The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

Posted this yesterday and didn't expect such a big response, however I'd like to address some points made on people deriding the opinion of Vets and posting that continent locks were a bad thing.

Firstly, for those of you who think the veteran players are being over-reactive and negative on everything, if you haven't played Planetside for a significant period then you are missing the viewpoint we have which has been formed from months of real time playing in massive battles.

My points and feedback come not from the FPS angle, but from the MMOFPS angle. Veterans like myself (and I was in the PS closed beta) can remember fights over the southern Gunuku bridge on Cyssor that went on for a week (typically between TR and NC as the VS vehicles could move over water). Literally a week of 200+ players fighting over a bridge to a base. That means you fought at that bridge for 4-6 hours, logged on the next day and found the same fight ongoing. This happened every day for 5 odd days.

What this highlights, that is different from a regular FPS, is the ability for choke points on a map to become impassable when there are enough defenders to hold the attackers. Facilities and bases by their nature are choke points, this leads to a huge impasse when equal numbers fight over the base.

If the forces are split 50/50 between attacker and defender then a base becomes untakable. This is why the original PS bases needed NTU and could eventually run out of power, go neutral and allow an attacking force to capture it. The NTU feature essentially made a siege possible and winable, where you starved the defenders out through draining their NTU.

Even with the third empire dynamic, it often led to a continent split where 50% of one empire fought 50% of the other two - i.e. 50% TR fighting 50% VS and 50% TR fighting 50% NC, with a third fight ongoing with 50% VS against 50% NC.

What moved the map around and stopped stalemates over a base, was the ability for small outfits/squads to go behind enemy lines and cut a base link. This feature proved unsustainable though when any base could be hacked, and the lattice was introduced to focus fights. The lattice then introduced a strategic element whereby Generator holds could cut off the plant benefits to the front line base, or another lattice point was hackable which allowed a small outfit to try and take the base, draw defenders from the main fight and allow their empire to advance.

Now with the current PS2 plans, resources seem to be taking the role of NTU, however they do not appear to be adding the facility to siege a base e.g. lack of resources may mean you cannot spawn vehicles, however it does not appear at this stage that a lack will prevent people spawning at a base. Even if resources impact an empire ability to spawn their specific weaponry, I cannot see from the plans at the moment how it will allow an attacking empire to capture a base. In fact, if there are uncapturable bases it implies that resources are not required to spawn weapons/armour (where as NTU was). The reason this is important is the simple advantage a defender has in defending the choke points of a base (and with a reduced spawn timer) this makes it very hard for attackers to win.

Further to this, the other way in which afight could be advanced was by an outfit/squad heading to another continent more valued by the empire they were attacking, and begining an offensive there (i.e. TR defending Oshur). Thus a legitimate way to move your empire forward on Cyssor was to send a small force to an enemy home continent that you had a link to and begin a hack there. One of the best things core combat added was the ability for the caves to link to a continent, allowing an empire to hack and open a base with cave benefits on an otherwise secure continent. This threat would then lead the defending empire on Cyssor to respond to that base hack, ideally allowing the Cyssor fight to advance.

This tactic worked because bases are natural chokepoints, meaning an empire had to send more responders to resecure a hacked base than the other empire had committed to taking it - opening a numbers disparity on the Cyssor fight and allowing that empire on the offensive who hacked the base to advance on Cyssor.

There were a number of occassions as well where our empire managed to break the broadcast warp link from an enemy sanctuary to the main fight because we were ignored on hacking that Empires home continent that linked to the main fight.

The point I am trying to make is that I believe the developers have dumbed down the tactical and strategic play that linked continents and sanctuaries gave. By allocating un-capturable bases on each continent and removing the links, it makes it much more liekly that a fight is going to be stuck over the same base or chokepoint without changing for days on end.

Even with the prospect of behind lines hacks to territory, at this stage I do not see how it can have the same affect as hacking a different continent, because the reduced time the defenders need to respond on the same continent means the tactical impact on the frontline base is minimal, particularly if the base/facility/hex capture time is much shorter if that empire controls the surrounding areas.

In short, it means a tactical shifting of the defender forcdes has much less impact on the fight because they can get to the threatened location quicker (same continent) and even if they fail to prevent the flip, they can recapture it much quicker due to owning surrounding territories.

Although I spoke of purpose via continent lock (and sanc locks) I have not advocated a map reset as a result or a permanent win condition, I have advocated having a purpose to playing and a way to play in such a manner that players are not just banging their head against the same base wall for 3 weeks. Having a massive scale and map means very little if the fights are always around the same bases, and the game becomes stale if a base can hold out for days. who on the attacking side wants to be "farmed" for days as they try to take a base?

Having sanctuaries, linked continents, NTU, lattice networks and base/continent benefits added a strategic level to Planetside. What does PS2 have on this scale that will meaningfully move and direct fights?

Excellent post, I suggest anybody with any investment in PS2 read this entire thing thoroughly.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

Posted this yesterday and didn't expect such a big response, however I'd like to address some points made on people deriding the opinion of Vets and posting that continent locks were a bad thing.

Firstly, for those of you who think the veteran players are being over-reactive and negative on everything, if you haven't played Planetside for a significant period then you are missing the viewpoint we have which has been formed from months of real time playing in massive battles.

My points and feedback come not from the FPS angle, but from the MMOFPS angle. Veterans like myself (and I was in the PS closed beta) can remember fights over the southern Gunuku bridge on Cyssor that went on for a week (typically between TR and NC as the VS vehicles could move over water). Literally a week of 200+ players fighting over a bridge to a base. That means you fought at that bridge for 4-6 hours, logged on the next day and found the same fight ongoing. This happened every day for 5 odd days.

What this highlights, that is different from a regular FPS, is the ability for choke points on a map to become impassable when there are enough defenders to hold the attackers. Facilities and bases by their nature are choke points, this leads to a huge impasse when equal numbers fight over the base.

If the forces are split 50/50 between attacker and defender then a base becomes untakable. This is why the original PS bases needed NTU and could eventually run out of power, go neutral and allow an attacking force to capture it. The NTU feature essentially made a siege possible and winable, where you starved the defenders out through draining their NTU.

Even with the third empire dynamic, it often led to a continent split where 50% of one empire fought 50% of the other two - i.e. 50% TR fighting 50% VS and 50% TR fighting 50% NC, with a third fight ongoing with 50% VS against 50% NC.

What moved the map around and stopped stalemates over a base, was the ability for small outfits/squads to go behind enemy lines and cut a base link. This feature proved unsustainable though when any base could be hacked, and the lattice was introduced to focus fights. The lattice then introduced a strategic element whereby Generator holds could cut off the plant benefits to the front line base, or another lattice point was hackable which allowed a small outfit to try and take the base, draw defenders from the main fight and allow their empire to advance.

Now with the current PS2 plans, resources seem to be taking the role of NTU, however they do not appear to be adding the facility to siege a base e.g. lack of resources may mean you cannot spawn vehicles, however it does not appear at this stage that a lack will prevent people spawning at a base. Even if resources impact an empire ability to spawn their specific weaponry, I cannot see from the plans at the moment how it will allow an attacking empire to capture a base. In fact, if there are uncapturable bases it implies that resources are not required to spawn weapons/armour (where as NTU was). The reason this is important is the simple advantage a defender has in defending the choke points of a base (and with a reduced spawn timer) this makes it very hard for attackers to win.

Further to this, the other way in which afight could be advanced was by an outfit/squad heading to another continent more valued by the empire they were attacking, and begining an offensive there (i.e. TR defending Oshur). Thus a legitimate way to move your empire forward on Cyssor was to send a small force to an enemy home continent that you had a link to and begin a hack there. One of the best things core combat added was the ability for the caves to link to a continent, allowing an empire to hack and open a base with cave benefits on an otherwise secure continent. This threat would then lead the defending empire on Cyssor to respond to that base hack, ideally allowing the Cyssor fight to advance.

This tactic worked because bases are natural chokepoints, meaning an empire had to send more responders to resecure a hacked base than the other empire had committed to taking it - opening a numbers disparity on the Cyssor fight and allowing that empire on the offensive who hacked the base to advance on Cyssor.

There were a number of occassions as well where our empire managed to break the broadcast warp link from an enemy sanctuary to the main fight because we were ignored on hacking that Empires home continent that linked to the main fight.

The point I am trying to make is that I believe the developers have dumbed down the tactical and strategic play that linked continents and sanctuaries gave. By allocating un-capturable bases on each continent and removing the links, it makes it much more liekly that a fight is going to be stuck over the same base or chokepoint without changing for days on end.

Even with the prospect of behind lines hacks to territory, at this stage I do not see how it can have the same affect as hacking a different continent, because the reduced time the defenders need to respond on the same continent means the tactical impact on the frontline base is minimal, particularly if the base/facility/hex capture time is much shorter if that empire controls the surrounding areas.

In short, it means a tactical shifting of the defender forcdes has much less impact on the fight because they can get to the threatened location quicker (same continent) and even if they fail to prevent the flip, they can recapture it much quicker due to owning surrounding territories.

Although I spoke of purpose via continent lock (and sanc locks) I have not advocated a map reset as a result or a permanent win condition, I have advocated having a purpose to playing and a way to play in such a manner that players are not just banging their head against the same base wall for 3 weeks. Having a massive scale and map means very little if the fights are always around the same bases, and the game becomes stale if a base can hold out for days. who on the attacking side wants to be "farmed" for days as they try to take a base?

Having sanctuaries, linked continents, NTU, lattice networks and base/continent benefits added a strategic level to Planetside. What does PS2 have on this scale that will meaningfully move and direct fights?

The problem with PS1’s system is that it was tweaked as the game was played making it IMHO not very intuitive and rather convoluted.
Sure, it worked. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a better way to do it. A simpler, more intuitive way.
The current system in PS2 (which is, as we should all agree, rather speculative, but apparently concrete enough to tear apart) has the issue that it would seem to decrease the advantage gained by taking the initiative to open another front. This due to the decreased reaction time needed for the empire to react to the second frontline as it’s not in an entirely new continent.
I dare to say that we don’t know that. PS2 seems to be more fast-paced. Also meaning that what appears to be a smaller reaction time compared to PS1 might prove to be the same time in PS2. But that’s also speculation. We simply don’t know.

So we also don’t know whether or not “less convoluted” is the same as “dumbed down”. We don’t know how the resources system is going to work. We don’t know how the capture bonus system is going to work.

What we do know is that these things are relatively easy to tweak. They require little or no artwork to change. Only the willingness to keep an open mind during beta.
As for “meaning”. That’s entirely subjective. There are millions upon millions of people who find enough meaning in MW3 and BF3 to keep playing everyday.
What I notice among a lot of vets is a certain reasoning to think AGAINST PS2. Finding ways to point out that PS2 won’t be as good as PS1. This opposed to thinking WITH PS2, which is trying to make it better than PS1.
A different way of thinking is needed. Thinking WITH PS2 isn’t the same as thinking AGAINST PS1. It’s not trying to tweak PS1 and at the same time saying PS1 is a bad game.
It’s trying to make an entirely new game that happens to evoke the same feeling PS1 did.

So it would be nice to just “start from scratch” or at least assume PS1 wasn’t the perfect way to do something.

[Marsgrim]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The problem with PS1’s system is that it was tweaked as the game was played making it IMHO not very intuitive and rather convoluted.
Sure, it worked. But that doesn’t mean there won’t be a better way to do it. A simpler, more intuitive way.
The current system in PS2 (which is, as we should all agree, rather speculative, but apparently concrete enough to tear apart) has the issue that it would seem to decrease the advantage gained by taking the initiative to open another front. This due to the decreased reaction time needed for the empire to react to the second frontline as it’s not in an entirely new continent.
I dare to say that we don’t know that. PS2 seems to be more fast-paced. Also meaning that what appears to be a smaller reaction time compared to PS1 might prove to be the same time in PS2. But that’s also speculation. We simply don’t know.

So we also don’t know whether or not “less convoluted” is the same as “dumbed down”. We don’t know how the resources system is going to work. We don’t know how the capture bonus system is going to work.

What we do know is that these things are relatively easy to tweak. They require little or no artwork to change. Only the willingness to keep an open mind during beta.
As for “meaning”. That’s entirely subjective. There are millions upon millions of people who find enough meaning in MW3 and BF3 to keep playing everyday.
What I notice among a lot of vets is a certain reasoning to think AGAINST PS2. Finding ways to point out that PS2 won’t be as good as PS1. This opposed to thinking WITH PS2, which is trying to make it better than PS1.
A different way of thinking is needed. Thinking WITH PS2 isn’t the same as thinking AGAINST PS1. It’s not trying to tweak PS1 and at the same time saying PS1 is a bad game.
It’s trying to make an entirely new game that happens to evoke the same feeling PS1 did.

So it would be nice to just “start from scratch” or at least assume PS1 wasn’t the perfect way to do something.

I don't think there is one PS vet that would say PS1 was perfect or right on every aspect. Most want the same game but with an updated, modern engine and mechanics - which I'd probably be happy with as well truth to tell.

On the BF3/COD side, and having played a lot of COD and some BF2:BC, I believe lots of people play those games because they play a map for 15mins and afterwards they know if they've won or lost, everything resets and they get a chance to try winning again, for the causal player this is more than enough. It's a small time investment in a competitive game/environment. Further to that, they both have very active Clan scenes competing in leagues and cups, which keep those players in the game "practicing".

What keeps those players interested in a 6 hour fight around a base, particularly if they are attacking and the defenders hold the advantage? I am sure you understand that those attacking a base are at a disadvantage to those defending, so it is not a fair fight, new players to Planetside2 will need to understand that. It leads to lots of rage quitting, especially if people think they're going into a completely fair 1v1 skill based DM. It won't happen, you're going to be killed repetedly by people you don't even know are there or never see.

That is why there needs to be some purpose, because the real sense of fun/accomplishment in attacking a base or continent is in successfully taking it and completing it at the end. The fun/accomplishment for the defenders is in the fighting.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

Malorn wrote one a while ago

http://www.liberty-clan.com/topsecret/psm.pdf

I never got around to reading the whole thing, but most of what I did had good points.

Not a tactical/strategical one, I meant, one that takes issues like TTK, map design(or uh, continent design I guess is better), vehicle play, command structure, exit/entry animations, victory conditions, iron sights, every single issue and breaks down the PS1 vet opinion on them all.

[JHendy]

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]

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.

[basti]

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

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.

True. The concept doesnt work with just 3 continents. We need more for a inter-continent lattience to be possible.

But getting new continents wont be as hard as making the first one. For once, they learn a lot creating indar, and also have most of the assets done.

[Heaven]

Let’s say the NC has just taken every single facility on a continent… The TR and VS are pushed back to their footholds. Couldn’t the dev's implement an idea where footholds were locked down by a force field stopping the the TR and VS coming through on to the continent?… give the shields a timer, so lets say the shields would be up for something like 3 hours (this then giving the sense of accomplishment for factions) making it so no opposing faction can attack this continent for that amount of time. So when the last base is taken by the NC the remaining enemies can only then spawn at their footholds, which will have a shield that stops them coming back through. I think this will make factions fight harder as well, because if their locked from all continents they will have to wait for shield timers to cool down before they can start hacking/attacking again. And if the timer seems too long, they can cut it short so the action of the game isnt killed!

[Bazilx]

Originally Posted by Heaven

Couldn’t the dev's implement an idea where footholds were locked down by a force field stopping the the TR and VS coming through on to the continent?… give the shields a timer, so lets say the shields would be up for something like 3 hours (this then giving the sense of accomplishment for factions) making it so no opposing faction can attack this continent for that amount of time.

Seems like a pretty cool idea I thinks. It would also look cool when an massive army charges out of the shield as it drops.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

I don't think there is one PS vet that would say PS1 was perfect or right on every aspect. Most want the same game but with an updated, modern engine and mechanics - which I'd probably be happy with as well truth to tell.

On the BF3/COD side, and having played a lot of COD and some BF2:BC, I believe lots of people play those games because they play a map for 15mins and afterwards they know if they've won or lost, everything resets and they get a chance to try winning again, for the causal player this is more than enough. It's a small time investment in a competitive game/environment. Further to that, they both have very active Clan scenes competing in leagues and cups, which keep those players in the game "practicing".

What keeps those players interested in a 6 hour fight around a base, particularly if they are attacking and the defenders hold the advantage? I am sure you understand that those attacking a base are at a disadvantage to those defending, so it is not a fair fight, new players to Planetside2 will need to understand that. It leads to lots of rage quitting, especially if people think they're going into a completely fair 1v1 skill based DM. It won't happen, you're going to be killed repetedly by people you don't even know are there or never see.

That is why there needs to be some purpose, because the real sense of fun/accomplishment in attacking a base or continent is in successfully taking it and completing it at the end. The fun/accomplishment for the defenders is in the fighting.

What makes you think and insist that PS2 will have mechanics that will make base take-overs last for 6 hours? It would seem the only reason you think this will be the case is because PS2 won't have the system PS1 had and you only saw the PS1 system succeed. Therefore you assume that only the PS1 system CAN succeed.
That conclusion is highly illogical.

And what makes you think the combat will be so very boring people will mind a 6 hours fight? As far as I can see they're truly trying to make combat less cookie-cutter than it was in PS1 with more variety and a more organic flow from base to base and battle to battle. This COULD make things more exciting. At least perhaps as exciting as current shooters where you only get to play in a few maps and are more likely to play the same map a few times per hour...
But of course, we don't know that yet.

And as I've said before, what you consider to be "sense of accomplishment" might be easier or harder to achieve for someone else.
And you also don't know whether or not PS2 will have a new metric for long term accomplishment. In PS1 that used to be continent locking, in PS2 it might be doming an empire in their final base for x hours.
You can't judge what you don't know.

Unless, of course, you're saying
if PS2 =/= PS1 then PS2 = bad
...

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Basti, who is 'we'?

There is hardly a consensus among all Planetside veterans.

Instead of "we" you should have said "me"

Yes there is. Basti and people like myself played PS1 for YEARs, even from beta. But we have people like you who did not, telling us we don't know what we are talking about.

Waite for beta is not the answer to all discussions.

I would honestly like it if you stopped posting in every thread telling us how wrong or a minority we are.

It may stop the discussions becoming piles of poop as soon as you show up.

Here is what needed to change in PS2:

1. New graphic engine that can be added to over time. IE: PS1 front loaded all assets, hence reuse of textures on new items. And the need for new zones (caves) to get anything new.
   
2. Netcode and physics updated to be more inline with modern shooters. Slghtly faster TTK, not BF/COD speeds.
   
3. Continued focus and games rules that forced teamwork.
   
4. No pay wall.
   
   Everything else should mostly stay the same. Because the above is what stopped people from being attracted to the title originally.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Yes there is. Basti and people like myself played PS1 for YEARs, even from beta. But we have people like you who did not, telling us we don't know what we are talking about.

Waite for beta is not the answer to all discussions.

I would honestly like it if you stopped posting in every thread telling us how wrong or a minority we are.

It may stop the discussions becoming piles of poop as soon as you show up.

Here is what needed to change in PS2:

1. New graphic engine that can be added to over time. IE: PS1 front loaded all assets, hence reuse of textures on new items. And the need for new zones (caves) to get anything new.
   
2. Netcode and physics updated to be more inline with modern shooters. Slghtly faster TTK, not BF/COD speeds.
   
3. Continued focus and games rules that forced teamwork.
   
4. No pay wall.
   
   Everything else should mostly stay the same. Because the above is what stopped people from being attracted to the title originally.

Having played a game for many years IMHO decreases the validity of your arguments concerning a new, similar game.

Here's why.

You play a game for years. That's because you like the features of that game. Otherwise you wouldn't be playing it for years, now would you?
It's very compatible with you, so to speak.

Then how likely is it that you'll objectively judge the game that will replace it? You already found the game that's compatible with you, only to lose it to an other one.

Not very likely you'll be able to take a step back and judge features objectively.
I'd even say it's extremely unlikely.
You're emotionally invested in the game. You're not objective.
Whereas other people, might just be a little less emotionally invested.


Also, here's something that will shock you to the core:

PS2 is not JUST the game of PS1 vets that HAPPENS to need outside players to serve as untermenschen/cannon fodder.

Yea, I went there. It's not just YOUR game. Think about that.

[MrBloodworth]

If you knew anything about the PS1 Vets, you would know we have been over improving PS1 and any sequel for Years now.

We have already Discussed it for close to a decade. For any part of your post to be true, you would have to assume Vets think PS1 was perfect.

We will be the first ( and were ) to tell you it was not.

The problem comes in when you take a title, and all that input, and make something that barely resembles it.

Tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Yes there is. Basti and people like myself played PS1 for YEARs, even from beta. But we have people like you who did not, telling us we don't know what we are talking about.

Waite for beta is not the answer to all discussions.

I would honestly like it if you stopped posting in every thread telling us how wrong or a minority we are.

It may stop the discussions becoming piles of poop as soon as you show up.

Here is what needed to change in PS2:

1. New graphic engine that can be added to over time. IE: PS1 front loaded all assets, hence reuse of textures on new items. And the need for new zones (caves) to get anything new.
   
2. Netcode and physics updated to be more inline with modern shooters. Slghtly faster TTK, not BF/COD speeds.
   
3. Continued focus and games rules that forced teamwork.
   
4. No pay wall.
   
   Everything else should mostly stay the same. Because the above is what stopped people from being attracted to the title originally.

I was in the last, or second last wave of players in the closed beta. Subscribed from launch until 2005. Was on and off from then til now.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Your request for me to stop posting is ridiculous. Most of my posts are centered around pointing out why all the crying, whining, and sky-is-falling posts are unnecessary and unproductive.

Even if I weren't a 'vet, bro' my opinion would be valid because I would still be invested in how Planetside 2 turns out. Your post is full of the entitlement douchebaggery I mentioned in my first post in this thread. Non-veteran opinions should be encouraged.

If you go through your own post record, count the amount of times you posted something postive. We could do without your negativity.

Planetside 1 reskinned is not what a lot of us want. Your notion that Planetside was almost perfect does not align with the fact that it was never a popular game. People (like me and you) put up with all the bad bits because it was truly unique, but the rest of the gaming population was not willing to deal with the crap. This is an undeniable fact.

The core elements of Planetside are present in #2. Most of the changes revolve around all of the crap and garbage we had to suffer with to get that 'Planetside feel' you all reminisce about through a nostalgic and limited point of view. Getting rid of the tedium and poor design is what I, and the 'true Planetside fans, bro' want. Stop trying to drag us back to 2003 with you. We're not headed in that direction.

[Marsgrim]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

What makes you think and insist that PS2 will have mechanics that will make base take-overs last for 6 hours? It would seem the only reason you think this will be the case is because PS2 won't have the system PS1 had and you only saw the PS1 system succeed. Therefore you assume that only the PS1 system CAN succeed.
That conclusion is highly illogical.

And what makes you think the combat will be so very boring people will mind a 6 hours fight? As far as I can see they're truly trying to make combat less cookie-cutter than it was in PS1 with more variety and a more organic flow from base to base and battle to battle. This COULD make things more exciting. At least perhaps as exciting as current shooters where you only get to play in a few maps and are more likely to play the same map a few times per hour...
But of course, we don't know that yet.

And as I've said before, what you consider to be "sense of accomplishment" might be easier or harder to achieve for someone else.
And you also don't know whether or not PS2 will have a new metric for long term accomplishment. In PS1 that used to be continent locking, in PS2 it might be doming an empire in their final base for x hours.
You can't judge what you don't know.

Unless, of course, you're saying
if PS2 =/= PS1 then PS2 = bad
...

I'm struggling to understand why you are so hostile and taking this so personally, however I will extrapolate.

1) What tells me that base take over times could take 6+ hours is many years of experience in playing 300 vs 300. When you start to have that weight of numbers in an area, individual skill becomes less of a determining factor than organisation. It's nothing to do with classes or vehicles, just the simple mechanics of 300 people trying to take a base (or other objective) defended by the same number of people where you have many weapons and vehicles with areas of effect (liberator bombs, tank shells etc). What tends to secure a base is exceptional play (such as the router ams combo from PS1 - no I am not saying it will be in or is needed in PS2), a numerical advantage or a siege (NTU for example) where the base runs out of resources and stops the owning empire from spawning there.
Unless the developers intend to make all the bases in such a fashion that they have no defensive factors (therefor no courtyard walls and gates, which we've already seen) then I can confidently tell you now most battles will take an extraordinary amount of time compared to your average BF or COD map.
Further to this, with 3 empires per continent and no possibility of locking one out, then the number of bases on any continent becomes limited, the number that are reasonably takeable more so and the fight is more likely to fluctuate over the same ground.

2) I sincerely hope combat is fast paced and moves more quickly through the map than I think, however based on point one above I have my concerns. Secondly, I think you are failing to factor that in a BF3 or COD map the teams spawn randomly through the map rather than always in a specific room, and that the maps are designed to prevent "camping" or rather easy defense of any single point.
Given that PS2 is going to have base facilities defended by an empire with a secured spawn location within a fortification, I think you fail to understand the issue.
This scenario favours the defenders over the atackers, which means attackers typically die far more than the defending side. It is this aspect that I think will lead to frustration, particularly if you are fighting over a base for 6 hours and dying 3 times for every kill you get.

3) In PS1 they introduced the merit system, outfit and player ranking as well as a dailly win counter that popped up on login advising you who took the most bases the previous day. This was still not enough to maintain a playerbase long term.


I'm not playing a veteran or elitist jerk, I am not trying to repeal the class system or any other design feature so far revealed (though I have cited some as things I disagree with, I accept that this is the design choice taken) as almost every one relates to the mechanics of combat.

My point however is that what has been revealed about the overall strategic game makes it less than PS was. From your perspective, what difference does it make to your sense of accomplishment? Will you feel less accomplishment by taking a continent and pushing the opposing empire off?

Your point seems to be that the lowest level of accomplishment is sufficient and people wil be happy with it, surely then it makes no difference to those people if another level of ahievement and accomplishment is added that creates more depth and interesting fights? Your counter-argument seems to have no logic as I am not asking for anything that would diminsih the most basic level, I am merely saying that te overall "metagame" as we have seen so far does not cater to players who want more, and surely the aim should be to please as many players as possible?