get.

So it's an estimation. You can see people logging in but you can't see log outs.

[Dougnifico]

1. Gamer fatigue. I have to walk away every once in a while and play other games and do other things.

[Calista]

as far as I know they can't be because there is no way to get the pop info from the API. What sites usually do is count the number of login's per hour, which you can get.

So it's an estimation. You can see people logging in but you can't see log outs.

Yeah SOE are the only one's who know the true populations I suppose but at the very least this does give a view into trends. I don't see much of one over a long period of time, maybe a little downward but not much. Maybe it seems less now because of the 4th continent. Any word on Searhus or whatever is coming next? I checked the roadmap and didn't really see anything about it.

[ringring]

I've seen nothing about release of Searhus nor the Battle Islands. I gather from the fact that the PS2 Work in Progress videos that they expect to produce new content but I've heard nothing solid about what/when.

[BlaxicanX]

The complete silence on the Battle Islands is rather strange. Weren't they like... a step away from being totally complete almost a year ago? I remember outfits having skrims on them.

[ringring]

The complete silence on the Battle Islands is rather strange. Weren't they like... a step away from being totally complete almost a year ago? I remember outfits having skrims on them.

Yea it is strange.

(only one BI was nearly complete, Nexus)

[Mordelicius]

Okay, so this thread is basically nothing more than your personal opinion on the game's balance and mechanics. Fair enough, though trying to paint it as something objective is disingenuous.

Also, asking me to provide sources and data is dumb, considering I've yet to paint my claims as objective..

You throw around words like 'source', 'data' and yet can't come up with any example of 'source' or 'data' because you know there aren't any. I didn't come up with those words, you did.

Also, I doubt you have any criteria either for what's 'objective' or not. What's your criteria for being objective or not objective? You will say 'data'/'source'. I ask you for this 'data'/'source'. You can't come up with any. So nobody is objective according to you, including yourself. What's your criteria for being objective?

Lastly, if my thread wasn't clear enough, the numerical order of my examples is the order in which they are implemented in 2014. So, I just put the lanes the last because it's the last to be implemented was the new Ti Alloy lane.

[BlaxicanX]

What claim have I made that you want me to provide data for? Asking me for evidence without specifying what claim you want me to substantiate makes it look like you don't actually understand what those concepts mean.

My criteria for objective is "backed up with empirical evidence".

[Frydac]

Without surveying the players who left, and analysis of that data in a statistically justified way, we nor SOE can't come to any real conclusion whatsoever..


So we can't do more than have our guesses and hope for the best.

[Figment]

@discussion going on a few pages back: Other games have headshots and low TTKs, because there's at most a couple out of all the 64 players sniping. But when I play CoD with someone who isn't familiar with the game, it's just impossible for them to practice duels and aiming because by the time they see me - if they even do - they're already dead. In PS2, they really won't see people coming. And small groups and loners just don't know where to look first.

Here you could have 30 snipers on one ridge. One of them will hit.

For instance, you may recall how in PS1 Thunderers could NOT hit an aircraft reliably? At all? But would do great damage if they would? We ran 9 Thunderers once. BFRs and aircraft alike would get instagibbed simply because of the volume of fire.


PS2 has more zerg. So to then lower the TTK and provide more area of effect one shot kills vehicles per capita is simply asking new players to be raped.

Especially in combination with this base design stuff. It is very intimidating to then get spawncamped too and just don't know how to get out of this situation - if it is possible at all (yes, you can spawn back a base, we had those insane discussions where defense was not allowed by some players and people were told to just leave and not fight instead because clearly that's why people play this game: to leave and not fight whenever they meet enemies of whatever numbers...).

It's simply impossible to stop large groups with a lot of volume of fire, that don't have any natural attrition because of medics and engineers having infinite ammo, heal and revive, which are all so fast you don't really get any window of opportunity to exploit.

Compare to PS1, where large groups could be bogged down, and taken out, picking them off one at a time or starved from ammo and medkits. In PS1, I and many others often single handedly defended a base against 8-15 players. Or at least stalled them. Although that took a lot of effort to do, BUT, it was possible. In PS2, you can't even leave the spawnroom in some of the buildings. Luckily the newer buildings have more cover, but too many simply don't provide any basic defense options. Just having pop-shacks isn't a defense.

[Figment]

I know right. I feel a resource nerf coming... Either they up the cost of things that use resources, they reduce the amount of resources you get, and/or they increase the tick-rate (amount of time) you get resources.

I still maintain what I said in Alpha that a timer and forcing the use of team-vehicles by not having many solo units be very powerful is more than enough.

Resources sounds nice at first, until you realise that you can't really campaign for resources and whatever empire is "lucky" to have more resources and thus expansion power, gets "more lucky". It's a bit of a domino-stacking effect.



Something from the previous page: Making changes to say Lightning speed won't stop traffic jams, since the tanks are played solo. Thus they're nothing more than mobile turrets. A mobile turret causes a traffic jam when it stops to fire.

It's as simple as that. It stands still. A lot.

Give a vehicle a dedicated driver and that driver will keep it moving because it got little else to do, unless it's camping. In which case you should make sure that a large stationary target is not only easily hit, it should suffer from attrition. So you shouldn't give its occupants super-fast, infinite repair...

[Figment]

Sure, but why is the "OSK" part of it significant? The TTK in this game is so incredibly low that there's almost no difference between a one-shot kill and simply being shot to death, in most cases.

You never over-simplify things, do you? :p



Instant death (coming from all directions) means there's no actual dueling time, at all.

Do you remember how much people enjoyed the Flail in PS1?



People expect a kill on them to take effort. Skill. If all it takes is you popping your head out for a second, then they don't perceive this as skill, but as the game doing the killing for you(r opponent). Thus it's boring.


There is no chance for tension to built up. No chance for adrenaline to start pumping. When I was in a firefight in PS1, my blood was pumping, I was using my brain to seek the best cover, the best timing. Every option to turn it into a win in those few seconds you got.

If you get no seconds, that entire process is just not there, you just sit there "oh". And people don't like to just sit somewhere going "oh" and having to run all the way to somewhere distant (say up a 240m cliff) again, just to be instantly killed, again. It's boring.

So what you need to do, is ensure people, even those new to the game get into firefights that last long enough for them to feel they've done something or had a chance to do something.

Who enters a lottery where you know you're probably going to lose?

[MaxDamage]

I think the real answer you're looking for is Potassium.

Too many people eating bananas for every one of their "five a day".

They're not even that great for you, you should mix it up.. all that potassium might help to prevent cramp during a workout but when you're playing Planetside 2, it goes straight to your head.

[ringring]

Another way to look at the resource thing is, how do you react when you have too little being supplied on the continent you're fighting on.

Do you either:-
a) campaign to win territories to gain more supplies?
b) leave to fight on a different continent where supply is greater
c) go to the warpgate on a different continent for 5 - 10 minutes to stock up again

The hardest and least likely is 'a'. I recall someone in beta writing a post that referenced the book Freakonomics which if I recall correctly said that players won't do what is 'best for the game' they'll do what is best for them and if those two don't coincide then tough.

Resources have never worked and I don't believe they ever will except for providing a reason to sell a boost which necessary in a ftp game. They will not add to the game experience for players.

[Crator]

Resources sounds nice at first, until you realise that you can't really campaign for resources and whatever empire is "lucky" to have more resources and thus expansion power, gets "more lucky". It's a bit of a domino-stacking effect.

No doubt, and I agree... But SOE has this free-to-play system they must maintain...

[Figment]

People just get overloaded with information and the map changes too fast to really campaign for it on top of the effect being hardly noticeable or only noticeable over time.

Facility benefits (provides tank tech, etc) are much easier to work with. :/

[Babyfark McGeez]

One thing i never understood and it really hit me again when i was watching angry joe and friends "getting their shit pushed back in" on hossin; Why aren't resources global?

Because imo the best way to go about resources is to make the amount of territory matter (like the old system but unlike the current one), but have it global so you can't get "starved" on one continent and have to go elsewhere to resupply. One would think this would be obvious and really easy to implement.

As for basically selling more frequent access to tanks/air/maxes via resource boosts/membership, well...atm it doesn't seem to matter since it's "Phase-one-side" all over again. But once the resource system works properly i see this as a much more slippery slope than selling attachments, guns or implants.
After all, with this new system you can no longer affect your resource gain by your personal performance. Boosts are the only way to do that now. Not particulary good.

And please don't come up with this "SOE has to make money" BS, that is pretty much a bad joke by now.
Where is my purple fro, my selection of different character and face models, my server/name/sex change tokens or any other form of basic merchandising hm? :p
As long as i don't see any of that i call BS on any "Oh us poor, poor SOE, we just can't help but put price tags on game mechanics to survive" excuses. They are just fucking lazy when it comes to monetization, probably in no small part due to the godawful "rush it rush it" way of developing this game, but that is their problem and the dead horse continuing to rear its ugly, dead head since they announced their silly 20th november 2012 release date.
It's the gift that keeps on giving, we also owe "Phase-one-side" to it.

Maybe they will actually learn the lesson behind this for future projects, but i have my doubts about that.

[ringring]

One thing i never understood and it really hit me again when i was watching angry joe and friends "getting their shit pushed back in" on hossin; Why aren't resources global?


Because, I imagine, because of the whole the rich get richer and the poor get poorer thing.

If the territory division means that one empire is starved then they're starved everywhere, you can't change continent to get more resources and if that happens you start asking what purpose does resources play at all.

Mind you, the problem with resources is indicative of many flawed systems. They should have designed this game from the top down rather than the bottom up.

[Mordelicius]

What claim have I made that you want me to provide data for? Asking me for evidence without specifying what claim you want me to substantiate makes it look like you don't actually understand what those concepts mean.

My criteria for objective is "backed up with empirical evidence".

You had zero argument whatsoever from the start. I made a long argument/point with 5 examples. You came up with a nonargument to coax me to argue with myself, without you providing any counterargument or counterexample. This is a common trap, trickery and logical fallacy that's took me a couple seconds to see (there's even a term for this, but it escape me atm).

So I simply turned around these 'sources' and 'data' question of yours to show that these phantom 'source' or 'data' is no reason for rebuttal since that would mean I would be just debating myself.

I gave you these two easy outs and yet you still want to weasel out of it by accusing me of being not 'objective'. But I know that's another bluff since it would be impossible for you to list a criteria of being objective without proving me right or proving yourself wrong.

Do you really expect me to compare and contrast my points to these unrealistic, nonexistent 'sources' and 'data'? You've foisted up these psuedo-strawmen argument yourself in the first place, that's because you have no conterarguments or counterexamples at all.

[Mordelicius]

And yet another fresh example to show the pattern I've been arguing for:

6) Adversarial Alert replaces the old Free-For-All Alert - The old alert system was fine and stable since it was implemented last year. The current Adversarial alert - already calibrated to 51% trigger with 65% to win for the attacker and 50% for defenders - is just plain boring. It's like there's nothing is going on at all.

There is literally no push and pull action going on. There's no sense of urgency belying its own title: Alert!

Gone are the last minute pushes and resecures. Gone are the match-changing base linebreaks. Gone are the poking and parrying.

The old Alerts were the source of exciting gameplay amidst 3 factions. The new Adversarial alert is a source of yawns.

The old Alerts weren't broken. They 'fixed' it and now we got these senseless alerts that doesn't rise above the normal gameplay that it's supposed to enhance.

[BlaxicanX]

You had zero argument whatsoever from the start. I made a long argument/point with 5 examples. You came up with a nonargument to coax me to argue with myself, without you providing any counterargument or counterexample. This is a common trap, trickery and logical fallacy that's took me a couple seconds to see (there's even a term for this, but it escape me atm).

So I simply turned around these 'sources' and 'data' question of yours to show that these phantom 'source' or 'data' is no reason for rebuttal since that would mean I would be just debating myself.

I gave you these two easy outs and yet you still want to weasel out of it by accusing me of being not 'objective'. But I know that's another bluff since it would be impossible for you to list a criteria of being objective without proving me right or proving yourself wrong.

Do you really expect me to compare and contrast my points to these unrealistic, nonexistent 'sources' and 'data'? You've foisted up these psuedo-strawmen argument yourself in the first place, that's because you have no conterarguments or counterexamples at all.

So you admit that I proposed no argument, but ask me to provide evidence to support this non-existent argument anyway?

Basically, you tried to promote your thread as having objective merit rather than being merely your opinion on some balance mechanics, and now you're upset because by asking you to provide evidence to support your assertions, I've exposed how baseless your claims really are. Okay.

Trying to paint the situation as me having some kind of secret personal hard-on for you is flattering, but inaccurate. You're not nearly interesting enough of a person to warrant "trapping" into an argument, to be honest. There are more interesting, and seemingly more capable posters on this forum for me to engage in discussion, and in fact by this point I'm mostly just responding to you out of obligation- you've already conceded that your arguments are based on nothing more than personal sentiments, so there's no point left for me to make.

In short, calm your tits.

You never over-simplify things, do you? :p



Instant death (coming from all directions) means there's no actual dueling time, at all.

Do you remember how much people enjoyed the Flail in PS1?



People expect a kill on them to take effort. Skill. If all it takes is you popping your head out for a second, then they don't perceive this as skill, but as the game doing the killing for you(r opponent). Thus it's boring.


There is no chance for tension to built up. No chance for adrenaline to start pumping. When I was in a firefight in PS1, my blood was pumping, I was using my brain to seek the best cover, the best timing. Every option to turn it into a win in those few seconds you got.

If you get no seconds, that entire process is just not there, you just sit there "oh". And people don't like to just sit somewhere going "oh" and having to run all the way to somewhere distant (say up a 240m cliff) again, just to be instantly killed, again. It's boring.

So what you need to do, is ensure people, even those new to the game get into firefights that last long enough for them to feel they've done something or had a chance to do something.

Who enters a lottery where you know you're probably going to lose?

I think we're on the same page, though for different reasons. Coming from a Call of Duty/Battlefield background, I don't mind the twitch/split-second mechanics of the game. As an avid Halo player I recognize the fun of dueling, but I don't know if raising the TTK to the point where that could be viable would work in this game- keep in mind that this game operates on a much larger scale than its predecessor. There are a lot more players on the field at one time, and having higher TTK could potentially make defensive play even harder.

But I do still support raising the overall TTK of the game, primarily because the current situation is proving to make it very difficult to balance weapons. The range between "low damage" and "high damage" is too small, which is why we're seeing the constant fluctuation of damage output from vehicles, with them being repeatedly buffed and nerfed.

I'm also of the opinion that NC have the worst guns in the game- or at the very least the most inconsistent- and I think that the game's low TTK threshold has a lot to do with that. NC's guns are supposed to be the hardest hitting in exchange for low clip sizes and shit accuracy, but because of how low the TTK is, they can only make them so strong without turning them into basically OSK guns. As a result the difference in damage between them and VS/TR guns isn't that drastic, so the NC's main advantage is mitigated. Raising the TTK would allow the devs to raise the amount of damage that NC guns do without making them overpowered.

That's a bit of a tangent, though. To focus back on sniper rifles, I support the idea of OSK head-shots because it's the only way for bolt action rifles to really be useful. Even if they still took away like 99% of a character's health per shot, meaning a guaranteed kill on already hurt players, that's still a role that a semi-auto rifle could perform better. The only notable advantage bolt-actions have over semi-autos is their ability to OSK. Being more accurate and having longer range is nice, but again without the ability to instantly kill a target those advantages are rather useless, because if an opponent is so far away that a semi-auto can't be used, chances are they'll also have full health, meaning you won't kill them with that one shot. Once they get hit, and survive, any player that isn't mentally impaired will easily be able to dart behind cover or zig-zag around in the time it takes you to re-chamber another shot, account for bullet drop and squeeze off another shot.

So in short, while I wouldn't mind seeing headshots be taken away from all the normal guns and even semi-auto rifles, I think that they're a necessary component for bolt-actions. As far as "skill", I'd posit that it takes a lot more skill to headshot someone from 200 meters away with a bolt-action rifle than it does to mow them down with an LMG at 20. That might not be the type of skill some players appreciate, but it's still skill. Being a sniper isn't as easy as their victims would assert.

[Gatekeeper]

Regarding sniper rifles and OSKs - in PS1 no sniper rifle was capable of a OSK, and the bolt-action rifles were still powerful and useful, it's just a matter of balancing them right.

PS1 sniping was less about getting a lot of kills, and more about suppression - you forced wounded enemies to fall back or dive for cover, and so reduced the opposing force's ability to fight back. That's not to say you didn't get kills through sniping, but it was more a matter of cat-and-mouse, or teamwork, to get kills and less of a lone-wolf multi-kill thing.

Honestly I'm all in favour of a longer TTK all around. I don't think it should be as slow as PS1, but I don't think less OSKs will hurt the game at all - and it'll certainly help to retain new players, which is good for everyone in the end.

[BlaxicanX]

The way you've described them doesn't make them sound useful. If no sniper can OSK, then why bother using a bolt action instead of a semi-auto rifle? In fact a weapon with the faster RoF is going to be a better suppression weapon anyway.

I'd also posit that a sniper rifle doesn't make an effective suppression weapon in this type of environment anyway. There's just too many players. Rather than taking pot-shots at individual players, why not just hop into a tank and suppress entire groups of players at a time? You've got almost as much range.

[Gatekeeper]

Well, it obviously depends on damage-per-shot, refire rate, reload time, etc. etc. etc. You might as well say "how can a gun with lower RoF but higher damage-per-shot ever be useful unless it's a OSK" - which is an extremely reductive argument.

As for "why use a sniper-rifle for suppression instead of a tank" you could equally well use the same argument for using either for outright kills. The answer is that they have different pros and cons - a tank is a big, obvious target that requires an investment of resources and is limited in where it can go compared to infantry - but in return it's tougher, and has more firepower.

FWIW a tank doesn't need to one-hit-kill infantry in order to be effective either - the PS1 Magrider was a strong anti-tank platform but (relatively) weak against infantry (at least once it's 'magmowing' roadkill potential was nerfed) and was still both fun and effective.

tl;dr - there are plenty of ways of differentiating weapons without resorting to "this one has a OSK while this other one fires faster but doesn't" and OSKs aren't essential to the game.

[Taramafor]

PS1 sniping was less about getting a lot of kills, and more about suppression - you forced wounded enemies to fall back or dive for cover, and so reduced the opposing force's ability to fight back. That's not to say you didn't get kills through sniping, but it was more a matter of cat-and-mouse, or teamwork, to get kills and less of a lone-wolf multi-kill thing.

Honestly I'm all in favour of a longer TTK all around. I don't think it should be as slow as PS1, but I don't think less OSKs will hurt the game at all - and it'll certainly help to retain new players, which is good for everyone in the end.

PS1 was only slow because of character movement and towers that people creep from instead of using common sense to grab vehicles from bases. If cover and suppression is used more effectively in this game, I'd most likely love the fuck out of it and look over most of the games flaws. But for some reason the devs don't like defense, and therefore are unlikely to go down the route of using cover. And unfortunately, the lag that causes people to die a moment after actually getting killed doesn't help. It can easily make people think they're dying in cover when they actually got the killing hits outside of it. That'll need to be fixed first regardless of cover use I think.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Because, I imagine, because of the whole the rich get richer and the poor get poorer thing.

If the territory division means that one empire is starved then they're starved everywhere, you can't change continent to get more resources and if that happens you start asking what purpose does resources play at all.

Mind you, the problem with resources is indicative of many flawed systems. They should have designed this game from the top down rather than the bottom up.

But how often are you so fucked with all continents combined? There has to be atleast some continent where your faction holds some territory, otherwise you're boned regardless of the system and either have like 10% global pop or your faction is functionally retarded.

As i see it, it can happen that your faction gets warpgated on one continent, but usually in turn they dominate another continent. Aside from the odd hours (where the current system is no help either) the territory control pretty much evens out when viewed globally, which is why it would make way more sense to treat resource income globally too. It would even things out.

Buuut let's see what they make up, i mean, come up with. :p

[Mietz]

But how often are you so fucked with all continents combined? There has to be atleast some continent where your faction holds some territory, otherwise you're boned regardless of the system and either have like 10% global pop or your faction is functionally retarded.

As i see it, it can happen that your faction gets warpgated on one continent, but usually in turn they dominate another continent. Aside from the odd hours (where the current system is no help either) the territory control pretty much evens out when viewed globally, which is why it would make way more sense to treat resource income globally too. It would even things out.

Buuut let's see what they make up, i mean, come up with. :p

This is part of phase 2 for resources which will combine with intercontinental lattice and ANTs.

[Rivenshield]

This is part of phase 2 for resources which will combine with intercontinental lattice and ANTs.

So they actually *are* bringing back the ANT...?

They gonna do anything about the time to kill?

[Mietz]

So they actually *are* bringing back the ANT...?

They gonna do anything about the time to kill?

Yes.
Its started already with a damage nerf to explosives.

[Mordelicius]

So you admit that I proposed no argument, but ask me to provide evidence to support this non-existent argument anyway?

Basically, you tried to promote your thread as having objective merit rather than being merely your opinion on some balance mechanics, and now you're upset because by asking you to provide evidence to support your assertions, I've exposed how baseless your claims really are. Okay.

Trying to paint the situation as me having some kind of secret personal hard-on for you is flattering, but inaccurate. You're not nearly interesting enough of a person to warrant "trapping" into an argument, to be honest. There are more interesting, and seemingly more capable posters on this forum for me to engage in discussion, and in fact by this point I'm mostly just responding to you out of obligation- you've already conceded that your arguments are based on nothing more than personal sentiments, so there's no point left for me to make.

In short, calm your tits.
Funny, you keep throwing words like 'source', 'data', and 'objective', yet you have yet to give any form of example of any. Again, what's your criteria for being objective in PS2 forum/discussion? Remember, I didn't use these words, you did.

From the start, you want to open an epistemological debate on PS2 'source'/'data' (and now 'objectivity'), yet when I ask you for examples to know your position, you come with nothing.

What is 'source' to you?
What is 'data' to you?
What is 'objective' to you?

Basically, you don't say anything despite 3 of my questions, and expect me to interpret your philosophic positions and debate with myself. In short, you want a debate you don't want to be part of it. That's what's going on here.

Reveal your positions, define it, then make an argument based on them yourself. Otherwise, the only one you are confusing is yourself.

[Babyfark McGeez]

This is part of phase 2 for resources which will combine with intercontinental lattice and ANTs.

Ahyeah i forgot, phase-one-side...

What a bunch of hacks...

[Figment]

Regarding sniper rifles and OSKs - in PS1 no sniper rifle was capable of a OSK, and the bolt-action rifles were still powerful and useful, it's just a matter of balancing them right.

There were two sniper rifles in PS1:

Boltdriver: Bolt-action, one shot at a time, which did IIRC 90 health damage and a lot of AP damage.

Heavy Scout rifle: Scout-Rifle, fast sniper, which did very little health damage, but shot quite rapidly and had a clip. But it did so little damage, it was to the point most players didn't use the HSR at all. It could have been balanced better by dealing half to double health damage per shot then what it did. I don't think anyone would have minded.


The current sniper rifles in PS2 that fire fast, seem to fire almost as fast as an uzi. At least that's how it feels when you empty the clip at short range. The refire rate has always felt insane to me at the damage they do and the accuracy they have. Granted, I'm not a terribly good shot, but I recognise it when someone who is could go haywire with it... I just fail to see the point of the bolt-type in comparison as it is a lot more forgiving, certainly at short range. I've seen many people use it as a shotgun and SMG for infils before they actually gave shotguns and SMGs out and be very effective with it. The only reason to use a bolt in PS2 right now is because it can one shot.


IMO, the speed-firing snipers should be slowed down a bit in rof, while the bolt should lose headshot capacity when silenced and not shown on radar.


I'm not a sniper player myself, as I'm more the melee type ambush player, but this is what seems fair to me and would make there be more of a choice between the playstyles and as I think Blaxican said, offer some balancing options between the empires.

[ringring]

There were two sniper rifles in PS1:

Boltdriver: Bolt-action, one shot at a time, which did IIRC 90 health damage and a lot of AP damage.

Heavy Scout rifle: Scout-Rifle, fast sniper, which did very little health damage, but shot quite rapidly and had a clip. But it did so little damage, it was to the point most players didn't use the HSR at all. It could have been balanced better by dealing half to double health damage per shot then what it did. I don't think anyone would have minded.


The current sniper rifles in PS2 that fire fast, seem to fire almost as fast as an uzi. At least that's how it feels when you empty the clip at short range. The refire rate has always felt insane to me at the damage they do and the accuracy they have. Granted, I'm not a terribly good shot, but I recognise it when someone who is could go haywire with it... I just fail to see the point of the bolt-type in comparison as it is a lot more forgiving, certainly at short range. I've seen many people use it as a shotgun and SMG for infils before they actually gave shotguns and SMGs out and be very effective with it. The only reason to use a bolt in PS2 right now is because it can one shot.


IMO, the speed-firing snipers should be slowed down a bit in rof, while the bolt should lose headshot capacity when silenced and not shown on radar.


I'm not a sniper player myself, as I'm more the melee type ambush player, but this is what seems fair to me and would make there be more of a choice between the playstyles and as I think Blaxican said, offer some balancing options between the empires.

Yea the normal sniper was 2 shots to kill while the HSR was 4 shots.

I actually never used either but especially not the HSR until very late on in the life of PS1. Funnily enough the HSR was very effective. I mean if you were shot by a sniper rifle you immediately ran for cover however if you were shot by an HSR people didn't seen to worry about it. You'd be surprised at the number of people who would hang around to be shot all 4 times.

[Gatekeeper]

Well I guess the HSR didn't appear until quite late - by that point people's "oh shit! Bolt Driver!" instincts were pretty finely tuned ;)

[Calista]

They need to stop working on PS2 beyond bug fixes and polish and start working on Planetside 3. Just basically keep on with the general direction of the game while adding "maps" and other features (maybe add a 4th faction for better monetization etc.) and go for another marketing push under the guise of a different title. Sound familiar? Cheesy I know but it seems to work. If it weren't for the PS4 version coming out soon this would be a no-brainer and might still be viable in this case as well. Pops are stale and this incremental release process isn't helping much at all. Just freeze it and bundle up new things for a push under a new title and hopefully with all the work that has been done the past 2 years the retention will be better the next time around.

[CrankyTRex]

Well, when I left PS2 it wasn't because of minor balancing issues like sniper rifles. It was because I didn't feel any sense of accomplishment playing the game, and I suspect most people who try it and bail feel the same way.

There's just very few opportunities for an individual, particularly a newb, to feel like they did something important, which is due to the combination of low TTK, awkward base design, and bad spawn/heal/territory control mechanics. Instead of fixing how one captured bases, they just dropped the lattice on everything and officially made the game a meat grinder.

Meat grinders are fine for games with rounds and points like CoD because then the sense of accomplishment comes from winning a round, but PS2 is open ended, so that isn't an option.

All the potential MMO avenues of accomplishment like levels, skills, quest rewards, and such are blunted by the whole cert system which is designed around revenue generation. Obviously they're not going to spit out a new gun or camo for you every couple levels/achievements because then you'd be less inclined to pay money for certs, and similarly the amount of certs required for anything of note has to be high enough to encourage paying instead of playing.

And it's not terribly organic at grouping people together outside a zerg either. A small group of five guys have pretty much no chance of heroically stalling a larger enemy assault and thus build some form of camaraderie such that they might stick together for a while. If you're outnumbered, you might as well just leave rather than fight to the death.

So once the novelty of the scale of it wears off, there's not much reason to stick around unless you happened to make some friends with an outfit.

[Mordelicius]

Seems they are reverting the alert changes.

In Emerald, VS just cap every continent while NC and TR just Indarside through it all. :lol: There's no reason to participate on multiple alerts that goes on and on. That is even when they recently changed it to 50-51% victory conditions.

Any future continent locking mechanics should prevent stacking in one continent. This will make it more challenging and rewarding to cap a continent.
Example:

Esamir Lock Conditions: 95% Esamir base capture + 33% base capture on 2 (or 3) other continents.

Sure, players may not be in Esamir, but the will still be a part of the process while withholding the 33% base percentage from a faction stacker, while fighting in Indar, or Hossin. This will bring back the multi-continent 'campaign' feel that was lost when they discontinued the Global Alerts :doh:.

These conditions should be explicitly stated in the Warpgate terminals for the non-alert event. Or better yet, it should be in the map.

Currently, too much continent stacking. This will remain true even if they revert back to the last alert/continent cap mechanics. It's almost as if it's a race who get to zerg through the continent first, while neglecting the other continents. And if one caps first, it's a race whether the next cap can be stopped or not.

[Figment]

I don't know. I don't know that when we say "cont lock" the devs hear "cont lock" in the same way we mean it.


They locked it. Key. Throw it away.

We mean: capture it all, get comm benefit and make it hard to get back on continent because enemies don't have a foothold, then push through to the next continent, hold foothold on other continent to keep enemies from attempting to get through the warpgate...


As I said in Alpha, the warpgate design being a Sanctuary is the culprit here. As long as the warpgate is the fallback base, you don't have active continent switching, because people aren't literally kicked off.

[Rivenshield]

Not to mention a lack of sancs means you have ten-twenty dipsticks standing around counting against their empire's pop limit... whatever that mysterious number may be.

[Mordelicius]

SOE need to stop fixing things that aren't even broken.

I just saw Gourney Dam get dismantled just like that on Planetside 2 Twitch channel. Witnessing the base gutted like that is disheartening and disagreeable.

The only thing that base is lacking is proper attacker Sunderer parking to the north, that's it. 'Proper' as in a shed or two.

Now, they got this wide open base that's going be a sniper haven on all sides, with tanks poking in and attackers having easy access to spawn camp both the main spawn and the teleporter spawn. Not only that, it's going to be buzzing with aircrafts now that the tall turrets are gone.

Wow, I swear, and I say this without venom. Do they even play their own game? I doubt it very much. It's mind-boggling, they always find a base to wreck. They did it to the Crown. They did it to Tawrich Tower. They did it to Quartz Ridge.

Tawrich Tower was great last year. It had this amazing crossroad that's a gateway to the east. All they saw in it was their Red Dot Dogma. Basically what that is, when they see a bunch of killing in their graphs, they automatically think it is 'bad'. Hence, it's dogma. They don't ever see it as good within context or flow.

What is Tawrich tower now? There's a huge rock formation blocking all line of sight, with the cap point in the outside building covered by more rocks. It's no wonder nobody wants to fight there. Contrast that with the EPIC fights last year. All they are doing is 'shift' these red dots, since players flee from the bases they destroy.

What's happening:
Good base tampered > Goes bad > Players avoid it > "red dots" go away.

Instead of finding cues from a good base and applying it to other bases, they're rather ruin a base, so players will spread out and not flock to it.

Now, if they are just removing a dozen objects and replacing it with a log, that would have been enough. But, why allow attackers such close access to the spawn room too?. It's mighty perplexing why spawn camping is being encouraged. :confused:

They just announced a spawn kill timer that gives zero XP. This is similar to the death XP timer i've been advocating since launch.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51359
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=56506

How will the defenders be able to defend, when it's so easy to lock players in. Do they realize that AA turrets are useless without an AV turret complement because tanks and infantry will destroy it easily? It's the interplay between Aircraft pressuring the AV turret, AA pressuring the aircraft and everything in between, vice versa. Everything in between as in Snipers pressuring engies repairing, AV laying down suppression fire on infantry pathway etc etc.

Once it is down, then aircrafts will descend to seal all defenders in. Obviously they don't know this because, they don't really participate in fights, and they aren't fluent with the chronology, flow and context of the battle at all.

This will be like Waterson's Redemption without the walls. I'm sure they never had an epic attack/defense experience on Gourney Dam. Instead, they consult graphs and dots as their reference.

[Rivenshield]

SOE need to stop fixing things that aren't even broken.

I just saw Gourney Dam get dismantled just like that on Planetside 2 Twitch channel. Witnessing the base gutted like that is disheartening and disagreeable.

It would seem that the tug of war between the ESports and Traditionalist factions continues apace....

[Mordelicius]

It would seem that the tug of war between the ESports and Traditionalist factions continues apace....

The thing is, PS2 Devs just stubbornly try to force personal/team design protocols that aren't simply fun to fight in.

some examples:
No Deploy Zones - They could have just given a Sunderer an upgrade/sidegrade ability to deploy and jam enemy sunderers from spawning players. That would have been more dynamic and conducive to the fight.

Three-point Caps far away from each other - Are players lining up to fight at J908(?) Crater? The Ascent? The new Crown? Players avoid these bases because it's simply not fun at 3-point bases where you have to WALK a long ways off and not have a good encounter while doing it. Players want to shoot and get shot at while going from point to point.

Compare that to highly popular Tower Bases and Biolabs where the cap points are relatively closer to each other. It's not even close. Watch, they will tamper with the Towers and Biolabs next. I heard they are just about ready to pluck A out of the tower and plant it elsewhere. My best hope here is that they don't put it some ways off (like the Crown).

Do they actually believe it's fun for for players to guard a cap point that's not even contested. it's a foolish thought. If one is to check ALL of the established Tower bases, if you're in one of the cap points, you're always engaged in the fight.

That or sleep at Crown C point, J908 C point. Even on non-tower bases like Howling Pass, the fights are always intense with the points, the gates, the pads and the generators are always contested.

The only close 3-point that isn't really fun is the new Quartz Ridge. And that's only because it doesn't fit the lattice it is on. The old Quartz Ridge was far superior in flowing from Indar Excav or towards Hvar. The base itself is good, but within the context of the lattice and the terrain, it simply makes no sense.

Now, they've just about imbalanced the new Gourney Dam. I mean snipers will simply be dropped on the large rocks and the high walls. If it's Vanu, there would be Lasher/Maxes there shooting energy balls at the spawns from those high points. That's not to mention aircrafts utilizing the trees, terrain and walls to their advantage. As for the tanks on the ground. What's to stop them from shooting from the bridge areas? It's similar to what they did to the Biolab defender spawn. Surround and spawn camp.

The worse part about this is they haven't cited what's exactly justifies this full overhaul. It's a very popular base and is the equivalent of old Crown at Hossin, that promotes a lot of intense and memorable -and often combined arms - battles. Yet, the first thing they can think of is replace it. Really? :huh: It's so inexplicable :doh:.

The only real thing that is 'off' in this base is the eastern part (sorry not north as I've mentioned before) where parking a sundy is almost prohibitive. There's simply no good parking spots with a large and lengthy natural rock formation. The sunderers always end up being easily destroyed by tanks in plain sight up and down that road. Other than that, there's simply no reason to just tear this great base apart.

[Rivenshield]

The thing is, PS2 Devs just stubbornly try to force personal/team design protocols that aren't simply fun to fight in.

Whoah. Time out.

/waves hands

Tech pubs/process analyst guy here. I've worked on plenty of major enterprise software development projects for customers ranging from HP to the state of California, and while you can have plenty of conflicting opinions on design and implementation -- and plenty of small-town style bitching and my-clique-is-cooler-than-yours-ing, because every dev team is a tiny community unto itself -- you better believe the development manager is the czar and master of everything that actually gets implemented.

Which in our case is Higby. He is a two-fisted pro-social high energy good guy and I'd probably enjoy working for him. But he is enamored of the high-speed eSports model, and we've all known that since day one. Good defense leads to chokepoints and stalemates and all those other things that are detrimental to High Speed Fluid Dynamic Gameplay. The real world fallout (to point out one example) is that he'd rather have these cockamamie No Deployment Zones than what almost any PS1 vet would regard as decent base design.

We know that because that's what we're stuck with. We're stuck with his prejudices as to what constitutes Fun, most of which are antithetical to those in the bittervet community. In all honesty, *he's* stuck with genuine constraints on man hours and money, and sometimes at a certain point you shrug and say, hey, fuckit, we coulda-shoulda done that better but it's time to move on instead of staying locked in analysis paralysis. I can't even fathom what an alarming chunk of time and resources it took to backtrack and go, uh, yeah, we need that lattice thing... and to his credit he rolled with the punch. We know that too.

(Which makes the ongoing base design tweakage all the more irritating. Why bust up good bases that make memorable fights and not redesign a few to get rid of the gayass arbitrary red circle that robs me of the high art and adventure of trying to park my AMS in the most creative way possible? Why not put actual defensible WALLS instead of gigantic fences on a lot of those bases in Esamir? And so on and so forth, which seems to be your main beef. Me, I'm jaundiced at this point. If the landscape magically changes I just shrug and fight over it any more. What I lust for is a good strategic metagame like we had out of the box 11 years ago, along with engie tools that actually let you shape the battlefield instead of merely placing random booby traps. Give me back my high-density minefields and Spitfire turrets, God damn it).

Now. About those money constraints. Sitting over him and controlling the purse strings is Smed. A good middle manager has a holistic grasp of how to deliver to the customers, ride side-saddle with the code jockeys that are doing the actual work, balance his budget, and placate his corporate masters. A rotten one makes a lot of noise about the first three ('customer value', 'bottom line' and so forth) and only thinks of the latter. You know Smed is a pure political animal when he didn't get shitcanned after the hash he made of Star Wars Galaxies. Nobody could have pulled that kind of boober in the regular business world and destroyed an entire customer base and created that kind of bad word of mouth and *not* lost his job unless he has Jedi-like bullshit artist skills. So there's that.

Fact: Higby makes all the decisions. And everything he does gets filtered for cost-effectiveness/how brightly it makes him shine to *his* superiors by Smed. We are not talking about a fucking democracy here. We're not talking about a community like PSU, except with uber game design skills. We are talking about Big Business. We have a great software lead with whom we profoundly disagree on a good many issues and a middle manager who's a hybrid clone of Barack Obama and the pointy-haired manager from the Dilbert cartoons. This is their game. It's their baby.

And if Malorn (the bittervet Steve Jobs) and his Old School Is Best School faction -- and that's what I intuit we're talking about here -- manage to shove their concepts through the double-barreled corporate bullshit filter that comprises ANY software development environment and score the odd recognizable victory, then we should be grateful.

Take all of this however you please.

[ringring]

Whoah. Time out.

/waves hands

Tech pubs/process analyst guy here. I've worked on plenty of major enterprise software development projects for customers ranging from HP to the state of California ...........
and his Old School Is Best School faction -- and that's what I intuit we're talking about here -- manage to shove their concepts through the double-barreled corporate bullshit filter that comprises ANY software development environment and score the odd recognizable victory, then we should be grateful.

Take all of this however you please.

Great post, but isn't intuit what we have to call eskimos there days :p

Personally, I think ps2 as it is now is all we'll ever get.

Right at the start Smed talked about sandbox and Eve and how it wasn't going to be Planetbattlefield. Well, if it isn't Planetbattlefield it certainly isn't Planetside.

Oh, we'll get changes alright, we'll get new hats. Sometimes I think the game is more like Ken and Barbie the MMO than Planetside (yea I know, too harsh, I apologise if any devs read this, I know they're trying).

[Baneblade]

Well, to be fair to your statement... they did outsource the making of new hats.

[Belhade]

Well, then he should go and make an e-sports game and let PS2 be the large-scale battle game it's supposed to be.

[Baneblade]

That was always my problem with him, he claimed to love PlanetSide while at the same time wanting to change the very core of what made it such a great game.


PS2 would have turned out better with SmokeJumper. No, I'm not being ironic.


Higby should have done the LM/EQ thing and just made two different games for the two purposes he wanted them to serve instead of trying to merge them into one mess of incompatible concepts.

[Mietz]

Take all of this however you please.

As someone in market communications this isnt even the tip of the iceberg.

Do you know what corporates love? Graphs.
They fucking love graphs.

Showing them a graph that goes straight up is like giving an addict his fix. This is why red dots are so important, because it makes the graph ugly.
You dont exist, the community does not exist, all that exists is the graph and the graph has to be a curve with an upwards trend, everything will be done to make that curve go up and not down. If it goes down it is evil and bad.

People have lost jobs for making the graph go down.

It doesnt matter if the graph is wrong because it has systemic inaccuracies in measurement or that it displays a change thats in the margin of error (honestly its 90% guesswork for evaluation in most marcom strats).

In my corp a designer was fired because his banner design had a 0.14% lower click-through rate (response rate) than the previous banner done by his predecessor.

ZERO POINT ONE FOUR PERCENT.

[Tatwi]

Chiming in late, I quit essentially for two reasons:

1. I couldn't play the game. It just refused to run properly and was effectively impossible to play. Can't do much when your hits don't register, terminals/vehicles don't work, and everyone teleports all over the screen most of the time. I tried really hard not to let it bother me, but it eventually became literally impossible to do anything other than fly around an empty continent killing... time.

2. The way people choose to play the game is depressing and boring. Massive zergs / spawn room camping with the maximum amount of force multipliers possible, all the time, everywhere. Or... you can play TR or NC, where hundreds of people run once more into the breach, because hey this time it *might* work, right? It really seemed that it didn't matter who's platoon I played with on NC or TR, no one was interested in having any fun. It was either grind XP essentially ghost capping or thoughtlessly throw the entire platoon at over popped zergs without any hope doing more than getting some kills/deaths. I found that I always ended having more fun just looking at the map and figuring out where I personally could be most effective. Though, I did have some fun with a couple outfits here and there.

Now, I dunno. I really like the game itself, the art, the feel, the vehicles, the locations, the combat style... So if it runs properly, I'll play a bit again. I'm actually looking forward to the alpha design Lightning to be released - might just have to buy some Station Cash for the first time in a very long time. But, I just don't have it in me to treat PS2 any more than a fun thing to do, sometimes. My main character has unlocked pretty much everything I care about, so I can log in and blow stuff up whenever without feeling the need to "grind".

[Mordelicius]

Whoah. Time out.

/waves hands

Tech pubs/process analyst guy here. I've worked on plenty of major enterprise software development projects for customers ranging from HP to the state of California, and while you can have plenty of conflicting opinions on design and implementation -- and plenty of small-town style bitching and my-clique-is-cooler-than-yours-ing, because every dev team is a tiny community unto itself -- you better believe the development manager is the czar and master of everything that actually gets implemented.

Which in our case is Higby. He is a two-fisted pro-social high energy good guy and I'd probably enjoy working for him. But he is enamored of the high-speed eSports model, and we've all known that since day one. Good defense leads to chokepoints and stalemates and all those other things that are detrimental to High Speed Fluid Dynamic Gameplay. The real world fallout (to point out one example) is that he'd rather have these cockamamie No Deployment Zones than what almost any PS1 vet would regard as decent base design.

We know that because that's what we're stuck with. We're stuck with his prejudices as to what constitutes Fun, most of which are antithetical to those in the bittervet community. In all honesty, *he's* stuck with genuine constraints on man hours and money, and sometimes at a certain point you shrug and say, hey, fuckit, we coulda-shoulda done that better but it's time to move on instead of staying locked in analysis paralysis. I can't even fathom what an alarming chunk of time and resources it took to backtrack and go, uh, yeah, we need that lattice thing... and to his credit he rolled with the punch. We know that too.

(Which makes the ongoing base design tweakage all the more irritating. Why bust up good bases that make memorable fights and not redesign a few to get rid of the gayass arbitrary red circle that robs me of the high art and adventure of trying to park my AMS in the most creative way possible? Why not put actual defensible WALLS instead of gigantic fences on a lot of those bases in Esamir? And so on and so forth, which seems to be your main beef. Me, I'm jaundiced at this point. If the landscape magically changes I just shrug and fight over it any more. What I lust for is a good strategic metagame like we had out of the box 11 years ago, along with engie tools that actually let you shape the battlefield instead of merely placing random booby traps. Give me back my high-density minefields and Spitfire turrets, God damn it).

Now. About those money constraints. Sitting over him and controlling the purse strings is Smed. A good middle manager has a holistic grasp of how to deliver to the customers, ride side-saddle with the code jockeys that are doing the actual work, balance his budget, and placate his corporate masters. A rotten one makes a lot of noise about the first three ('customer value', 'bottom line' and so forth) and only thinks of the latter. You know Smed is a pure political animal when he didn't get shitcanned after the hash he made of Star Wars Galaxies. Nobody could have pulled that kind of boober in the regular business world and destroyed an entire customer base and created that kind of bad word of mouth and *not* lost his job unless he has Jedi-like bullshit artist skills. So there's that.

Fact: Higby makes all the decisions. And everything he does gets filtered for cost-effectiveness/how brightly it makes him shine to *his* superiors by Smed. We are not talking about a fucking democracy here. We're not talking about a community like PSU, except with uber game design skills. We are talking about Big Business. We have a great software lead with whom we profoundly disagree on a good many issues and a middle manager who's a hybrid clone of Barack Obama and the pointy-haired manager from the Dilbert cartoons. This is their game. It's their baby.

And if Malorn (the bittervet Steve Jobs) and his Old School Is Best School faction -- and that's what I intuit we're talking about here -- manage to shove their concepts through the double-barreled corporate bullshit filter that comprises ANY software development environment and score the odd recognizable victory, then we should be grateful.

Take all of this however you please.

I do not believe the Devs (or the specific Dev you noted) is as 100% rigid design-wise as you make them to be. While I can't reference PS1, they've changed many of design aspects of the game, such as defensibility. Many of our old good ideas such a the XP gain cooldown on death is about to be implemented. Our ideas not to reward spawn campers and reward objective gameplay are being taken to heart.

However, there are still many things that are demonstrably bad that they still haphazardly continue to implement ( such as the NDZ, and the far-spaced cap point).

And that is why the flaws are pointed in detail so they can look at it themselves. A couple of months a go, one of the Devs has said that my NDZ alternative (Sunderer Jammer) is interesting. It's a bit late -I floated that idea as counter to BuzzcutPsycho's NDZ idea 5 months before it was implemented - but it's better than nothing.

The Meta gameplay is forthcoming. They talked about Resource 2.0 with logistics. Also, did you see the Battle island city they are prototyping? It has some nice looking city grids. Lastly, they've also talked about different types of new alerts. That's exactly got me to thinking of a new continent that is vehicle-only.

Imo, the Devs and their design philosophy can change. One of their biggest flaw atm, is their method of relying on Graphs/Heat Maps/Charts to divine gameplay. I believe Gourney Dam is the latest victim of this. If any of the Devs participated in any of the epic fights there, they wouldn't lay a hand on it.

Another flaw is their philosophy of gameplay interference. PvP MMO Gameplay is created through player vs player interaction. A No-Deploy Zone is a player vs developer interaction (that a player can't win or circumvent). It's not gameplay. I'm going to drive-in a Sunderer in with 5-8% probability of sticking to break a stalemate, only to be greeted with a bzzzt, you can't park prompt. Also, before the NDZ, there are so many ways to attack base, from all sides. At the very least add a generator so it becomes gameplay.

Lastly, you're missing out one aspect from their pov: The PS4. They know that DCUO is quite popular PS3/PS4 title having 66-70% player base with the rest being PC. They are positioning this to be a gateway title for newbie console players. If these next generation of gamers get hooked on PS2, they essentially win, because these new gamers will be too jaded to settle for anything less than massive fights.

Despite that, I believe PS2 doesn't necessarily have be E-Sports-esque. They know that it didnt' click. They are just leaving room for possibility that it can click in the future. That's why many of the bases are 'measured' and ready for competitive/skirmish fights.

[Rivenshield]

Well.... speak of the devil... after two years of it being mysteriously okay in this game and a decade in the other, Sony just took my Striker away from me.

This isn't the Striker. It's a DIFFERENT HIGBY WEAPON. It's akin to the old Rocklet gun. I cannot grit my teeth, put that reticle on an elusive target -- Scythes, buggies, etc. -- show some fire discipline when I get hit, and hassle them with my MIRVed mini-missile launcher any more, and score the occasional joyous kill. I cannot group together with my fellow grunts to form a small bipedal missile complex and rain hate from the heights into the valley. I cannot warn off marauding enemy fighters by pointing my (empty?) launcher at them so that they hear that ominous 'tink, tink' tink.'

I mentally review the countless chokepoints I've defended with that weapon and realize that enemy armor can simply sail right through and up to me, and buggies and quads can zig-zag right up to my AMS, and I can do very little about it besides spray lead. It's a completely different map now.

Higby? When you said yes to this you fucked up badly. This isn't 'balancing'. It isn't even a nerf. It's a demoralizing kick in the nuts. It's a game-changer, and not for the better. I'm out for the forseeable future.

[synkrotron]

Well... I read most of that.

Seems a lot of the PSU hard core have given up on PS2, although they still like to chat about it. I find that interesting in itself and for me says that you've not completely given up on PS2 just yet.

As for me, I'm still playing. I don't look too deeply into this game. I don't care about "balance," "force multipliers," "TTK," "OSK," and all that jazz. I play a very simple version of Planetside 2. I pick fights that suit my limited skill and playstyle. My playstyle is hated by many, but why should I care as long as I am enjoying it?

I also don't get bogged down in all the nerf this, buff that stuff... Things are what they are, bases are fine, to me... I don't mind the Zergs, the spawn camping, air dominating infantry dominating armour etc. I just log on and see what is going at the time. Might be a 4v4 tussle or a 96+v96+ mega battle.

The only thing that would improve this game for me is performance, and that is it.

But that's just me and I appear to be very much in the minority...

[Qwan]

Hi guys long time no see.

I’ve been playing PS2 off and on, these last couple of months, spending most of my time in ESO. But it’s always good to log on during opps nights and have some fun. Currently I see one of the problems with this game is that it’s not expanding, there spending so much time listening to people whine about balance and base design. And the funny part is most of these guys crying about it want that one shot weapon and the "enemy can only attack from one direction". I personally log on and have a good time, whether it’s getting spawn camped or camping the spawn. Whether its getting the nice shot with my sniper rifle, to get that one shot kill. I think that most of these upset players need to understand it’s how gaming combat is, I mean I really want to see more crying over new vehicles, more continents, and getting the lattice system up so I can use the warp gate instead of having to abandon my vehicle every time we switch continents.

Personally the weapons work fine I have fun when I play, right now I’m just waiting for more vehicles, and more continents and a lattice system that connects the continents, and get rid of these warp gates. Currently I’m BR 100, so certs mean nothing and neither does station cash, it’s just sits there and builds up. I did spend a little on the Valkyrie (or flying coffin) but other than that I still log in once a week to join the guys in some opps hoping something new.

[Figment]

And the funny part is most of these guys crying about it want that one shot weapon and the "enemy can only attack from one direction".

Nice respectful hostility to open a debate with?

And actually, your grasp of who's doing the whining and what they want is less than... How shall I put it... Less than basic. Sounds like you've just got prejudices and have absolutely no clue what is being whined about.

So you saying "most of these guys"

I personally log on and have a good time, whether it’s getting spawn camped or camping the spawn.

Good for you. Ever imagined that not everyone is like you and MOST PEOPLE don't actually enjoy camping, nor being camped? Look at ANY game and the one thing that everyone always agrees on is that camping is a negative aspect of the game and should be reduced to a minimum, hardly ever stimulated as it does not contribute to gameplay, rather, it detracts since it's repetitive, doesn't allow anything exciting or interesting to happen where player skill actually matters to influence the outcome of a match and is therefore boring.

So. Good for you enjoying that, but you forget that the game isn't designed specifically for you, but for huge amounts of players, all with completely different personalities.

Most of which, again, don't enjoy camping and look down on it.

Whether its getting the nice shot with my sniper rifle, to get that one shot kill.

Although some sniper rifles one can imagine a one shot kill to be justifiable on, you seem to be unable to comprehend when a one shot kill is justified and when it isn't.

And by that I mean in relation to overall game design. Games are meant to be fun, so when one shot kills turn a game into a meat grinder, it might be "what could realistically be" and fun for those who exploit it under their own terms and goals, but it could be absolutely detrimental to the game experience of another user who is the target in a specific context where the user cannot deal with it, or the volume (amount) of fire that has that one shot kill potential.

PlanetSide, due to its player size scope, has a completely different balancing need from a game of 16-32 Free for All or Team Deathmatch, simply due to "volume of fire". The rate at which bullets and grenades are targeted on a player. If it hinders the player too much to accomplish the other goals set out by a game, this type of unit might have to compromise for the overall fun of players.

For example.

GAME MISSION GOAL:
"Cross open area X to hold semi-open area Y for 5 minutes against 100 respawning enemies"

(objective) (context)

Which is a very common goal in PS2. Now, if you give one shot kills to all those respawning enemies and a camping position with overwatch and no counter possibility and you also provide a swift rate of fire to this one shot kill, you then have a lot of lethal potential per shot, combined with a high rate of fire and a lot of people wielding this weapon. The chances of a player crossing an area that is (easily) camped and holding an area within the zone of influence of the enemy due to reinforcements being easily cut off with the camp, means it's very likely simply impossible to complete the game's mission goal.

Being rigged to fail leads to players being upset with the game when those actually want to succeed in accomplishing the game's goals. Which means that either the game goals have to change or the context in which the game goals have to be accomplished to change... Which basically is why so much emphasis has been put on base design.

And no, players that ask for base design changes don't ask for single direction combat. They ask for defensibility in a 540-1080 degrees direction: up and from all sides. Many of the existing and even more the early base designs wern't designed for defense in any particular combat direction (making it Suiss cheese, execution squads at teleport points and open to airborne rape) or strangely, designed for defense in a single direction, which meant that enemies just circled to the back by default, obsoleting these defenses completely.

The problem is that the level designs had no workable vision for a free roaming map conquest game at all. :/ We're still suffering the consequences of that, in that other content is delayed severely and gameplay is sub-optimal.

I think that most of these upset players need to understand it’s how gaming combat is,

"Gaming combat". I don't think you have ANY and I mean ANY right to provide the definition for what that is considering you show you have absolutely no clue. Sorry, but you're making yourself sound like one of those people who really should just shut up since you enjoy "anything" regardless of quality, unless it's a personal pet peeve. And voila, you present your personal pet peeves immediately:

I mean I really want to see more crying over new vehicles, more continents, and getting the lattice system up so I can use the warp gate instead of having to abandon my vehicle every time we switch continents.

You're whining about "gaming combat" too. I could just say the same ludicrous thing you just said "you just need to understand how (PS2) gaming combat is".

It's insulting, unnecessary, unquantifiable, lacks content and totally misses the point.


Btw. "New vehicles" is only worthwhile if there's a need and if it provides varied gameplay. I have put forth during Alpha that putting so many roles in a few vehicles removes the niches for a lot of these units and therefore severely limits the amount of potential vehicles to be added without creating significant role overlap. At which point it's mostly eye candy, or competition between units that obsolotes the one or the other.

The intercontinental lattice seems under the current circumstances somewhat hard to introduce (they should simply clear two warpgates per continent and link those up). However, I'm wondering if the rest of the game is able to cope.

What you request btw, changing from continent to continent by vehicle, is simply activating the warpgates between the current continents. Which should have been in in Alpha, but apparently has never made it in for whatever reason. I honestly can't imagine why aside them not being able to handle masses of warps per second (which seems easy enough to solve tbh using in game hard spawn points, auto drive, queues, etc).

[Qwan]

Damn figment take it easy you going into nerd rage here.

Your starting to sound like someone who is expecting soooo much from a free to play game.

I approach this game with very low expectation, because what it comes down to is money and PS2 just aint doing it right.

PS everyone enjoys a little spawn camping even you LOL.

[Buggsy]

It's called repetition.

Repetition that could have been broken with some defensive tools like the PS1 AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, and PS1 motion detectors; know what I'm saying.

[Buggsy]

Well... I read most of that.

Seems a lot of the PSU hard core have given up on PS2, although they still like to chat about it. I find that interesting in itself and for me says that you've not completely given up on PS2 just yet.

As for me, I'm still playing. I don't look too deeply into this game. I don't care about "balance," "force multipliers," "TTK," "OSK," and all that jazz. I play a very simple version of Planetside 2. I pick fights that suit my limited skill and playstyle. My playstyle is hated by many, but why should I care as long as I am enjoying it?

I also don't get bogged down in all the nerf this, buff that stuff... Things are what they are, bases are fine, to me... I don't mind the Zergs, the spawn camping, air dominating infantry dominating armour etc. I just log on and see what is going at the time. Might be a 4v4 tussle or a 96+v96+ mega battle.

The only thing that would improve this game for me is performance, and that is it.

But that's just me and I appear to be very much in the minority...

I'm happy you're happy.

[synkrotron]

I'm happy you're happy.

Thank you :D