The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[CuddlyChud]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

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.

This +1.

I was subbed for 2 years straight, on and off for another 3. I've easily put 1000 hours into the game, and I'm glad for a lot of the changes. I don't have nearly as much time as I did when I was in middle school to play games. There's a lot of resistance from so called "PS1 Vets" because they liked a lot of the features from PS1 or they wouldn't have played as long. But i'm just gonna put this out there, pops peaked at release, which should tell you something. In my mind, it wasn't BFR's that killed the game. There was something wrong with the core mechanics of the game, and I really think it had to do with the immense time sinks in the game which meant that the average player could only ever experience the same base fights over and over.

[Ruwyn]

The inability for people to realize that the thing "wrong" with the first PS was the SUBSCRIPTION. in 2003 it was still not very common for MOST gamers to pay a subscription. No FPS players paid a subscription up till then nor after. That is why population peaked at launch. If you look at almost any MMO you will see that Populations drop drastically after the first month in all of them and then either plateaus or declines slow steady rate as long as there are alternatives. In PS's case, CS and the emergence of COD/BF series along with Halo. All of which were FREE-to-play.

[texico]

Originally Posted by basti

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.

I hope so. I think the game would benefit massively from shipping with 10 battle continents.


I think that the hex system at a CONTINENTAL level will largely work fine, although yes, the ghost hacking seems like a problem. I also thought that this stretched-out front line will spread the fights thin, because if any part of the front line is left alone, the opposition empire is likely to walk right in and take it. Even on a contested continent this is a problem if territories can't be "securely" left alone by players. However, it could probably be solved with tweaking, and the fluidity of the hex system looks great tactically.

However, there has to be a link system on an intercontinental scale and some form of "locking", because there needs to be a sense of ownership of actual continents. THAT's the goal in PS1 - to own all continents. How can you do that with continental footholds?





So imo there needs to be a mix of the CONTINENTAL hex system and the INTERCONTINENTAL link system, so that there's a fluid ownership of territories on a continent and a secure ownership of continents across Auraxis. Maybe warpgates are a "hex" too, that can be captured by owning an adjacent hex, which provides the "link" to the next continent once you capture the WG-hex.

But for that to work, you need a relatively large number of continents and you need an independent starting point... sanctuaries (at the very least, footholds on home continents only).


The way this new system is looking, I honestly think that while continent-level tactics and goals may be improved, intercontinental tactics and goals are going to be diminished in PS2 with footholds, no locking and the ability to capture any continent at any time.

[basti]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

This +1.

I was subbed for 2 years straight, on and off for another 3. I've easily put 1000 hours into the game, and I'm glad for a lot of the changes. I don't have nearly as much time as I did when I was in middle school to play games. There's a lot of resistance from so called "PS1 Vets" because they liked a lot of the features from PS1 or they wouldn't have played as long. But i'm just gonna put this out there, pops peaked at release, which should tell you something. In my mind, it wasn't BFR's that killed the game. There was something wrong with the core mechanics of the game, and I really think it had to do with the immense time sinks in the game which meant that the average player could only ever experience the same base fights over and over.

Those of us who stayed actually used their brains to think about the issues of the game. We KNOW what is wrong with planetside, and we also know what is right.

That being said, the core mechanics of Planetside were right, at their time. Why the game didnt take off is pretty easy to understand: It was a subscription based MMO FPS at a time where something like MMO FPS didnt exist, at a time where MMOs and the concept of paying each month to play a game was rather new (and lots of people didnt understand the idea). Thats what caused Planetside to not take off right into the sky. What caused the decline in population is also rather easy to explain: Planetside never hit critical mass of that time, it only came close. Let me explain:

Critical mass refers to the amount of players necessary to let the game grow by itself, even without big advertising. The amount varys based on the game, as a rather uniquie and new concept needs a lot less players to be succesful (if the concept is good of course). Eve Online and LoL are good examples here. Eve grows for many many years now, and LoL just skyrocked. Both games didnt go crazy on the advertising, but where uniquie, one of a kind, causing them to grow.
SWTOR and WOW are also examples here. WOW wasnt that uniquie, yet it got enough players in the early days, as well es good enough content later on, to grow very very large, to the point that the returning and new playerbase was about as high as the leaving playerbase. And that with 16 million subscribers, tells you something about how high the bar was for WOW.
SWTor on the other hand can be watched dying right now. Just as with WOW, the bar was set high (especially because of WOW, as it set a standard for MMORPG quality), but the game didnt deliver what it needed to deliver (end game content), and didnt even got remotly close to the amout of players it would have required to sustain its popluation just by word of mouth (in fact, even WOW never managed to do that).

Planetside, on the other hand, got close for its time. Yes, pops dropped over time, but take a look around you: The game is still there. In the time planetside slowly lost one player at a time, other MMOs were developed, released and died. LEgo Universe, Tabula Rasa, even Star Wars Galaxys released a few month after Planetside.

Why that is? Simple: Because the game delivered what it needed to deliver: a MMOFPS with the important things a MMOFPS needs, and that is teamplay, a goal people can relate to, as well as the ability to play the game in a completly different way. To be more specific:
Teamplay: The Vehicles, the cert system (pre BR40, BR40 just showed why the cert system cant be used for PS2).
A goal: Continent locks, Global domination
And a different way of playing: Gen Holds, Gal drops, Tank collums, whatever. Pretty much anything you usually didnt do applys here.

Teamplay seems to stay in tact, as the Class system makes it necessary. The tank discussion of driver=Gunner may affect or not affect the needed teamplay, that has to be seen during beta.
A different way of playing the game also stays in tact it seems. Behind enemy lines stuff is back, just somewhat different.
But a Goal? Something else to do that just throwing youself into the meatgrinder? That seems to be cut down to the level of almost non existing, given that all you could take these days are just bases, and thats just the smalles possible Victory Planetside offered. Wihout the ability to lock a continent, fights will be meaningless, as it doesnt matter where you go, because you cant ever finish the continent.

[texico]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

This +1.

I was subbed for 2 years straight, on and off for another 3. I've easily put 1000 hours into the game, and I'm glad for a lot of the changes. I don't have nearly as much time as I did when I was in middle school to play games. There's a lot of resistance from so called "PS1 Vets" because they liked a lot of the features from PS1 or they wouldn't have played as long. But i'm just gonna put this out there, pops peaked at release, which should tell you something. In my mind, it wasn't BFR's that killed the game. There was something wrong with the core mechanics of the game, and I really think it had to do with the immense time sinks in the game which meant that the average player could only ever experience the same base fights over and over.

But being able to hop on and play quickly and for short periods =/= features that are only apparently for those investing a lot of time have to go.


The player who only has 45 minutes wants to log on, hop right in and start killing, and feel rewarded in those 45 minutes. AS LONG as he can ABSOLUTELY do that, the game is working perfectly for the player short on time.

It doesn't take massive overhauls of mechanics to achieve that. A, he needs to be able to jump right in. A better-designed "instant action" can do that. B, he needs to be rewarded and given a goal. XP, achievements and skill-tree progression all reward him, and the more quickly-captured territories gives him a clear and easy goal that's he could potentially achieve in those 45 minutes.

C, he needs enemies to fight. THIS is probably the biggest thing against continent locking, no footholds and a link system, because if one empire leaves, the other has to clean up that continent before they have the LINK to the next one. But firstly, if PS1 has a massive population, it's less likely that there won't be another fight on one of the other non-home continents. Secondly, there could be a system that fixes that. How about, if the population of an "enemies" on a continent falls below 5%, bases and territories can be hacked instantly, so the cont can be capped in 5-10 minutes and the link to next continent with the battle opened up. Really, there can be incentives to stop this happening that often.



I really don't agree with this idea that PS1's mechanics were flawed, and THAT's the reason it died. The REASON PS1 died is

-No marketing
-Barely any development
-Crappy updates and changes (BFR's, balance towards vehicles)
-LAG, and poor coding
-Cost
-Too technically demanding for its time



The problems with the fundamental gameplay didn't cause people to leave. It's core gameplay is the REASON there's still players after 9 years.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

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.

The opposite is true, and it has been proven by BAttlefield. People who started in Battlefield at BC2 or BF3 have never seen proper squads, working in game VOIP, proper large maps, etc; and as a result, they immediately dismiss the opinion of vets who want that kind of thing. It's especially obvious when you are talking about TTK and time between engagements, the people who started with BC2 and BF3 don't care if there is another tactic besides a headfirst charge into a tunnel of fire.

Who is right? Well, EVERYONE is right, although the newer players obviously need to admit that they have never experienced what the vets have. But who WINS? Whomever the gaming companies believe to be more populous. Whichever the gaming companies think will sell more gets catered to, bottom line. Sad.

[CuddlyChud]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The opposite is true, and it has been proven by BAttlefield. People who started in Battlefield at BC2 or BF3 have never seen proper squads, working in game VOIP, proper large maps, etc; and as a result, they immediately dismiss the opinion of vets who want that kind of thing. It's especially obvious when you are talking about TTK and time between engagements, the people who started with BC2 and BF3 don't care if there is another tactic besides a headfirst charge into a tunnel of fire.

Who is right? Well, EVERYONE is right, although the newer players obviously need to admit that they have never experienced what the vets have. But who WINS? Whomever the gaming companies believe to be more populous. Whichever the gaming companies think will sell more gets catered to, bottom line. Sad.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion since Planetside 1 is the only game in the planetside series, and all Planetside vets started in the same game. No one can really be objective when it comes to PS2 because no one knows much about the mechanics of PS2. We know what they've removed and replaced from experiences in PS1, but PS1 vets obviously enjoyed these aspects or they wouldn't have played for as long. Naturally, because they don't know much about these new mechanics, they prefer the old ones which they do understand.

My argument is that PS1 was not fulfilling for people who didn't have much time to play. All they had to look forward to were the individual base fights, since cont locking wasn't important to them. And these individual base fights became repetitive rather quickly. Anecdotal evidence tells me this is a rather large reason why people left the game. And the reason why you could only get in maybe 1 good base fight in that time frame was because of the way hacking bases worked, the way lattice lines worked, the way cont locking worked. There were too many time sinks and too many restrictions. Without statistical evidence, no one can really be sure why the game died, and only SOE has that information. I personally did not quit because I couldn't afford the sub cost, especially in the early years when it was only 10 dollars.

Also, people seem to be arguing that without cont locks/sanc locks there can be no long term goals, dismissing resources as superfluous despite the fact that Higby has repeatedly stated that resources will be an important part of the meta-game.

[Lokster]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

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.

Well said bro. We must be in the minority of PS1 vets who embrace change and improvement over "more of the same".

I was a very hardcore PS1 player -- in fact I stayed in the top 5 for kills on Markov for 2 years after I stopped playing. I know PS1 was an awesome game; I loved it. More than any game I have played since.

That being said, a lot of it was less than savory and always needed a tweak or change. Seriously people; the PS2 development team is looking at ten years of data. They know what worked in PS1 and what didn't.

Perhaps with the new changes we will have a highly populated game for the next 10 years .. instead of a moderately populated game for the next 6 months.

------------------

Also, I'd like to add a little story here for those of you who don't understand the typical gamer; the folks that will comprise 75% of the in-game population. I convinced a co-worker and avid gamer to try PlanetSide 1 recently in an attempt to get him interested in PS2. He almost quit prior to leaving the sanctuary; because he didn't understand the sanctuary purpose or why anyone would waste so much time making an entire continent that essentially serves no purpose whatsoever -- especially since he was the ONLY person in the sanctuary.

I finally convince him to "instant action" and fight in a battle. He was impressed by the large scale combat but quickly became frustrated and quit within 8 hours of play time. He wanted to drive a tank, he wanted to fly, but he didn't want to be fodder for 15 hours to get to that point. He also hated the health/armor system (something I always thought I loved -- but then realized I hated it too, once I thought about it). He had died 82 times and killed only 8 people. And I know from experience that he is a very good FPS player.

I didn't understand why he would expect to be able to play the game efficiently within 5 minutes of starting a new character. But then I asked myself, "why is that? He is a good player..." and didn't have an answer.

It's simple things like this that make people stop playing. These "problems", along with many other issues with PS1 have effectively been fixed in PS2.

Maybe 600 PS1 players will be pissed about it -- but perhaps a million other gamers will love it...

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion since Planetside 1 is the only game in the planetside series, and all Planetside vets played the same game.

My argument is that PS1 was not fulfilling for people who didn't have much time to play. All they had to look forward to were the individual base fights, since cont locking wasn't important to them. And these individual base fights became repetitive rather quickly. Anecdotal evidence tells me this is a rather large reason why people left the game. And the reason why you could only get in maybe 1 good base fight in that time frame was because of the way hacking bases worked, the way lattice lines worked, the way cont locking worked. Without statistical evidence, no one can really be sure why the game died, and only SOE has that information. I personally did not quit because I couldn't afford the sub cost, especially in the early years when it was only 10 dollars.

Also, people seem to be arguing that without cont locks/sanc locks there can be no long term goals, dismissing resources as superfluous despite the fact that Higby has repeatedly stated that resources will be an important part of the meta-game.

The reason it's relevant is because of the very fact that anyone who didn't play PS1 is not a vet and cannot appreciate what PS1 had. If you never played PS1, and that goes double for people who have never played an MMOFPS(which is basically everyone that's not a PS1 or WW2OL vet), chances are these new players will develop an emotional bond to the way PS2 does things. The point, however, is that that bond is subjective, and could have been different if the new players HAD played PS1.

I simply believe that if there were a way to look at things objectively, many features from PS1 would indeed be confirmed superior.

In other words, sometimes the vets are right. Having faced this same issue in BAttlefield, I eagerly await someone to write a veteran's list of issues and the veteran standpoint so I can compare.

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by Lokster

Also, I'd like to add a little story here for those of you who don't understand the typical gamer; the folks that will comprise 75% of the in-game population. I convinced a co-worker and avid gamer to try PlanetSide 1 recently in an attempt to get him interested in PS2. He almost quit prior to leaving the sanctuary; because he didn't understand the sanctuary purpose or why anyone would waste so much time making an entire continent that essentially serves no purpose whatsoever -- especially since he was the ONLY person in the sanctuary.

I finally convince him to "instant action" and fight in a battle. He was impressed by the large scale combat but quickly became frustrated and quit within 8 hours of play time. He wanted to drive a tank, he wanted to fly, but he didn't want to be fodder for 15 hours to get to that point. He also hated the health/armor system (something I always thought I loved -- but then realized I hated it too, once I thought about it). He had died 82 times and killed only 8 people. And I know from experience that he is a very good FPS player.

I didn't understand why he would expect to be able to play the game efficiently within 5 minutes of starting a new character. But then I asked myself, "why is that? He is a good player..." and didn't have an answer.

It's simple things like this that make people stop playing. These "problems", along with many other issues with PS1 have effectively been fixed in PS2.

Maybe 600 PS1 players will be pissed about it -- but perhaps a million other gamers will love it...

What a silly argument. You asked him to join at a time that the game is nearly dead, populations are at an all time low and not to mention poor performance on a Windows 7 PC...

He doesn't understand the things because 1. He never played when the sancs were actually used. 2. The whole FPS mechanic on PS is totally different to modern FPS games. 3. It's a really bad time to even get anyone to try and love Planetside in it's current state. It's even harder to explain why PS was an awesome game back in the years and why I stuck to it for 8+ years...

I for one welcome the modernised aiming/fps system and I totally agree with the OP.

[Lokster]

Originally Posted by IronMole

What a silly argument. You asked him to join at a time that the game is nearly dead, populations are at an all time low and not to mention poor performance on a Windows 7 PC...

He doesn't understand the things because 1. He never played when the sancs were actually used. 2. The whole FPS mechanic on PS is totally different to modern FPS games. 3. It's a really bad time to even get anyone to try and love Planetside in it's current state. It's even harder to explain why PS was an awesome game back in the years and why I stuck to it for 8+ years...

I for one welcome the modernised aiming/fps system and I totally agree with the OP.

I wasn't implying I expected him to love the game. He simply pointed out some issues that have always been present with PS1; that I never seemed to notice.

Obviously the reason I didn't point out obvious things such as the crappy engine and physics is because the game is old. I/He pointed out conceptual problems....

Sanctuaries were VERY RARELY used even when the population was high. Tanks and vehicles were too difficult to acquire for new players -- requiring too much time played prior, and the health/armor system was retarded.

Those were the three most important things he pointed out -- none of which have to do with the age or state of the game currently.

[acosmo]

I agree with the OP.

PS2 is going to be a knife fight in a phone booth.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

-excellent post snip-

I think this was a well thought out and well explained post however there are a couple things that I disagree with.

1. I'm one of those people in favor of keeping the footholds and ditching the separate Sanctuary zone, and I've played the game since May 2003. I'm still subbed. (not that I think this matters all that much, You just started your post with the assumption that those in favor of keeping the footholds either never played or joined well after the golden years)

2. You make a good point in that seiges where you cut off the enemy's NTU supply was often the only way to break a stalemate, but PS2 is giving us much more to fight over instead of just 1 base that you MUST take in order to move forward. I'm excited to see how the new resource system will play into this and the strategies that develop because of it.

3. And this leads me to my final point. I massively disagree that the strategic meta game is dumbed down. In fact I believe it is far more complex and in depth than PS1. The lattice system was decent but flawed. It made the game merely a base hop with the large majority of ther map completely ignored. The new hex system means that we will actually use much more of the map which will keep things fresh, but it also gives MANY more options to the strategic level of the game. The lattice strategy was very very linear, but this new hex system adds a whole new dimension. Instead of a 1 dimensional strategy that follows a line, the new hex sytem allows for 2 dimensional over an entire plane.

As you know from your time in beta, the lattice system was added after the fact. I believe that if they could have used a hex territory system instead they would have chosen that over the lattice since it adds so much more depth. It just wasn't possible at that stage. (Obviously that is a pure assumption)

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by 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.

.

I'm absolutely not saying that PS1 vets aren't a very important, integral part of what will become PS2.

But the idea that they can "claim" PS2 is both offensive and absurd.

Planetside 2 IS NOT Planetside 1.

Therefore it IS NOT your game.

Your input has been noted and can probably be found all around what will be Planetside 2.

But that does NOT mean that vets have the SOLE ownership of everything that has to do with Planetside 2.

Tell me, what is the point of comparing a game that has yet to be played by any of you and has yet to have major features and mechanics decided on with a game that you have a very personal investment in?

Is it an ultimate exercise in forming subjective opinions?

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

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?

My apologies if I've given the impression of being hostile. Probably a by-product of reading/lurking for too long and not venting enough.

You know that it would take 6 hours in Planetside 1. How can you predict it will take 6 hours in an entirely different game with entirely different combat mechanics, entirely different organisational tools and entirely different base lay-outs?
You're predicting a deadlock based on no information.

Further on...
So what? Maybe a 6 hour deadlock is fun? Maybe players in a battle will rotate and find variety in fighting another battle? Maybe frontlines will develop?
Maybe attackers will have more advantages in terms of resources or initiative or mobility or whatnot? Maybe other means will be found to resolve boring deadlocks, such as game-generated missions to open up new fronts or commanders taking initiative and trying to probe for other vulnerabilities in the enemy territory?
Maybe PS2 will be the most boring game ever?

We can not simply make assumptions on mechanics that will probably not even exist when the beta comes out.


Frankly you do seem somewhat elitist. It does not take years of Planetside 1 experience to see the issues that you named. Yes, I do think there is a risk for them to emerge.
But apparently it does take someone less attached to PS1 to see that a different game might have different solutions and different issues altogether.



Oh, and my main point is: we simply don't know yet.

Originally Posted by Ruwyn

The inability for people to realize that the thing "wrong" with the first PS was the SUBSCRIPTION. in 2003 it was still not very common for MOST gamers to pay a subscription. No FPS players paid a subscription up till then nor after. That is why population peaked at launch. If you look at almost any MMO you will see that Populations drop drastically after the first month in all of them and then either plateaus or declines slow steady rate as long as there are alternatives. In PS's case, CS and the emergence of COD/BF series along with Halo. All of which were FREE-to-play.

IMHO it was a combination. The monthly cost combined with the repetitive nature of the game is what put me off in the end.

Originally Posted by basti

Those of us who stayed actually used their brains to think about the issues of the game. We KNOW what is wrong with planetside, and we also know what is right.

In your opinion. It's not unlikely that people who stayed share a similar outlook to games/gaming/PlanetSide.

This, however, does not make your opinion more valid than the opinion of those who left.

Apart from that I more or less agree with what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The opposite is true, and it has been proven by BAttlefield. People who started in Battlefield at BC2 or BF3 have never seen proper squads, working in game VOIP, proper large maps, etc; and as a result, they immediately dismiss the opinion of vets who want that kind of thing. It's especially obvious when you are talking about TTK and time between engagements, the people who started with BC2 and BF3 don't care if there is another tactic besides a headfirst charge into a tunnel of fire.

Who is right? Well, EVERYONE is right, although the newer players obviously need to admit that they have never experienced what the vets have. But who WINS? Whomever the gaming companies believe to be more populous. Whichever the gaming companies think will sell more gets catered to, bottom line. Sad.

You're misunderstanding me.

In terms of judging a COMPLETELY NEW GAME, which PlanetSide 2 is, a non PS1 vet will be far more objective. Period.

I sincerely hope that the devs will listen to the players with the rational and funded arguments.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Having faced this same issue in BAttlefield, I eagerly await someone to write a veteran's list of issues and the veteran standpoint so I can compare.

TBH i think most "vets" cba to write what would be a 10 page essay of what worked and what didn't in PS1 and then make a straight comparison with another specific game (in this case BF3)....

Obviously it's better to just play PS1 in order to understand, but if you can't/won't, I'd be willing to answer your questions in PMs.

I have played PS1, BF2 and BF2142 for over 2years each, BC2 and BF3 for 1 month each. So i guess that makes me a PS1 "vet" who knows where you're coming from.