Boring

[Morsong]

I haven't played PS1 in a long, long time, but wasn't there a "winning empire" posted on the main website for each server near midnight every night?

For instance, in PS2, if I'm on server x and by 11:59 gmt -7 (think that's the timezone in california, not sure..I suck with these things) whichever empire controls the most territory "wins" for that day. They have until midnight in a set timezone to win, and the winners could be announced via server message or website.

It's really a simple thing and I think it would help create more of an end goal at the end of the day. Thoughts?

[SixShooter]

I'm not bored at all but I can see how some people could be. That will change with new continents as well as the longer capture times that will be put in. I can't wait to fight somewhere other than Indar but as for now I'm having a blast.

[fallenvet]

I like your idea Morsong, would help build faction loyalty.

[capiqu]

The bases are captured too quickly. Toh of 10 minutes like Planetside 1 would allow a defending empire time to regroup and resecure a base. Spawn rooms inside Tech and AMP stations would help defend those bases a little longer in the event that the outer spawn points are lost.
Yeah it would make it harder to capture a base, but if you look at planetside 1, the empires that are better organize and have their outfits working together will be able to cap those bases.
This would allow you to have battles that last 1,3,5 hours to cap a base. Those where the epic battles that we had in Planetside 1 and those are the battles you rarely find in Planetside 2. With the exception of The Crown which is great to defend , and who doesn't love defending the crown?
Just like PS1 we would have to defend The back doors, front gates and the roofs from enemy troops.

[SpottyGekko]

I guess with only ONE continent in game currently, it would not be very popular to implement or test a "continent lock" mechanism. Your faction got kicked off Indar ? Sorry, no more PS2 beta for you on this server !

Once more continents come into play, the current "Indar merry-go-round" should ease off a bit. If a faction gets pushed back to their warpgate, they will have the option of fighting on another continent at least. As it is, there's no alternative to push out from the single warpgate, whatever the odds.

[Ghost Runner]

I dont know I played about 7 hours so far 5 as NC and 2 as TR I had a blast defending Zurban as the NC and you guessed it as TR I defended the Crown just wow that was a blast. as far as boring goes nope to much going on to be board can get repetitive though but hell best multi player shooter I have played since the Novalogic days lol.

[Flaropri]

Question: Is the problem with actual capture times or with map design? Or the mix of the two?

Given people's praise of The Crown it seems at least a mix if not primarily design of the other locations.


As far as boring... that's always subjective, but I've never had a problem with "meaningless" victories or fighting over the same map after having played it. Perhaps that's just because of my experiences with other shooters, but it seems to me that Planetside has more overall strategy and (relative) permanence of victory on a small scale as well as the large scale.

Is it genuine boredom that players are feeling, or is it just that you've been playing it enough to get burnt out on it? Or is it disappointment that it isn't quite as good as you hoped? Just something to consider.

[Sledgecrushr]

Over the next patch Galaxies are not going to be automatically respawn vehicles, that job is moving to the sunderer. Initially what we are going to see is 90% ground game with air assault assisting instead of what we have right now. Im really looking forward to this new iteration of PS2.

[Flaropri]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

The actual Good 'ole Fashion Cloaking Advanced Mobile Spawn should make a return before launch.

They could always go with a Modification that would give it cloaking (at the cost of transport space for example), as they have (still are?) considered with the Gal-Spawn. Obviously that wouldn't effect the size of the vehicle but... I just don't think a separate vehicle is what is required in this particular case.

Either way, I'm curious to see the long-term results of the overall shift to primarily ground-based spawn vehicles from the Gal.

[Sledgecrushr]

What Im hoping for is a front line, where advancing is done inch by bloody inch. Where the entire time you are moving from base to base it is littered with burning destroyed vehicles. The devs expressed that the galaxy respawn cert is going to be buried deep in the galaxy cert tree. And they said it might take years to get to the end of a cert tree. When this next big patch comes it might be a long while before we are able to respawn from a galaxy.

[KiddParK]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

What Im hoping for is a front line, where advancing is done inch by bloody inch. Where the entire time you are moving from base to base it is littered with burning destroyed vehicles. The devs expressed that the galaxy respawn cert is going to be buried deep in the galaxy cert tree. And they said it might take years to get to the end of a cert tree. When this next big patch comes it might be a long while before we are able to respawn from a galaxy.

^ this.

[Scotsh]

Originally Posted by SpottyGekko

I guess with only ONE continent in game currently, it would not be very popular to implement or test a "continent lock" mechanism. Your faction got kicked off Indar ? Sorry, no more PS2 beta for you on this server !

Once more continents come into play, the current "Indar merry-go-round" should ease off a bit. If a faction gets pushed back to their warpgate, they will have the option of fighting on another continent at least. As it is, there's no alternative to push out from the single warpgate, whatever the odds.

Yes, this needs to be emphasised.
All these discussions about long term motivation, persistence of map changes are near worthless as long as there is only one continent.
The introduction of another continent may (or may not) alter the dynamics in a major way.
We well probably see 2way fights for a single continent, we may see major domination of one continent by a single faction.
IIRC (well its been really a long time since i played PS1) 2way battles on one continent also lead to a very volatile map that could completely change in a few hours.

They really need to bring in Esamir ASAP.

[SoUnreal]

The aspects being discussed that will be implemented into the game, only prolongs the endless cycle. Doesn't really add purpose or depth to the battles.

[Kipper]

Originally Posted by SoUnreal

The aspects being discussed that will be implemented into the game, only prolongs the endless cycle. Doesn't really add purpose or depth to the battles.

Well moreso than an arena shooter for sure - where individuals or teams playing badly or well still results in an arbitrary reset after a specified amount of time, so whatever anybody did before means nothing.

Once they bring back the re-encryption mechanic so that a base defence or capture means you can take a bit of a breather, and tweak the capture times so that battles last longer and the other team gets a chance to respond before something flips - then it will start to mean more, as gaining or losing a facility will at least give you something solid.

I'm not sure on the resources yet though, whether they mean 'enough', I take myself off to fight where I think I need to defend, or can attack something - I don't really look at what resources that will grant to me or deny to my enemy on account of never actually having run into a resource shortage. I tend to take in turns with other squad people to pull a vehicle, and play a few lives of infantry inbetween pulling each vehicle (because of timers etc anyway).

I think balance changes will fix the flow, mostly. As far as a game experience goes, its already a far more enjoyable shooter than any other I've played because of the scale of it.

[SoUnreal]

Originally Posted by Kipper

Well moreso than an arena shooter for sure - where individuals or teams playing badly or well still results in an arbitrary reset after a specified amount of time, so whatever anybody did before means nothing.

Once they bring back the re-encryption mechanic so that a base defence or capture means you can take a bit of a breather, and tweak the capture times so that battles last longer and the other team gets a chance to respond before something flips - then it will start to mean more, as gaining or losing a facility will at least give you something solid.

I'm not sure on the resources yet though, whether they mean 'enough', I take myself off to fight where I think I need to defend, or can attack something - I don't really look at what resources that will grant to me or deny to my enemy on account of never actually having run into a resource shortage. I tend to take in turns with other squad people to pull a vehicle, and play a few lives of infantry inbetween pulling each vehicle (because of timers etc anyway).

I think balance changes will fix the flow, mostly. As far as a game experience goes, its already a far more enjoyable shooter than any other I've played because of the scale of it.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I love the scale as well, and I don't want to see that diminished, actually given the amount of technology at hand I think the scale could have been pushed further.

I guess the way I see it, is that while fighting over a base for an hour can deliver exceptional gameplay, the thing is what happens after the base is captured? What's the motivation or gratification in dedicating hours to these battles if there's no end-game to what I'm doing. After all no one will ever truly win or lose, so why fight? With your typical shooter, yes the resets are in essence stale technology IMO, but at least there's gratification in winning or trying to win with every match played.

Now, this of course isn't a black and white situation either. No one wants to see a victor or "game over" scenario after a few months of play. I'm not getting at that.

Ideally, I think you leave the core PS mechanics as is, NOTHING changes, but also have continents setup specifically for outfit battles. On those continents setup more to fight for, have there be a potential for victory and different definitions of victory and obtainable goals. That way the true essence of the 100% persistent, never ending battles of PS remains intact and unaffected. But, for those who want something more, maybe something more competitive can also find enjoyment in the game. I mean I really don't see why not, or why that wouldn't work.

Maybe something along those lines are in the plans? I'm not sure.. Of course, it's all perspective and preference though. I'm not knocking the game at all, PS2 seems like it's going to be a fantastic title for what it is, I personally just can't see myself putting a lot of time into if there's no purpose or core competition involved. All in all, with something along those lines you bring in a much larger audience as well, by pleasing both sides.