The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous - Page 10

TheDrone · 2012-03-26, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by basti

And i put a line down here now, the "Vet vs Vets vs non Vets" crap is enough.
Truth is, the fundamental truth, and i accept no different opinions here (you shall burn in hell!

): Us Vets who stayed for ages got a clue, a very good one, more of a clue than anyone else, but we also feel attached. The attachment makes us blind in some areas, while giving us great insight in other areas.
Others, especially non Vets and people completly new to Planetside, have absoluty no clue, but also no attachment. This allows them to see features from a different angle, once thats just invisible for us vets, allowing new ideas to spread. This is exactly why most of us vets understand and accept the change from cert points to class system.

In the very end, we all want a MMOFPS. And while the devs work hard, we need to ensure they do it right, because they just cant figure everything out by themself, as they are, with us, on new ground.

Only if we work together, only then we can get us the game we want, we love, we hate and we play for ages. We need to stop the appearing hatred right now, or it will devour us all.

How nicely diplomatic of you. And probably correct.

EZShot · 2012-03-26, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

Although it isn't stated in plain english it's often stated as "Why is PS1 becoming a battlefield/cod clone" or "This feature encouraged teamwork! removing it from PS2 just makes the game more dumbed down!" only fails to really fight the argument against said feature and makes the poster look like a bittervet.

I think in a game fully dedicated to providing team-based gaming in a persistant world this argument:

- "This feature encouraged teamwork! removing it from PS2 just makes the game more dumbed down!"

..is perfectly acceptable coming from anybody who wanted to see what real cooperation from thousands can achieve in a game designed to make it a reality.

We have to accept that not everybody is so good at getting an opinion written in text across to others.

What we are feeling from the updates developers are posting is that in general, supporting roles are playing a side-seat to the "big-lights, all dancing action" whereas in the first game it was the team based element that was at the forefront, without the guy standing behind a max suit in a stairwell with a repair tool the max was near useless (take this as example not as gospel). This game seems to be closing doors while partially opening windows.

They keep banging on about teamwork but I increasingly have a feeling that the people who are going to get the most out of this game are the ones with the most firepower. Not the ones that are being the most resourceful.

I personally am all for seeing a new game, but concepts for a series of games (like CoD ie. This is a certain shooter built to provide a certain type of experience) shouldn't be messed with. Might as well call it something else and not "Planetside 2"

sylphaen · 2012-03-26, 06:25 PM

Leaderboards are IMPERATIVE if we want GODJ0EY to come back.

Would he classify as a vet, by the way ?

Figment · 2012-03-26, 06:58 PM

On the notion of Sancs being in the warpgates. Fine, but why not have a continent-linking mechanic that turns warpgates into sanc warpgates the moment you control the direct area surrounding both ends, turning them neutral when a side captures one side? That would allow for "locking" continents and sancs on cont alike. That would make these bits of territory much more important from a strategic perspective.

And strategic options is what non-zerg outfits love above all.

Neutral gates would deactivate the buildings inside for all sides. That would make it possible to hold on to terrain near another warpgate and push an empire off. It would create the need for mass invasions rather than continuous backstabbing. You could expand the global map by linking a continent in and leaving a couple "hard sancs" (ie. uncapturable sancs), creating a sort of home conts again while at it. This would increase the dynamics of the map, allowing a more flexible positioning and even having multiple "sancs" on a single continent (where of course you would have to control the other gate as well, making other continents influence your fight directly).

Who didn't like the idea of defending YOUR home turf, where your empire pride was in danger when some fishhead, smurf or commie was raiding YOUR kitchens for YOUR cookies?

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.

Lokster · 2012-03-26, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Obviously you and your friend both suck rather hard, because you didnt see the fundamental reason why a good player in a averange FPS sucks in PS: Its very very different. FPS isnt just running around with a gun in your hands. FPS games are quite different in its core mechanic of running and shooting. Thats the reason why so many Counter-Strike 1.6 pro gamers hate Source, as it plays different, while being EXACTLY THE SAME from its mechanics. Yet, the aiming, the feel, its just different.
Planetside is that massivley different from todays FPS that you cant just put a player of one group into the other. Obviously, thats something that has to go away, because you cant expect the COD, BF, CS and whatever crowd to learn walking again. Planetside 2 needs to feel like similar to most other FPS games in its core mechanic of running and gunning, otherwise people wont even give it enough time to start realizing that there is much more than just running and gunning.

And i put a line down here now, the "Vet vs Vets vs non Vets" crap is enough.
Truth is, the fundamental truth, and i accept no different opinions here (you shall burn in hell!

): Us Vets who stayed for ages got a clue, a very good one, more of a clue than anyone else, but we also feel attached. The attachment makes us blind in some areas, while giving us great insight in other areas.
Others, especially non Vets and people completly new to Planetside, have absoluty no clue, but also no attachment. This allows them to see features from a different angle, once thats just invisible for us vets, allowing new ideas to spread. This is exactly why most of us vets understand and accept the change from cert points to class system.

In the very end, we all want a MMOFPS. And while the devs work hard, we need to ensure they do it right, because they just cant figure everything out by themself, as they are, with us, on new ground.

Only if we work together, only then we can get us the game we want, we love, we hate and we play for ages. We need to stop the appearing hatred right now, or it will devour us all.

Thanks for proclaiming I suck. Greatly appreciated and constructive. Perhaps you missed the purpose of my post as you reiterated some of the major points I made in the affirmative (probably accidentally because you seem to be blinded by your self-righteous PS1 "vet" status). The story about my co-worker was to point out that while PS1 was an awesome game; it had serious problems. Ones that need to be changed and already appear to have been changed in PS2. Change in this case, is a good thing. Stop fighting every change blindly without considering that it may be a good thing.

Then again, you went on to babble about PS1 vets even though I (and the majority of people here) are one.

Great post sir.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-26, 07:21 PM

I like how everyone is such an 'expert' on how an MMOFPS can and cannot work due to playing one game and having zero design experience.

Knocky · 2012-03-26, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I like how everyone is such an 'expert' on how an MMOFPS can and cannot work due to playing one game and having zero design experience.

Well in their defense there IS only one MMOFPS.

Aurmanite · 2012-03-26, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

I like how everyone is such an 'expert' on how an MMOFPS can and cannot work due to playing one game and having zero design experience.

This should pop up like a EULA agreement every single time we click the "post message" button.

Lokster · 2012-03-26, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

This should pop up like a EULA agreement every single time we click the "post message" button.

Seriously....

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

This should pop up like a EULA agreement every single time we click the "post message" button.

It's not necessary to be a card carrying dev to have an opinion on the proper game. How to code for it, whether something is possible in coding terms, sure. Proper gameplay? Not necessary.

Besides, devs are often shackled to what gameplay will get the most sales, and that is not always in agreement with the best long-term quality. Brain-dead non-devs that we may be, we are not subordinates to a corporation.

Originally Posted by Knocky

Well in their defense there IS only one MMOFPS.

Everyone forgets WW2OL!

Also, wasn't Global Agenda a MMOFPS?

CutterJohn · 2012-03-26, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

Well in their defense there IS only one MMOFPS.

WW2OL.

But don't worry, everyone forgets that. Even PS devs in their claims that PS1 was the first mmofps.

Lokster · 2012-03-26, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Also, wasn't Global Agenda a MMOFPS?

It claimed to be, but there was no MMO aspect to Global Agenda. Small servers with persistent stats/ranks/etc. No more MMO than BF3 or MW3; or any other shooter with central server kept statistics.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-26, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It's not necessary to be a card carrying dev to have an opinion on the proper game. How to code for it, whether something is possible in coding terms, sure. Proper gameplay? Not necessary.

Indeed, its not necessary, but people(and I'm undoubtedly guilty of this myself from time to time) speak with far more authority than they have any right too, proclaiming things as gospel truths when its probably just their preferred way of doing things.

Besides, devs are often shackled to what gameplay will get the most sales, and that is not always in agreement with the best long-term quality. Brain-dead non-devs that we may be, we are not subordinates to a corporation.

I really love all the negative ways people have to spin 'Making something the most people enjoy'. Liking something that has niche appeal does not make your preferences better. CoD and BF are not bad games.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It is not always in disagreement though, either. CoD and BF are not bad games, and liking something that has niche appeal does not make your preferences better.

Is that a reference to the previous BF games? I would not in any way consider them "niche". According to what I've heard, BF2 sold 5 million and BF3 sold 11 million. 5 million by itself would be a gold mine to many FPS dev houses. But also consider that BF2 was PC only, that would have meant increased sales if it were on both consoles, and also, it's 2011, so there are more people with computers, and more people with internet. And, more people: i.e., more kids became old enough to buy games, allowing there to simply be more people available to buy BF3. It all has to be looked at before assuming BF2 is niche and BF3 is mainstream. Edit: And I forgot to say, unlike BF2, BF3 had the benefit of a huge marketing campaign.

Also, MoH sold about 5 million from what I heard. And that's for all three platforms. BF2 definitely outsold that if it had been multiplatform. Yet DICE is going to continue the MoH series and not the true BF series.