The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

Marsgrim · 2012-03-25, 11:46 AM

This game is beginning to look more and more like a Battlefield copy, and it's distinctly worrying.

When I read things like the continents not being interlinked, that there is no way to take a continent, that tanks are gunned by the driver and no co-operative vehicles, it begins to make me think that the developers have lost sight of the gameplay aspects that made Planetside fun and kept a lot of us subscribed for 10 years.

Although rare, it was possible in PS for one empire to own all the continents and sanc lock the others. Winning a continent and keeping it and the associated benefit was what the game became about. As far as I can see now, there is no win condition at all in Planetside 2, there's no point in committing to the game because there is nothing to commit for. Look at how APB turned out, it looked cool and had endless customisation but it was also an endless repeat of the same missions and that's where PS2 is heading.

It's all very well being F2P, but the reason that BF and COD are successful game series is because they do allow a map to be won and the fight to move on somewhere else. Further to this, they enable easy league and cup play at a competitive level and that is why they are successful, long lived games. They carry a huge competitive edge.

What is PS2 offering for competitive players, or as a reason to play? At the moment I can see nothing that will make people want to log on over the long term, and worse than this as soon as a new BF/COD game is launched it will lose out because those competitive players are going to go back to those. There's a chance in those games for players to win something within that game community, PS2 is offering nothing - it doesn't seem to even have the small win conditions that PS had that made taking a base worth while.

Why even bother taking a base in PS2? It may give resources but it's not going to get your empire moving forward because it's impossible to push the other empires off a continent.

PS2 seems to have completely lost the strategic aspect of gameplay that PS had, the ability to move empire fights by opening one of their locked/home continents, the ability to drive one enemy empire onto the other which I cannot see how it can be maintained in a never ending 3-way fight with no way to push an empire off a continent.

The developers are trumpeting in interviews that it's massive scale combat, but massive scale with no sense of purpose will quickly leave most FPS players going elsewhere. The psychology of FPS games is to win, yet there is no meaningful win in PS2 as far as I can see. Although games are played for enjoyment, the purpose is to win the game, how is this done in PS2?

There is no point in trumpeting a 3 sided game when the dynamic of a third faction interaction at a strategic level (global and continent) has been lost.

Further to this, the sense of team play and freedom of PS is in danger of being lost. The certification system was perfect, the problem was that SOE took the battle ranks beyond the ability of the certification system to balance, resulting in the one man armies. There were no one man armies when the maximum battle rank was 20 and certifications were balanced accordingly, even when BR25 was introduced the additional 3 certification points were within reason given the new Engineering and Hacking skills.

We now seem to have a copy of the Battlefield class system, developed somewhat along EVE/RPG lines, a copy of the vehicle system, a copy of the game play style via iron sights and pace of game/TTK, a copy of the spawning system and a dumbing down of any strategic play what so ever.

Planetside offered a strategic and tactical game that directed the FPS action, limited resources are going to mean nothing if there is no way to use the resource battle to win against the other two factions.

Please do not turn this game into a 3 faction copy of a massive BF3 map/game that never ends. People will lose interest and stop playing.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-03-25, 11:52 AM

This is exactly what I have been saying since Fan Faire!

basti · 2012-03-25, 11:58 AM

Do not worry. Most of us share your views, and we will melt faces in beta once it turns out to not work.

DviddLeff · 2012-03-25, 12:14 PM

My main concern at the moment is what happens when an empire is pushed back to their uncapturable base? Does the fight just continue on the outskirts until the attackers get bored, like we saw around warpgates before?

Stardouser · 2012-03-25, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

My main concern at the moment is what happens when an empire is pushed back to their uncapturable base? Does the fight just continue on the outskirts until the attackers get bored, like we saw around warpgates before?

Well, how often is that going to happen, as huge as the game world is? That's one thing PS2 is NOT copying from Battlefield 3 - tiny maps.

YaJackWagon · 2012-03-25, 12:24 PM

The whole reason Battlefield veterans are coming to this game is to get away from the dumbing down of the Battlefield franchise into "just another CoD shooter."

We want consequences for being outplayed. It makes it a much more frantic fight if we're in danger of being driven into the sea.

We want real rewards for outplaying an enemy. It makes it all the more epic to storm the beaches and conquer the enemy domain.

We don't want our hands held. It's much more satisfying to shoot a murderous being than to fire at brightly colored floating arrows. It's much more satisfying to take vengeance upon your killer if you used cunning to track him down and not a movie showing you his next moves.

This isn't a rebuke to the OP. This is what real gamers want: a challenge. We don't want to play a point&click arcade shooter, we want to outsmart and overcome.
Don't fall to greed and laziness SOE. Make something that is unique to the FPS genre. Make something that is unique in the MMO world. Don't make something to compete on Battlefield and CoD's level; make something to outclass them in every way.

JHendy · 2012-03-26, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by YaJackWagon

The whole reason Battlefield veterans are coming to this game is to get away from the dumbing down of the Battlefield franchise into "just another CoD shooter."

We want consequences for being outplayed. It makes it a much more frantic fight if we're in danger of being driven into the sea.

We want real rewards for outplaying an enemy. It makes it all the more epic to storm the beaches and conquer the enemy domain.

We don't want our hands held. It's much more satisfying to shoot a murderous being than to fire at brightly colored floating arrows. It's much more satisfying to take vengeance upon your killer if you used cunning to track him down and not a movie showing you his next moves.

This isn't a rebuke to the OP. This is what real gamers want: a challenge. We don't want to play a point&click arcade shooter, we want to outsmart and overcome.
Don't fall to greed and laziness SOE. Make something that is unique to the FPS genre. Make something that is unique in the MMO world. Don't make something to compete on Battlefield and CoD's level; make something to outclass them in every way.

I want to marry you.

ThirdCross · 2012-03-26, 08:35 AM

Can someone explain how continent locking would work with 3 continents?

I'm all for continent locking once we get 6-7 continents but it just isn't feasible with only 3.

Bazilx · 2012-03-25, 12:26 PM

I agree with the sentiment that being able to take over continents adds a very important sense of purpose. I hadn't actually realized or thought about it before I read this thread but it's a very valid argument.

*Hops firmly aboard the "Let's have continent-locking"-bandwagon.*

Lonehunter · 2012-03-25, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Most of us share your views, and we will melt faces in beta once it turns out to not work.

That's what I've always thought. But the worst case scenario is beta is so bad they have to delay the game a few months to match what we want, but I don't want a delay : (

Khellendros · 2012-03-25, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

That's what I've always thought. But the worst case scenario is beta is so bad they have to delay the game a few months to match what we want, but I don't want a delay : (

Honestly, I don't believe this is gonna happen, namely, that they will actually make a major feature change. Tweaking and balancing, sure, but wholesale change? I just can't see it.

I'm not sure that Higby, et al, had much of a choice in a lot of the major design elements. I think the upper management saw the money in BF and CoD, and told Higby to make something like it but with Planetside label on it. Again, suits interfering in stuff they know nothing about...

I will be seriously surprised if they actually delay development to make a major change on our say so.

Gandhi · 2012-03-25, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Khellendros

I will be seriously surprised if they actually delay development to make a major change on our say so.

That all depends on how much time they've budgeted for beta, given how they've answered every criticism with "if it sucks we'll change it in beta" they must be planning several months of it. If that's not the case and it turns out to be just a few weeks of tweaks and bug fixes... well a lot of people are going to be rightly pissed off.

kaffis · 2012-03-26, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Khellendros

Honestly, I don't believe this is gonna happen, namely, that they will actually make a major feature change. Tweaking and balancing, sure, but wholesale change? I just can't see it.

People seem to forget easily that the entire lattice system was implemented in the last month of PS beta. That's a major feature change/addition, and it's LATE in the beta cycle. And worked well, for the most part.

SniperSteve · 2012-03-25, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Do not worry. Most of us share your views, and we will melt faces in beta once it turns out to not work.

Yeah, I am waiting for beta. If PS2 Beta does not have the same massive war feel that PS1 had, we will rage all over the devs until they get it right.

Stardouser · 2012-03-25, 11:56 AM

Not ALL copying from Battlefield is bad, but things like killcam, 3D spotting, and things like that that rob skill from the skilled and give to the unskilled are BAD.

And I know that the current plan is not to have a revenge cam handicapcam killcam, that's just an example.

I don't think there's anything wrong with copying things like class system but...I share your worries in that if you have no purpose for the fighting, people won't fight hard. I understand the sentiments against a victory system but there's got to be some kind of motivation.

There will be a stat collection system, yes? It should SHOWCASE things like TEAM ACTIONS: Hacking terminals, capturing bases, medic revives, and while it shold still show KDR, it should downplay it.