If anyone cares, here's what I thought of PS

[JackBoCracken]

A little background on me: I occasionally play BF1942 and WC3, but that's about it (currently, that is). I don't usually game more than ~8 hours a week. Most of my time is spent modding BF1942. I did, however, play PS enough to rank BR18 before the last character wipe (I played a little more, but only made it to BR8 or so).

It's not worth the money, not at all. They built a foundation, but the gameplay is heavily flawed.

This is a repost from the beta forums, that was never answered. I had several similar posts:

After testing for a little over a month and lamenting my ideas in various posts on the beta forum, I've found that only the whining posts receive attention from the developers. Regardless, I will repost my constructive criticism here so that the public can see a little bit inside the various flaws of Planetside.
Note that this is not in any way supposed to be a review of the game. The game itself is very solid and stable, and it does pull off the MMO part of MMOFPS. It does not, however, have any depth to its gameplay.

To the developers: perhaps you could reply more to well-written posts and give less attention to those who write simply "THE CURRENT XP SYSTEM SUX ITS TOO SLOW" when the next beta rolls around?

================================

"The range of EXP was always intended to be thin in Planetside and *not the point of the gameplay*. You play to fight. EXP is a byproduct of that but *not the point* nor was it ever intended to be. When we think of ways of retaining customers, we do NOT think of EXP as a tool for that. All our thoughts along those lines are "how do we make the game fresh and cool so people keep playing". It's implied in all of those discussions that everybody we're considering from a retention standpoint is capped out on exp already."
-Twist, 5/13/03
So that my feedback may be constructive and concise to the fullest extent, I will explain my opinions in a multi-paragraph essay designed to convey an argument supplemented by quotes from the developers and from the game�s website. I will try to avoid using personal anecdotes as these do not provide concrete evidence to prove my point. The first essay describes why Planetside is not �fresh and cool.� The afterword suggests several means of improving the game. Please read the following carefully, and consider it in your development process. I believe it will improve the game as a whole. Also, for those who don�t know, tactics = how you do it, and strategy = what you do.

Why Planetside is Not �Fresh and Cool.�

According to the game�s website, Planetside (PS) is the first attempt at a massively multiplayer, online first person shooter �where thousands of players wage war on a planetary scale.�i It features �first-person player-to-player combat and vehicular warfare across ten continents.�i PS is more than an FPS or an RPG, rather, it is an amalgam of the two designed to satisfy fans of either genre. Unfortunately, Planetside fails to achieve the specific goals set out by the developers due to a combination of inherent gameplay flaws, a lack of overall content, and a completely misguided method of player validation.

Although PS is a stable, �massively multiplayer first person action game,�i it falls short of ��war with thousands in a persistent global conflict�i because its gameplay is repetitive, tedious, and frustrating. Gameplay in PS lacks both tactical and strategic depth. On a tactical level, the player either fights to gain control of a base or fights to defend a base. A typical base assault will consist of several dozen players attacking and capturing a tower as a base of operations for the main push to capture a nearby base. Towers provide both protection and reinforcements in the form of wall turrets and respawn tubes, respectively. Alternatively, an attacking force may supplement its assault with an Advance Mobile Station (AMS), which is essentially a mobile spawn point. Unlike the respawn tubes in bases, tower and AMS respawn tubes do not require Nanite Technology Units (NTUs) to operate. They can provide an unlimited fighting force for the empire that controls them.

The defenders must first prevent the attackers from securing a tower. If that fails, the defenders must fall back and guard two main entrances, an auxiliary personnel entrance, and the doors on the upper outdoor level that lead to the compound�s interior. Bases have both turrets and respawn tubes, but the respawn tubes in bases require NTUs to operate. As the defenders die and respawn, the amount of available NTUs diminishes. Herein lays the problem: the defenders must resupply the NTU silo periodically or the base will lose power and revert to a neutral status, at which point the defenders will be unable to spawn and do their jobs.

In a base assault, the attackers are faced with a much smaller tactical burden than the defenders. They do not need to worry about a lack of reinforcements or resources, and they choose the angle of attack. Meanwhile, the defenders must guard multiple entrances and make regular roundtrips in a slow moving, relatively fragile vehicle to an arbitrary NTU resource point several kilometers away. Thus, when given the choice between attacking a defending, a typical player will choose attacking simply because it is much less frustrating. This is what many in the industry call a gameplay flaw.

Furthermore, defenders lack any sort of incentive to guard a base. The loss of a base only extends to the loss of a few minor things: one less spawn point, one less vehicle pad, and one less set of equipment terminals. The loss of a base does not have any sort of tactical or strategic detriment. If a Biology Facility is overrun by an opposing empire, the defenders lose only certification terminals, implant facilities, and advanced medical terminals, all of which are of questionable tactical and strategic value. However, in another first person shooter, Battlefield 1942 (BF1942), the loss of the equivalent of a PS base incurs both a tactical and strategic cost for the player and his or her empire. In BF1942, if a spawnpoint is lost at a mountain pass, the enemy can then send armored reinforcements through the pass, giving them the strategic upper hand. Tactically, if a spawnpoint is lost in BF1942, the player�s team loses access to vehicles, stationary guns, and reinforcements from the spawn. In Planetside, there is no strategic or significant tactical value given to an empire by a base. Therefore, there is very little motivation for an empire to waste time defending a base.

Moreover, Planetside failed to give the player an opportunity to �join a team to conquer territory,�i because in PS, territory has little or no imperial value. It does not matter if the player�s empire fails to hold a valley, defend a bridge, or suppress the flow of troops through a mountain pass. General Sherman did not burn a swath through the South of the United States for no apparent reason. Alexander the Great did not capture aloe because it colored his map with a pleasing blue. They acted in ways that would give them the strategic or tactical advantage. In PS, players do not undergo �tactical combat for control of planetary regions,�i they fight only to control bases of little or no value (why anyone would build a base inside an active volcano presents a great puzzle to the human mind). It is a combination of frustrating gameplay and a lack of incentive that prevents PS from achieving the goal of a �war with thousands in a persistent global conflict.�

Planetside is said to appease gamers of both the FPS and RPG genres, but due to a lack of content, it barely manages to interest either. Content is designed to immerse the player and increase replay ability. Keeping in mind that PS is not designed to be a full-blown RPG and rather a war simulator, the amount of content need not be excessive. Unfortunately, Planetside�s amount of content fails to be even close to adequate.

[JackBoCracken]

Continued....


The level of immersion is not necessarily directly proportional to the amount of content in a game. Attention to detail, quality of said content, and how said content affects gameplay all play a part in immersing a player in a game. Currently, Planetside consists of three empires that are differentiated from each other with a grand total of 24 items: three colors, six vehicles, twelve weapons, and three models. Of these 24 items, only 18 actually affect gameplay. The other six are primarily cosmetic. Architecture, troop transports, and physical properties all lack differentiation. Sanctuary buildings and the layout of each sanctuary are largely the same. Bases and continents that are usually controlled by one empire have no imperial themes. There are no futuristic Vanu Sovereignty cities, nor are there archaic, sprawling Terran Republic metropolises. The New Conglomerate has never built any monuments as a testament to their power. The human race has not been able to grasp the basic concepts of agriculture. The ancient Vanu, despite their heavy involvement in the story of Planetside, vaporized all signs of their existence in the current gameworld. Flora consists of two varieties of grass, one variety of flower, and five or six varieties of indestructible, anti-vehicular trees. Fauna is nonexistent, as is wind, fire, tide, inertia, or seismic activity. Auraxis is fueled by invisible, infinitely available Nanite Technology Units that come magically from giant, indestructible bubbles. The strengths and weaknesses of each empire are largely the same. There is no differentiation among armor values, speed of travel, or agility (for the most part). Most of the differences lie in damage and rate of fire values. These existing distinctions are good, but they pale in comparison to the level of diversity found in games such as Aliens Versus Predator, Warcraft III, and any other game that has more than 3 teams. These are all nitpicks, but even if a fraction of these were improved, perhaps the gamer would believe he or she was actually on a planet named Auraxis, fighting for the glory of his or her empire.

The anemic content affects gameplay and gives players very little reason to keep playing. The combat experience on Ceryshen does not vary from the combat experience on Ishundar. If a new player were to fight on Ceryshen and expect that the snowy environment would make it difficult for the advancement of vehicles, he or she would be sorely disappointed. Likewise, if a player thought that the desert terrain of Ishundar would be less severe when compared to Ceryshen, he or she would find his or her vehicle stuck in a pit of despair. Planetside lacks both immersion and replay ability due to its relatively pathetic quantity of content.

Every single game on the market provides players with validation. In a typical first person shooter, validation comes in two forms: the player�s score and the player�s ability to actively benefit his or her team. Planetside rewards players with a score and experience points for the purpose of character advancement. While this may seem like a good idea, completely ignoring the aspect of benefiting one�s empire was not a good idea. Rewarding the player with just experience points gives the player only one motivation to capture bases: more experience points. While some may point out (and rightfully so) that Planetside should not be about gaining more experience points, these people fail to acknowledge that if experience points did not exist, there would be no reason to have bases, and vice versa.

Furthermore, those who believe that the point of Planetside is only to fight do not realize that other non-massively multiplayer games have better methods of validation. While experience points are beneficial to an empire because they guarantee that a player will not waste his or her certifications. Although experience points do indirectly increase the power of an empire by allowing more players in the empire to gain more abilities, it does not do so directly. Currently, the players of Planetside lack any ability to directly impact the overall power of his or her empire. Bases and terrain both have little or no strategic or tactical value so capture is pointless, and mindless killing does not improve an empire. Alexander the Great did not capture aloe for experience points. He did it to give his troops a means of controlling the symptoms of sunburn. Stalin did not burn fields of crops because it increased his command rank; he did it because it denied the enemy access to resources that would increase their power. Even in older first person shooters, the player is given validation or rewards through his or her degree of impact on his or her team. In Science and Industry (S&I), a five year old modification for Half-Life, a player can directly impact the power of his or her team by stealing a scientist. Capturing an enemy scientist decreases research time on new weapons and implants for the player�s team while increasing research time for the enemy. This is an example of direct impact on the power of a player�s team. Not only can a player gain personally from capturing a scientist in S&I (capturing a scientist equates to five points on the board), but the player also receives the added reward of benefiting his or her team. This is validation, and it makes a player want to play for his or her team.

Planetside fails to achieve the specific goals set out by the developers because bases and terrain have little or no value, the empires are not very unique, the continents are not varied, and the only reward for fighting are experience points.

How to Improve Planetside

Planetside differs from other FPS games in that the player must supply the publisher with a monthly fee to play. Currently, Planetside does not set the bar high enough to be worth the monthly fee. Changes to gameplay, additional validation, and more content would make it well worth the fee.

The developers must objectively consider the current state of combat in Planetside and ask themselves why they believe players feel that bases aren�t worth defending and why terrain/geography has no impact on the pace of an empire�s progression through a continent. They must also ask themselves how they offer players ways of directly impacting the power of their empire.

While I cannot think for the developers and do not have the same perspective as someone who has put very hard work into a project over the course of three years, I offer something that may be of value: an alternative perspective, and a few ideas. The validity of my point of view and the merit of my ideas are two things that should be judged by the developers when (if) they read this.

Currently, bases are horribly frustrating to defend. I hoped I established that. Please, please, please, do something to towers and AMSes. Give the defenders the natural advantage, as they should have it. Some ideas include:

-Limited NTU supply for AMSes and towers.
-Connecting towers to the lattice
-Increasing the spawn times in towers
-Limiting the amount of times a player can spawn from a tower
-Adding a generator to the roof of a tower that can be disabled
-Change the design of the bases so that they�re not so difficult to defend (must disable generator to open back door?)
-Make bunkers much better (a destructible power line that gives them a forcefield? An equipment terminal?)

Currently, bases have very little strategic or tactical value. Taking a continent should require some semblance of strategy, even if it is limited to simply �First we take the bio lab because we can heal much faster that way, then we take the interlink facility because it gives us better protection against hotdrops, and then we take the technology plant because then we�ll be able to repair/resupply vehicles faster.� Some ideas include:

-Make the biology labs vastly improve the medical terminals of friendly bases, and increase the number of medical terminals/make them easier to access. Maybe put med terms in towers?
-Capturing an interlink facility vastly improves radar range for commanders, or perhaps it makes wall turrets on bases latticed to the facility (and on the facility itself) automatically fire on things in the air. Or just automatically fire period (without needing to be hit first). Vehicles would be more important then (they�re good at disabling wall turrets), and a generator strike on the interlink facility could be potentially devastating for the enemy.
-Technology plants should have some sort of vehicle repair/resupply pad. Or perhaps they could decrease the time on repurchase of a vehicle. Or perhaps they could just have more vehicle terminals. Or maybe it gives people in vehicles to coordinate within a large radius (radio channels inside the vehicles)
-Dropship center seems fine as it is
-Amp stations are supposed to decrease NTU usage by 50%, but it�s not very noticeable�perhaps change it so that if a facility is linked to an AMP station, it draws most of its power (say, 80%) from the amp station instead of its own silo. This creates some semblance of a supply line (take out the amp stations, the bases will be forced to truck in ANTs more often) and increases the incentive to defend one (it�s much easier to ANT to a station behind the frontline than it is to drive an ANT to the frontline).

[JackBoCracken]

Continued...

While such ideas are somewhat random and probably aren�t that great, the aim was to create some sense of strategy to the fight over a continent. I�ll give an imaginary gameplay example:

Outfit A of the New Conglomerate wants to take Continent B. They already control a Dropship Facility, but realize that the Vanu control an Interlink Facility to the north, and a Tech Plant to the south. Since it�ll be way too hard to take out the bases in the north (automatic turrets) without some sort of armored support (a hotdrop over automatic turrets would be suicide), they head south for the Tech Plant. After taking the Tech Plant, they form three squads of vehicles, one composed of Vanguards, one composed of Enforcers, and another of four Reavers. The Reavers take off and circle the warp bubble, while the Enforcers are tasked with disabling the generator of the Amp Station that is latticed to the Interlink Facility. Because of their speed and agility, they can accomplish this relatively easily even though the Amp Station is behind enemy lines, and the Enforcers continue to harass and prevent the Vanu from repairing the generator, supplemented by a few . The Vanguards, which are not so agile or fast, travel on the main roads and overpower the turrets on a Bio Lab that is latticed to the Interlink Facility. As the turrets go down, the Deliverers and Sunderers speed into the base, and Outfit A succeeds in capturing the Bio Lab. While the Vanguards guard the Bio Lab (using the nearby Tech Plant to repair and rearm very quickly), a squad of MAXes is formed. The MAXes, paired with a Deliverer full of support infantry, head for a tower south of the Interlink Facility. By this time, the Interlink Facility is at 60% power due to the loss of NTU flow from the Amp Station. Although the MAX squad suffers heavy losses taking the Interlink Facility tower, it eventually succeeds. They quickly repair and rearm thanks to the vastly improved medical terms in the tower (they took a Bio Lab, remember?). The Vanu attempt to resupply the Interlink Facility, but the Reavers deny this. The MAXes attacking from the tower know that their goal is not to capture the base, but rather run it out of resources so that it will go neutral. Because of this, they only attack for just long enough to destroy wall turrets or other items that require power to repair. As the Interlink Facility goes neutral, the automated turrets on adjacent bases lose power, and the New Conglomerate pushes forward with renewed zeal, eventually capturing the north of Continent B.

What could be the converse? I.e., how would defenders use the base abilities to their advantage? Well, let's say the Vanu understand that an attack on their Amp Station generator would be devastating. They know from scouts on wraiths and in reavers/skeeters that a squad of enforcers is headed to the Amp Station, and they know that the enforcers are capable of relatively quick offroad travel. Thus, instead of say, deploying a sunderer to guard the mountain pass that the road leading to the station goes through, they assemble a small squad of two magriders with 2 combat engineers and 2 reinforced exo AV infantry (inside the mags). They use the magrider abilities to their advantage to cut across a lake that is near where the enforcers were last spotted. The enforcers, who are driving all the way around the lake, do not expect to be flanked from vehicles on the water (they're more concerned about reavers). The magriders appear from 9 o'clock (behind and to the left) of the enforcers, and managed to down two of them before the first magrider is destroyed. The gunner of the destroyed magrider bails, and uses his lancer to damage a third enforcer, but doesn't kill it. The second magrider, knowing that it cannot take on 3 enforcers, runs away. It waits at a place on the ridge that is shallow enough for vehicles to pass through, and the driver gets out to lay mines, while the gunner remains stationary in the mag as bait. The enforcers come up over the ridge, and the damaged one dies by mines, but the last two still survive and immediately kill the magrider. The CE attempts to hurt the enforcers with his pulsar, but dies as well. The Vanu have not completely eliminated a threat, but they have used terrain to their advantage, and have realized that their Amp Station has strategic importance. This is a war, a war for Auraxis, in a game called Planetside.

As of May 18th, the last day of beta, we still run around capturing bases for no reason beyond experience points. Both of these scenarios could currently never exist. But they could easily appear with a few gameplay changes. Just a few. There is no new content needed, no new vehicle types needed. Just a little bit of gameplay change.

[Prowler]

Anyone going to read that? lol

[JackBoCracken]

It's only like 2 pages typed single spaced. Takes like ten minutes.

[ZionsFire]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Seer]

He had some good points, especially re: the point of holding territory. He is right to say the holding territory has no inherent advantages other than aesthetics for the holder. IMO, that's a pretty big flaw.

In the future, though, how about editing your posts down a little. I don't imagine people browsing a fansite are in the mood for an essay. Splitting it into more paragraphs wouldn't hurt either.

[Flameseeker]

I think you spent too much time on a game you dislike. :p
Nice points, but some aesthetically pleasing effects aren't as pleasing when you're on a bottom of the line, slow computer. If I ever get into the game, my incentive would be for the fun of it. It's to have fun, and help your empire. Everything helps the empire, in one small way or another.

[Fire_Monkey]

I've read the first page, and will continue but wanted to reply now. All of your points are objectionable opinions, if you notice, you states that Ps is "repetitive, tedious, and frustrating". Each of which is an obvious opinion. The only valuable piece of information you suggest is that PS has no rewards/penalties for losing/capturing bridges/mountain passes. This could easily be modified by putting CCs with a slightly faster hacking time than a tower in the bunkers on each side of the bridge. Since you can't really drive on the mountains this avoids mountain control.
Also you point out that defenders have a disadvantage, but that is wrong and easily countered. As defenders have walls, forcing the enemy to come through expected entrance points, allowing them to set up defenses. Defenders also have turrets AND a vehicle spawning area. Haven't seen an AMS get you vehicles recently. You used bio lab as an example of a base, but try loosing your tech plant. Uh no vehicles...crap. I think that adds some kind of reson to defend a base, ya think?

Sorry, but you don't understand what your talking about, this is extremly opinionated, and makes several invalid points.

I respect your opinion, and don't really want to flame you just defending PS

[JackBoCracken]

I said a few posts up:
So that my feedback may be constructive and concise to the fullest extent, I will explain my opinions

Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

Re: Defenders at a disadvantage

I believe that the defenders are still at a tactical disadvantage mostly due to the way base and tower NTU usage works. Attackers should have the iniative, but defenders really shouldn't have to constantly refuel a base just to hold on to it when the attackers can spawn indefinitely.

As far as the whole tech plant thing goes, yeah, it happens, but when was the last time you saw a 3 on 3 tank battle? I sure haven't. Dropship centers are usually more valuable anyway. Every continent is so close to sanctuary that reavers can get from sanctuary to a far continent in a matter of minutes.

[Fire_Monkey]

Then your entire essay will be construed as an opinion, while backed up with no solid fact is entirely worthless if trying to prove anything.

Also I thought you were quoting and reffered to you as he, that is fixed now, I apologize.

[JackBoCracken]

No prob man, I just wanted to make sure people didn't think I was the be all end all, unbiased source for PS information, because I'm not. I am biased, I know that.

[Fire_Monkey]

I believe that this is balanced by the fact that players recieve extremly large bonuses by fueling up a base, and and ANT run is easily completed using a galaxy. NTU does give defenders a disadvantage, but once a base falls neutral, it's a free for all until someone gets an ANT. This allows for AMS to become vital making them a prime target for destruction and providing more ways to dispatch an enemy.

I would also like to point out that there is no fauna because they didn't want any NPCs and stuff is indestructible because the server doesn't reset, and the landscape would be bare in a matter of hours.

[JackBoCracken]

It just didn't seem very logical to me, that's all. I mean, why on earth would anyone build towers with infinite energy supplies next to bases with limited energy supplies?

[Fire_Monkey]

Someone had talked about linking tower NTU with base NTU...
ah I'll respond tommorow off to bed..

[�io]

Woah, long post. I'm sure it's good and well thought out but i'm gonna wait for ...

http://bohica.planetside-universe.com/images/forumImages/postcliffnotes.jpg

;)

[InuYasha]

I have to agree that the game needs something more, there really is no sense of a war or any concrete objectives, and that really hurts the game in my opinion. Throughout the time that I played the beta, I only once defended a base, and that wasn't even much of a defense since only about four guys were assaulting it. Attacking seems to me to be the way to go, it is way more fun than defending against an assault that in all likelyhood isn't even going to happen. The base hopping and lack of any rewards for defending or being a support class have made me decide to wait on getting this game, until either the price drops significantly or they manage to add enough incentives to the game to make a real war setting possible. For those of you actually playing it live, best of luck and have fun, you won't be seeing me online anytime soon in all likelyhood.

InuYasha
The game has such potential... I hope the devs don't waste it

[Hamma]

Unfortunatly in the longrun they will need to add some kind of global objective. Because people just cant handle doing their own thing and setting their own objectives :\

Gamers are lazy, it sux :(

[InuYasha]

The thing is that the game promises a global war between three factions, but it does not yet deliver. I think that in time, it might deliver on this promise. I sincerely hope that it will deliver on its promises, and soon. I enjoyed playing in the beta quite a lot, but the game needs more to it to keep me coming back to play, if I'm going to have to shell out a monthly fee to play it. If all I want is endless frag fests and no real sense of accomplishment, I might as well play any number of other FPS games out on the market. The game as it stands is very solid in my opinion, but in order to justify a monthly fee of any kind is has to be far above any other game in a similar genre.

InuYasha
Holding out hope that Planetside can fulfill its promise before it is too late

[Endodroid]

The jest of the main post is:

"Bases and terrain both have little or no strategic or tactical value so capture is pointless"

Which is quite true right now, the bases that do have a tactical value are negated by the fact that there are too many duplicate base types per continent, you lose one.. no biggie you have two more that are exactly the same.

The only gleam of hope that the devs will revisit the issue of making bases more strategic is from reading the patch notes when the lattice was introduced, smokejumper (dave g) said that bases would get repair pads and give shields to vehicles to the empire who owned them after release. It was too bad that at the same time he made Bio Labs no longer reduce spawn time, and Amp Stations slow down ntu consumption. They're relying to heavily on the lattice system alone to give the game a higher level of strategy.

Hamma, players shouldn't be expected to create their own objectives to give the game long term replayable, that's what they're paying the developers of the game for.

They did say they were going to add a kind of global objective, assaulting an opposing team�s sanctuary once you get locks on the empires backyard continets. As impressive of a feat that may be, it�s only a distraction to the real problem of giving the game more strategic value.

[Happy lil Elf]

Then don't play it.

Simple answer to a long drawn out rant.

[Endodroid]

exactamundo

[JackBoCracken]

Originally posted by Happy lil' Elf
Then don't play it.

Simple answer to a long drawn out rant.


And that's exactly what I'm doing.

[Matuse]

No, you "aren't playing it" and making long whiney bitch threads about it.

Just go away. You won't be missed.

[JackBoCracken]

I did not see any rules concerning "whiney bitch" threads when I registered. I will post my opinion and continue to do so until told otherwise by a moderator, adminstrator, or staff member of this board.

HINT: If you don't like it, don't read it?

[Airlift]

Could you at least make original rants for each PS forum rather than copying and pasting the same motherfucker all over? It reads to me like you are trying to sell us on why we shouldn't play.

[Knuckles]

I'll probably be quite alone on this (and I'm not sure my future develpoment of this thread is quite on par with what You originally intended, JackBoCracken) but here goes...

I hear what You say, but really, I don't understand what You say. You see - I think You are looking for some wider, deeper, meaning to this game. An incentive to play on, I guess. For me it's obvious.

- It's the fight!

I guess that it's been said in other threads here, but this is my in my wording now. You play because of the fight!

Let me give You an example of what I mean:

One of the last days of the beta I was in the sanctuary. I had good certs and I really tried to get a squad, but there was no-one to be found. So what did I do? I hit that 'Instant action' button, and found myself on that desert continent (the name elludes me) a few moments later. There I met a motley crew of Vanus. They were all LFS - so I stepped up and became the leader.

We were cut off from the lattice. We held a tower, right in the middle of enemy territory. our only hope was that that our fellow brethren would somehow punch through the last standing enemy base - and we would be right where we wanted to - holding a tower, right next to the next logical target for the Vanus.

So we fought on... and on, against overwhelming forces. They threw everything they had against us. MAXs, infils, Reavers, Vanguards - but we stood our ground.

Right in the thick of it, as I was running around placing mines and turrets, seemingly for the 5th or 8th time, I get a question from one of the guys in the squad:

- Is there a meaning to this? We're cut off from the lattice! We can't win!

I can't remember my exact answer, but I think it was something along the lines of:

- We fight because we have to. If we keep this tower we will delay the NC.

(What I really did say was more like "Kill the next guy, I guess", but I'll leave that out since it would utterly destroy a good story. :) )

Well the guy that asked the question left a minute or two later, closely followed by another one. Then there were 8 left who fought on... and how we fought. Oh how we fought.

(A note: As I said - I play because of the fight. Fighting a loosing battle holds no meaning to me. Valor does. There ain't no emote strong enough in PS to express my contempt for the ones bugging out of a fight because they run the risk of loosing, or loosing precious opportunities to gain phat exp.)

All in all we held that tower at least for another 30 to 45 minutes, delaying the enemy. Being right there, in the face of him. But in the end we lost that tower.

Was I sorry, You ask?

No.

I see beauty in defeat, as in victory.

[Robot]

Originally posted by Matuse
No, you "aren't playing it" and making long whiney bitch threads about it.

If you spent more than a minute and read the entire thing, you'd have noticed he has a lot of good points

[Chanfan]

I do agree with several of his points - not quite as strongly, as I am still playing and purchased retail - but there are some valid things in there, that would make PS a better game if addressed.

[Lanizer]

You got a audio version of that journal ?

[instant]

JackBoCracken - You're so right.

Shame that PS was ruined..

Maybe the next "big thing" will be the holy grail of FPS Online Gaming.

Have you tried OPeration Flashpoint? If you buy the add-on "Resistance" and patch to 1.91 you can have lots of fun playing a 'mod' for OfP called "Battlefield 1985" or another one called "capture the island (CTI)", These are great, and a lot more fun than Planetside. There is no such thing as zerging in this game, and terrain has strategic value.. (although cities etc do not).

[Matuse]

If you spent more than a minute and read the entire thing, you'd have noticed he has a lot of good points

And yet, he still advocates not playing. If you don't like the game, and don't want to play...why go to forums about it? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

It isn't like posting here is going to suddenly make a lightbulb pop up over the Dev's heads and make them change everything.

[instant]

Well, I went here since I was unable to go to their official forums - since they have closed them for the "public" unless you are a paying Planetside customer.. (they probably dont want non-customers to know about the complaints they get before they have forked up the dough for the game)..

I believe he's stating his oppinions / views / observations / thoughts about the game and trying to inform others who have not yet played the game and are interested in playing it, but would like to "know a little bit more" first, before they buy it.

I thought the game upon release would be like the end of beta day.. and hope that, since they had fixed the xp problems.. but I read then on a fan site (this) that they had nerfed - again -.. and thus I wont buy the game.

And for many MMO-titles the community leads & others visit fan sites to see what the people think about their title there.. I dont know if this is the case with Sony, but maybe they also do that.

And I agree with what he's writing.

[glsauron]

I too have been disapointed by the results of beta. Lag is bad. Graphics are repetative. Gameplay is VERY chaotic.

PS 2 Should have go with less continents and better organized. 4 continets-1 big center one along with 3 satalites would be good.

Have 1 continent paired between 2 empires, so like Hossin would be ONLY VS and NC. They would fight along a wide but still rectangular strip of jungle. Maybe put some Vanu buildings in the jungle for the VS to be protecting. TR may have a big monument on Ceryshen (sp) that they would be trying to prevent from being toppled by the NC. It would be industructable or rebuilt once a week. Statue up you get a decent sized RoF increase for TR, down you loose it. What he was saying above, territory doesn't matter now.

So youd have 3 mini-continets with 1 of each type of facility, increase it to like 7. One built into a cliff (very good defendability) and another open like a big tent (but with 2 V pads and 2 Air pads inside).
DS center-Galaxy
Tech-decrease spawn delay
AMP-NTU supply (see the starters post)
BIO-activates supply caches (little buildings with a spawn tube (1 per 3 minutes, equip terminal, and an adv med station) scattered around the base and keyed for the controllers)
Interlink-increases SOI by 50% (big increase) adds Additional targeting bonus for the automated turrets (turrets are now automated BUT do not lead targets. This would let them lead for latticed bases)
Drop Center-1 per base is a 12 man squad drop pod set for 1 per 15 minutes. MAXs are allowed and all go to the same spot, controlled by the squad leader) This is the thing built into a cliff, or a hill. Think X-men 2
Vehicle Plant-tent idea above. Has space for 2 vehicle pads and 2 air pads protected by 2 towers (1 AA and 1 AV manned by gunner transported from the surface). No walls. No "interior"

Where was I going with this again?

[teratravp]

"Unfortunatly in the longrun they will need to add some kind of global objective. Because people just cant handle doing their own thing and setting their own objectives :\

Gamers are lazy, it sux "

That's like giving a chess board and pieces and saying, here, you make up the game. Just makes little sense to me, know what I'm saying? I mean, sure I can make up a game, but isn't that what they were going to do?

I'm not trying to flame, I realize this board seems to have a lot of fans who are enjoying the game, so it puts me in a hard place to present any critical opinions to such an audience. If SOE had any boards I might try one or two times there, but all through beta I posted and the devs, while admirably getting the game in the shape they wanted, don't seem interested in changing the game style to any large degree. More power to 'em. I'm just not of the opinion that the game establishes itself in the content and gameplay department to be a title that has much redeeming value to me. Although it is nice while it lasts, but for me that's less then even many single player games.

Ah well, hey if you're into PS, play on. I'll peak back every month or so to see if something has happened that would make it more a game I would want to play, but you can't please them all.

[WildEagle]

Why did he take up most of the f***in page:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :eek: :eek: :eek: :confused: :confused:

[druski]

People who respond to intelligent, well constructed, insightful criticism with "if you don't like the game don't play and don't whine" or "dude your post is too long wtf" are one of the primary reasons the internet is a drag.

In my experience there is little you can say to someone, especially over the internet to cause them to reconsider their behavior, but for my own sake let me say that you diminish everyones experience of both the game and this community with such knee-jerk and aggressive responses.

You think that devs or any else would like you people or find use for you? They wouldn't. People who cannot a) read b) think hypothetically c) engage in rational discussion and d) appreciate thoughtful critcisim are not only dead wood in any project, but an active detriment to its growth and innovation.

Do you feel that he threatens you by making this post? Why respond so viciously to it? I really am at a loss to understand your mental processes.

I for one really enjoy Planetside, I don't mind paying the monthly fee currently. However, I must say it isn't exactly the game I had in mind, primarily because it does lack strategic cohesiveness. Random base caps for no reason other than xp and the fun of the fight do limit the depth of the gameplay, and thus for me limit its longevity. I think well supported ideas like those posted by the thread initatiator are an excellent resource to developers of MMO titles who are looking to fine tune their game.

Is it so foreign to your experience to be able to enjoy something AND accept criticism of it? Relax, don't take everything as a personal attack that might destroy your baby. Go "rough up the suspect" or blow off steam on a punching bag or something rather than jump down the throat of someone who cared enough about the game to put a significant amount of time into writing a short peice on concepts that he feels would improve it.

If you took the time to read this post, thanks, but please, if you feel like this post requires a flame or some sort of vicious and defensive "yeah, well...", then take a deep breath, relax, and let it go. You are getting too worked up over nothing. If you think I'm way off base and you were one of those who responded harshly, take a few minutes to read the original posters peice and understand that he is posting BECAUSE he LIKES planetside and wishes it could be just that bit more that would make it great.

Be all you can be, ever to excel, strive to succeed, etc, etc, etc, we should always be pushing everything to be the best of breed.

"Anyone in any walk of life who is content with mediocrity is untrue to himself and the American way."
General George S. Patton

[JackBoCracken]

Why are my opinions less valid if I do not play?

Knuckles, I am glad that you brought that up. This is a purely personal thing, but if I delayed the enemy for 45 minutes, I would have hoped that the base I was defending was crucial in some manner. I.e., in the time that I spent defending a Tech Plant or whatnot, the rest of the empire on the continent was able to field more vehicles because of the defense due to lower vehicle spawn times from the Tech Plant bonus (I know this doesn't actually happen, but this is just an imaginary example).

Originally posted by Matuse
And yet, he still advocates not playing. If you don't like the game, and don't want to play...why go to forums about it? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

It isn't like posting here is going to suddenly make a lightbulb pop up over the Dev's heads and make them change everything.
And yet, you still advocate me not posting here. If you don't like my post, and you don't want to read it...why are you replying to it? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

It isn't like posting here is going to suddenly make a lightbulb pop up over my head and make me change all my opinions. You want to argue your opinion, then argue it. Don't throw a fit and tell people to shut up unless you are a moderator or an administrator of the board, and if you are, well then, ban me already.

If I wanted censorship, I would buy the game and head over to the official boards.

Matuse and WildEagle: I'm sorry I wasted your time, but I cannot refund it.

[instant]

Originally posted by JackBoCracken
If I wanted censorship, I would buy the game and head over to the official boards.


LOL, Aint that the truth :-)

Well, I almost felt like taking a copy of your posting and saving it, since it was so good. I would sure like to see a DEV Response to your thread.

I wonder how PS will look in one months time, hopefully someone will keep a 'log' over all the changes, so we can see what happens.

My bet is that they will nerf base cap XP and increase the XP for ANT's and Squad XP.
(But still not like it was in the beta..)

[TataLebuj]

Great post with some really well thought out ideas. Personally I'm still jumping the mailman each day waiting for my copy to arrive, but thats because the game _DOES_ appeal to me. I would like to see more of the things you mention, but there is still the unique aspect of playing this "style" of game (futuristic) with lots and lots of people. I can't say that I've seen a battle with 1000's of players yet. But I was involved in several battles where there must have been over 100 players. That was what I wanted the game to be.

Remember: Lowering your expectations is the first step to living a happily fulfilled life. heh.

PS: Okay, if your twelve (mentally or physically) and you only want to flame someone, do it somewhere else. Its immature and slightly offensive (pointing at the individual that just HAD to use curse words). No where did this person's opinion warrant any personal attacks. Read the forums, and if you have an opinion share it. BUT - If your opinion is just a flame, go tell someone else, because I don't care and I'm sure most of the other players here don't either.

[Hellsfire123]

First off, that was not to long at all. I actually enjoyed reading something on the forums that wasnt created on the spot. For those of you complaining its to long, your not helping by posting that opinion. In fact i hope more people post well developed essays on their POV.

I agree that bases need more value outside of the capture experience and another spawn tube. I think the Dev team needs to come up with 3-5 more bases, and have only one per continent, maybe 2. Why is the dropship center so sought after? Its unique, thats why. But when your fighting over 1 of 4 bio labs on the continent, it loses value in many eyes.

Terrain is also a major problem. Right now, the only contested terrain is the SOI around a base. This makes no sense. This makes up probally a tenth of the map, and there are normally no choke points there anyway. We have bridges, we have mountain passes, but we also have way to much room to offroad it. There is almost no way to set up a choke point apart from a bridge, or the entrance to a base.

Some sugestions from me would be.
1) Make the roads flat. For the love of god the only difference between the roads and offroad happens to be color and slightly less trees.
2) Increase the slope on mountain ranges, along with high. Make the ground forces go around, not just over.
3) Bridges should be retractable by their controlling empire. A capture point on each side of the bridge could be access for this.
For example:
NC holds both capture points at bridge A. The bridge remains retracted until an NC soldier uses one point to open it for his squad or vehical. After 2 minutes of non use, the bridge retracts again or the bridge is manually retracted. Vanu assualt the bridge and hacks one point. The bridge then opens to allow both empires across, but does not close until one side holds both points.
4) Towers should be linked to the facility they are controlled by. When the tower changes side, or the base its controlled by changes side, the tower goes onto battery reserve. This battery depleats the same way a base silo would, but faster. Tower could be refilled by ANTs or by reconnected to a friendly base. Battery should be as indestructable as the silo. Gate towers should run of the warp gate power, and only depleat if the contient becomes locked. Instead of turning neutral, the towers will reconnect with the base its associated with, and revert to its empire. Tower would then be unhackable for the next five minutes(to prevent the tower from being rehacked after new power is established)
5) AMS should require refueling, either by visiting a warpgate every now and then, or by being repaired by an engineer. This should last about as long as the tower battery. (Note: By repair by an engineer, i mean an engineer should be able to drop nanite cartriges,about the size of AV ammo, into a refueling port. These would be seperate from normal BANK ammo, and only spawnable at towers and bases. I say this becuase an AMS is to small for an ANT to drive up to.)

[JHGBaouns]

JackBoCracken Im behind you :)

To the jerks that can not argue at all - just leave and I hope you dont join my squad.

This has pointed out so many many many times in the betaforums that people find them boring in the end.
To bad the devs doesnt listen quick enough.

The main this to fix is that it is no point, what so ever, to defend a base. You dont gain any bonus exp as the attackers get and the attackers have a huge advantege from in NTU aspect.

I will play on a Europian server and know I will enjoy myself mostly becourse friends, but if they dont add some content and goals they will lose numbers of players. But I have faith that they will fix it, somehow.

/JHGBaouns
EAC

[Happy lil Elf]

Originally posted by JackBoCracken
And that's exactly what I'm doing.

No, you're telling us about how you don't like PS. We don't care, not even a little bit. In fact reading your title it would appear you seemed to know we wouldn't care, and yet posted anyways.

This reminds me of the people who burn out on EQ and then go to the nearest message board trying to tell the world of the evils of EQ and how playing it will ruin their lives. After they're told that's an idiotic argument the ones that actually have a brain always seem to go for long drawn out arguments that highlight alllll the reasons they don't like the game anymore and therefore why the game is bad and no one should play it (see: Dolain/Numruk). Why do people who get fed up or bored with MMO games always seem to want to take people with them when they go?

Please by all means leave. We won't go with you. We won't counter your arguments, not because they're all bad, but rather because since we're having fun we honestly don't care about anything you have to say.....well, that and patting you on the head and saying "buh-bye" is more fun.

[druski]

ah yes, 6 intelligent posts in a row was probably too much to ask for.. and so we get the nitwit who doesn't bother to read the thread popping up to share is vile invective with us all.

If you'd care to actually read before you spout off your drivel, you'd notice that this wasn't a standard "PS sucks d00d" post, and to say that no one here is interested in it is patently false as quite a few people have expressed appreciation for the posters comments.

So in the future save your mindless aggression for whoever it is that you have to pay to listen to you.

[jeb]

I was in exclusive beta and played up until the end of open beta.

The game can only offer one reason as under current conditions to log into to play. That is to gain experience. Unfortunately you can not log in to win, since that is impossible. You can not log in like an MMORPG to gain a wide variety of weapons and gain the satisfaction of leveling. You can not log in and get the instant action of unreal or quake.

I am incapable of squashing others ideas of the game. I can only say that I was the ultimate fanboy. Played a couple weeks in beta and the fog was removed and I saw the game for what it was.

Some people will like the game as is. The concept of a MMOFPS is something I have been waiting for, for a long time. But sadly Planetside has shortcomings.

1. The planet is so large, but the land is so insignifigant.
2. Travel time is to long
3. Instant action is borked.
4. Experience has become the center of the game for MOST players yet should not be.
5. The world has no sense of being, no character.
6. Lack of in depth tactics.
7. No end game.
8. etc...

The problem I personally had to face at the end was simply a lack of a reason to log in and play. Even with the lattice there is not a global sense of purpose. Each continent plays like a big quake map with different textures and a less desirable FPS engine.

Well, I will stop. I know many of you have already bought the game or will buy the game no matter what. I understand some people do enjoy the game. I could enjoy the game with some improvements but will wait a few months to see what they can do.

To the original poster, I read your comments all the way through and it was a well written post.

[Happy lil Elf]

And if you'd read my post you'd have reached this part

After they're told that's an idiotic argument the ones that actually have a brain always seem to go for long drawn out arguments that highlight alllll the reasons they don't like the game anymore and therefore why the game is bad and no one should play it

The original poster simply skipped the first step and moved on to the, while intelligently worded, long drawn out post part.

See the thing is that this is indeed your typical "PS sucks d00d" post, it's simply worded with some degree of intelligence. That does not however change the response of "That's nice, now go away".

[jeb]

I can see how someone can view the post as "PS SUX d00d" post but in reality I think that most beta testers that have decided not to purchase this game are much more torn than I have personally seen in other betas. I dont think that more than a slight percentage have written planetside off for good. Most are taking a wait and see attitude.

The game has much potential, I am just waiting to see of SOE is going to stand up and bring the game up so its one of the all time greats. Which it could be with some improvements.

Its almost like someone just laid the foundation of a home down but havent built the walls. The lots great, the neighborhood is outstanding. A great commute to work but you want to see what the homes going to look like before you run out and get your loan commitment letter sent to the seller.

[Happy lil Elf]

I don't really have any problem with people wanting to wait and see what's done with it. Hell if had had a chance to play AO before I bought it, I woudln't have bought it. Probably the same for DAoC although that game at least worked when I bought it. But why make posts like this? To inform others about how lame you think Planetside is? If people really want to try the game before they bought it they don't have to work all that hard. Hell as long as you know just one person that bought it you can try it out for seven days.

See I just plain don't agree with his arguments. A couple of his ideas for changes are decent, but for the most part I think his arguments against PS are unfounded. I'm really sick of countering arguments that are based wholly on opinion because no matter what you say or how many arguments you counter the argument doesn't end. I spent hours doing that on the Beta boards and now, since there are no more beta boards and SoE is just nuking posts like this on it's boards, the same old arguments are starting to crop up here. These boards were a kind of nice refuge from the negativity incarnate that was the Beta boards. Just irks me to see posts like this start up on PSU :sick:

[JackBoCracken]

By all means, if you don't like this thread, move on. I'm not forcing you to stay here. I just post because I want to. Add me to your ignore list, and just let it go.

Originally posted by Happy lil' Elf
No, you're telling us about how you don't like PS. We don't care, not even a little bit. In fact reading your title it would appear you seemed to know we wouldn't care, and yet posted anyways.

Unless the majority of the forum voices their agreement in this thread, I see no reason why these claims are true. You may speak for yourself, but since when were you the authority on everyone's opinion?

[Hellsfire123]

JackBoCracken, dont worry about what they say. Leave them to their flames, when no one responds to them, they move on. Focus on the people who actually respond with inteligence, and give us some feed back on our ideas.

[druski]

Mr. Elf.

You have adequately proven that you are a twit, no further demonstration is necessary.

Your comments are both fundamentally irrelevant, and mildly irksome. I would request that you desist with them but I am given to understand that it gives your kind great pleasure to tarnish an otherwise pleasant converstation.

Thus, I will only ask one thing of you. Please stop trying to speak for me. Or any one else here. Voice your own opinions, as your own, and move on. Attempting to hide behind the WE as you make your ridiculous allegations is somewhat annoying.

Speak for yourself, if you can, and try to say something intelligent. Backing up a post that says "d00d you suck" with, "man that d00d sucks because all d00ds who say that stuff suck" does not count. Saying that you are tired of countering arguments along the vein that he represented is also a completely meaningless response. I do not give a shit if you have responded to this before. If you have, please, I'm begging you, feel free to NOT respond to it again now. Please do not feel obligated.

If you are indeed so enamoroued of PS, please, go play it. Leave words like "constructive criticism" to those who have at least some vague conception of their meaning.

To recap:

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE (as you are apparently unable to say it again, or refer to it in a meanginful fashion).

[Happy lil Elf]

Originally posted by druski
Mr. Elf.

You have adequately proven that you are a twit, no further demonstration is necessary.

Your comments are both fundamentally irrelevant, and mildly irksome. I would request that you desist with them but I am given to understand that it gives your kind great pleasure to tarnish an otherwise pleasant converstation.

Thus, I will only ask one thing of you. Please stop trying to speak for me. Or any one else here. Voice your own opinions, as your own, and move on. Attempting to hide behind the WE as you make your ridiculous allegations is somewhat annoying.

Speak for yourself, if you can, and try to say something intelligent. Backing up a post that says "d00d you suck" with, "man that d00d sucks because all d00ds who say that stuff suck" does not count. Saying that you are tired of countering arguments along the vein that he represented is also a completely meaningless response. I do not give a shit if you have responded to this before. If you have, please, I'm begging you, feel free to NOT respond to it again now. Please do not feel obligated.

If you are indeed so enamoroued of PS, please, go play it. Leave words like "constructive criticism" to those who have at least some vague conception of their meaning.

To recap:

YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE WHOLE. I AM NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT YOU HAVE SAID BEFORE (as you are apparently unable to say it again, or refer to it in a meanginful fashion).


You know, I could continue the flame war you just tried to start but I really don't think these boards are the place for it since the atmosphere for the most part is friendly. I don't want that to change to I'm just going to go with: Sorry, we don't see things the same way.