Important Issues, Life or Death of the Game

[The Kush]

I am going to keep this as short and sweet as possible, no bull shit just straight to the point. Planetside 2 has some major issues. If these problems are not addressed, mark my words this game will fail. People can laugh all they want but we will see who is laughing in a year if you continue to ignore these fundamental issues. Now as I have said before the truth hurts, but you need to hear the truth so this game can be fixed and become the successful AAA shooter I know it can be. Key areas to keep in mind that will make this game successful and take full advantage of the large battles is proper teamwork and strategy.

-Bases need a ton of work. Let start by giving them a perimeter with fully enclosed walls, adding doors, staircases, more levels on the interior of the bases, back entrances to add some strategy, ect. Planetside 1 bases were great! We just needed more variety so they didn't become boring. Keep the fundamentals the same. A fun aspect of these base designs is it created what I call a "remember the Alamo" gametype. Defenders would try and hold out, attackers would try to push in. A very rewarding and fun system that promoted teamwork and strategy.

-The lag is really hurting this game. All my friends who have signed up for beta or got keys have quit 30 minutes after. Myself, and several of my friends, have really expensive rigs (i7, top of the line graphics, ect) and the lag is unbearable.

-As I briefly touched on Planetside needs teamwork and strategy to be successful in the long run. As you know, it's the community that kept PS1 alive for so many years. I loved playing with friends and my loyal faction, working together for a common goal. There is no common goal. It is honestly time to start looking into the lattice system. It makes the game more epic. Any legitimate fighting force usually has one common objective. Of course eventually if ANTs are added you could kill a generator in the back lines and maybe drain a base and capture it. But the lattice system helps keep the battles focused. I don't care if the population has to go down to achieve this. Because right now I see no large battles as is and the lag sucks. 

-Sanctuarys.. until this point I thought the new system might work, I gave it a chance but no it has completely failed. Players who aren't even active take up player spots on the continent and the whole thing is honestly a mess. We need a stage to organize troops. This also is another aspect that promotes teamwork and strategy.

I would not have taken a half hour out of my day to write this if I want passionate about the game. I have been playing since 2004 and I love planetside. Be original SOE, that's how you make money. Stay true to what you know. The first person shooter market needs a legitimate teamwork game. Not a lone wolf game like cod and bf. you have people who want to be ignorant, pretend like everything is okay. And that's fine. People can't stand to hear the truth because it hurts. But it hurts even more that you changed a game that had so many good qualities and threw them all out the door to be just like the rest. I see so many people say "planetside 1 obviously sucked or it wouldn't have had such low pops blah blah I don't know what I'm talking about and probably never played when the game first came out". Truth is, planetside 1 did work. SOE pushe everyone away when they strayed from the fundamentals and added bfrs. Not to mention the game was years ahead of its time and no one could afford a decent computer to run it. Hopefully changes happen soon otherwise I'm counting my losses on the station cash I purchased and I am moving on.

[Fanglord]

Originally Posted by The Kush

-The lag is really hurting this game. All my friends who have signed up for beta or got keys have quit 30 minutes after. Myself, and several of my friends, have really expensive rigs (i7, top of the line graphics, ect) and the lag is unbearable.

not to be a party pooper, but im running an i3 and 6850 an on high with a few settings lowered its running fine for me (720 but my monitor is a pos, so hurrah for being a cheapskate!).

though on that note I would love a more varied option, I hate just low/med/high doesnt really allow for enough tweaking.

[Ritual]

I think you exaggerated the fact that people with i7's and the latest 600 series graphics cards are "lagging" to the point of quitting.

I also disagree that we are so far away from Planetside 1 that we have no hope.

The latest patches are a step in the right direction, they are listening. And at the rate of changes we are seeing on a patch by patch basis, problems can come and go like night and day. The game is constantly improving for the better as far as I can tell.

They are experimenting in a true type of "BETA" way, nothing to them is sacred that it will never be changed. And Lets also not forget; THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT MADE PLANETSIDE 1!!! Have a little faith.

SOE and crew will get it right.

[Bittermen]

I don't have any problems with lag

[Rat]

Runs fine for me...have a I7, but my graphics card is crap (GTS240)

[Mox]

I agree with you regarding all mentioned game mechanics.
We really need a lattice system, better defendable bases and sancs to teamup.

The framerate is not so bad for me. My medium priced rig is a year old and still play on high settings with a framerate around 30.

[FortySe7en]

Originally Posted by Mox

Thats exactly this kind of ignorance we dont need here. Maybe you move on as soon as the next bf or cod is launched. The remaining guys will be loyal players like the Kush and not bf/cod game kiddies who need a new game to hype every 3 month.

He may have offended you by what he said, but he is 100% correct. There is a new style of FPS gaming, and as far as PS2 is concerned, it is doing a fantastic job.

The bases don't need perimeters. The area around them don't support it. You use the high ground and the trenches to defend, which is perfectly normal.

The lag isn't killing this game. These servers are hosted on SOE's mainframes. Having a ping of around 150-200 is completely normal in an MMO. The lag isn't really affecting the gameplay at all. You just need to adjust a tiny bit to compensate.

As far as sanctuary's.. Its a beta. OFC people are going to be taking up slots, probably testing other things. What people fail to realize is that this is an actual closed beta. This isn't a "preorder the game and get into beta" type issue, this is a REAL closed beta. You cannot even begin to understand how warpgates work based on that fact alone.

As for the BF/COD kiddie comment, well, you're just an idiot. Congratulations on bringing absolutely ZERO to this conversation other than a misguided insult to an ENTIRE playerbase.

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

The bases don't need perimeters. The area around them don't support it. You use the high ground and the trenches to defend, which is perfectly normal.

The devs don't agree with you and are making the main bases, y'know, actually bases via shield gens and spawn gen mechanics and choke point tunnels. They are more walled than ever before.

High ground and trenches? Seriously? Have you even played the game? If you have you would know that people just ignore everything and walk or drive into bases, at least on Indar, which was (is?) a problem.

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

The lag isn't killing this game.

Tell that to all the people - and there are many - who can't run it with any kind of frame rate in these big battles which are what PS2 is advertised on. At least not yet.

I'm sure they'll have this fixed by release though.

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

You cannot even begin to understand how warpgates work based on that fact alone.

Warpgates highlight flaws in the map design due to restricting each faction to mostly fighting on about one third of the map. Fighting on that same third is kinda boring after a while... and the gates also constantly remind me of the lack of a meta game and continental conquest.

The future doesn't matter. A release date does. And we can see exactly how warpgates work - they will probably work this way on release. It is not the end of the world, but nor is it a good thing.

Though I can't say I'm convinced of the need for Sanctuaries now. All they would do is move the problem that stems from a lack of maps elsewhere.

[zzzornbringer]

this game just depends on all the outfits. casual solo players like me, never will pay for this game.

you are very limited as a solo player, i know that. i enjoy the atmosphere the game creates. i play it like a interactive war movie. i get excited when galaxies fly over my head.

but in the longer term? i don't see myself playing this for a longer period of time. and i also don't want to get into outfits, talk to people and coordinate and stuff.

i just want to log in, enjoy the game for a while. get a few kills, die a few times. watch some battles. and quit again.

i just don't want to get involved in a mmo kind of thing again. i am mmo-oversaturated. not saying this game sucks or something like that. the game is very awsome but just not for a solo player.

[ShadoViper]

Originally Posted by FortySe7en

He may have offended you by what he said, but he is 100% correct. There is a new style of FPS gaming, and as far as PS2 is concerned, it is doing a fantastic job.

The bases don't need perimeters. The area around them don't support it. You use the high ground and the trenches to defend, which is perfectly normal.

The lag isn't killing this game. These servers are hosted on SOE's mainframes. Having a ping of around 150-200 is completely normal in an MMO. The lag isn't really affecting the gameplay at all. You just need to adjust a tiny bit to compensate.

As far as sanctuary's.. Its a beta. OFC people are going to be taking up slots, probably testing other things. What people fail to realize is that this is an actual closed beta. This isn't a "preorder the game and get into beta" type issue, this is a REAL closed beta. You cannot even begin to understand how warpgates work based on that fact alone.

As for the BF/COD kiddie comment, well, you're just an idiot. Congratulations on bringing absolutely ZERO to this conversation other than a misguided insult to an ENTIRE playerbase.

New style my ass, maybe if you just started gaming you might think call of duty is a new "style". The only thing that game brought that was "new" was over-priced dlc, dumbed-down gameplay, killstreaks and a lot of morons into the twitch gaming arena.

Obviously planetside 2 is not doing a "fantastic" job. While I'm enjoying my time with it, it's quite clear it needs work and has some glaring issues, and it seems that some of those problems have been resolved by bringing back aspects of planetside the AMS issue for example. Which people were stating was going to be a problem months before pre beta.

So yes, both "schools" will be needed for this game folks.

Blind appraisal won't make this game better either. and personally the guys on this site bitching are not always right, but they are more often than not. They care about this game.

Also your perimeter arguement didn't really make sense to me. So permiteter/walls wouldn't really be supported/needed for bases because we are using the "high ground" to defend and it works?

[GuyFawkes]

The game does have potential

PS1 was cut off at the knees before it came out. The mmo was relatively unknown, FPS meant counter strike or UT/quake, and paying a sub for a fps was taboo. The guys making the engine for ps1 were shunted off to eq2 land before they could blink. Advertisement was non existant, we've probably seen more sightings of the Loch Ness Monster in all honesty. Not a great start. Bugs existed for years, it was a hackers wet dream. Things cited as ps1 unique features weren't even in game at launch, like the lattice system. Command structure was little more than epeen sanctuary for the main part.

PS2 at least has a decent foundation to work from this time. MMO's are 2 a penny , ftp is becoming more mainstream. Don't forget one of the biggest drawbacks for ps1 was population. Little to kill dosen't make for a great shooter. The devs are listening (sometimes too much..look at the esf banjoing going on..forumside ftl), they added ams (in a fashion) they adjusted the cert gain, they are still on going working on hex system and trying to make it better. Nothing is set in stone. Matt Higby mentioned the hex and lattice systems , but for now are still seeing if the hex thing can be made better. Need to give them time.
They acknowledge that the certs are a bit lacklustre in several areas, many were probably just placeholders to fill in gaps. But they have to try stuff out to see how things work , or don't.
I think they have done an incredible job so far in the time they have had. This time last year ps2 was just a wink in a ps1 fans eyes,don't forget.

Don't get me wrong, I think the game has a bucket load of things to add to get the long term appeal in there to make it addictive and worthy of that planetside tag, but it all takes time and these are people working in the soe offices, not robots. I'm sure they are aware of most peoples concerns, but the process is like building with Lego. The icing that made ps1 appealing can always be added, but unless the foundation is right from day 1, they are just making trouble for the future.

[sylphaen]

A lot of good posts in this thread. Thanks everyone for taking the time to post your thoughts !

Just to add on GuyFawkes comment after thinking about his point, we do are a very demanding crowd (and I'm not the last at complaining either).


Roma was not erected in one day ! In time, we can hope PS2 will succeed as well (and also not suffer the whole empire breakdown to dark ages part).


So to get straight to the point like we do when criticizing: thank you for all your hard work devs !

[SpottyGekko]

My understanding is that SOE's intention with PS2 is to develop a game where BF3/CoD players will feel immediately comfortable, but to also offer them increased depth combined with the persistence of an MMO.

PS2 is not being made for PS1 vets. It is clearly a whole new ballgame, and it has a completely different set of priorities than its predecessor.

I imagine the process went something like this:

1. We (SOE) have to revitalise our MMO business, our products are ageing and our sub-based model is outdated.
2. Let's be the first to build AAA MMO's and launch them as F2P offerings. We will be the Wallmart of the MMO industry, low margins (micro-transactions) but high volumes (huge number of players).
3. Which of our current IP's is best suited to lead this "new direction" ?
4. Aha ! Planetside ! It always had good potential and a small but loyal following. It has relatively simple mechanics compared to standard fantasy MMO's, so development time will be shorter.
5. It also has the potential to pull in players from all over the massive FPS fanbase. Besides, there is no other MMOFPS to compete with, we have the market entirely to ourselves !
6. Sooo... a potential playerbase of millions and no competing products, this could be a licence to print money

Unless SOE as a studio scrap their entire new F2P-focused development strategy (unlikely at this point), PS2 has to pay for it's development cost by attracting a very large number of players.

Think in the range of 2 to 3 million "registered accounts" in the first year or two. If each one of those accounts spend a minimum of $10, PS2 will be well on the way to covering it's development cost. But to make an actual profit, SOE will have to somehow persuade those players to part with more than $10 each on average.

Last time I looked, the "classic FPS player" was a lone wolf who played solo for k/b score, achievements, unlocks and medals (i.e. personal bragging rights). Yes, there are clans and teams in the FPS world, but I'd be amazed if even 10% of the total FPS audience played the majority of their games in a true co-ordinated team-based fashion.

And the "classic FPS player" is where PS2 will find its "millions of players". If it can't lure those players in to spend $20 to $30 each and stick around for 3 months or so, it will most likely fail to meet it's objectives.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by SpottyGekko

My understanding is that SOE's intention with PS2 is to develop a game where BF3/CoD players will feel immediately comfortable, but to also offer them increased depth combined with the persistence of an MMO.

Problem is atm the action is no where near as consistent as those games because everyone is spread out without front lines, or real objectives.

Those players will leave as soon as a newer FPS is released, if you want to get players to stay you need to hook people in with longer term addictive gaming.

Currently the game doesn't hold my attention for an entire evening let alone 9 years.

[Legolas]

Originally Posted by Redshift

Problem is atm the action is no where near as consistent as those games because everyone is spread out without front lines, or real objectives.

Maybe the mission system will help with objectives... I can't understand how such a thing would work though.