What don't you want? - Page 2

Hamma · 2009-10-21, 02:25 PM

Just answering his question.

Firefly · 2009-10-21, 03:19 PM

Just replying that I think it's a fucking stupid idea.

Furret · 2009-10-25, 09:24 PM

I don't think they need to add more structures to the lattice network, just add the towers into the network.

Maybe different base structures 10-15 instead of 5

Definitely move the continents closer together, possible connect two of them by an isthmus (which would be easy to defend from both sides)

Penda · 2009-10-26, 07:32 PM

I don't want:

Practically non-existant marketing.
Empire swapping
Black Op's
BFR's
NPCs
Identical empires.
Identical bases.
Earth,the moon or anything we actually know about.
Classes/roles instead of Certs/Skills.
'Levels' or Battle rank affecting your weapons damage e.g making your Cycler do 10 less damage at BR 5 than BR 6 or anything along those lines.

And I cannot emphasise this enough - I do not want COD the MMO. Don't do 'historical' (aka ww2) or 'modern' (aka CoD 4), just do Planetside , the NC the VS and the TR.

Kumoblade · 2009-10-31, 12:42 AM

We have planetside. I'd prefer Planetside: NEXT to be new and fresh and not Planetside with better graphics.

We've had TR vs NC vs VR.

Time for something new and another 3 factions set on a far off distant alien planet that humanity is battling itself for.

JackEarthrider · 2009-11-05, 02:11 PM

I'm just curious because i'm a new guy, but could someone plz say why the BFR's are not wanted? why they are not liked?

(I would think every extra piece of arsenal would be desirable)

Thanks,

Kumoblade · 2009-11-08, 07:25 AM

BFR's aren't wanted because they go against Everything Planetside Was. Amazing infantry combat with "vehicle" support. BFR's gave too much power to individual players, and made Infantry Senseless except in close quarters interiors. They also just didn't fit the game graphically. It went hand in hand with all the other things that went wrong, like BR40 and 1 man armies who can afford just about everything.

Also, they're just too damn big. We had MAX suits. Mechs that large are just silly compared to everything else in the game. if they scaled them down to the size of an Imperial Sentinel (Warhammer 40K) or the power loader from Aliens/ED209, they'd probably be more appropriate. I would also encourage them, at that scale, to replace MAX suits.

I believe the only hard counter to infantry should be infantry. It keeps things on a personal, engaging level of gameplay when base captures get indoors.

I think all vehicles should be more grand in scale, so taking down vehicles are an actual accomplishment. But I don't think Vehicles should have so much ammo that they can spam every door that opens for half a second. Every vehicle/unit should have its place.

While I agree more arsenal is better, theres better ways of going about it than making 30-40 foot high juggernauts that, pound for pound, don't match up for what they give.

JackEarthrider · 2009-11-09, 12:45 PM

Thats a good point, and now that I have encounted a few of them on the field I can say for certain that they are frustrating to kill and even more frustrating when one has you pinned in your base/tower.

I'm thinking they should be weak to aircraft, that would make a lot of sence given their size and relative slow speed. I'm not sure if this game has bonus damages, but maybe if aircraft missles/bombs did more damage to them they would have a good counter.

Anyway, thanks for the explaination. I like hearing a good arguement.

Sifer2 · 2009-11-10, 01:42 AM

I agree I don't want them to set the game in modern times. I want it to stay in the future since it allows for so much more creativity in weapon an vehicle design.

I also don't want item transactions. That business model can get ugly fast. I would prefer they use Free to Play with a Subscription option. Though the Subscription bonus's should not offer any major ingame advantages over the Free players.

An yeah I don't want to see the bases mostly the same. I want them different and I want combat spread out not just focused on the bases. I think terrain should be designed to stop you from being able to just go straight to the base. You should have to fight your way to it. Maybe with Anti Air facilities that if controlled prevent you from just flying straight there past the current front lines.

Tikuto · 2009-11-12, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

I also don't want item transactions. That business model can get ugly fast. I would prefer they use Free to Play with a Subscription option. Though the Subscription bonus's should not offer any major ingame advantages over the Free players.

Doesn't sound right.

Originally Posted by Sifer2

An yeah I don't want to see the bases mostly the same. I want them different and I want combat spread out not just focused on the bases. I think terrain should be designed to stop you from being able to just go straight to the base. You should have to fight your way to it. Maybe with Anti Air facilities that if controlled prevent you from just flying straight there past the current front lines.

I like the idea of being able to deploy temporary mini-bases or camps with a Lodestar-like vehicle that when on-ground there's an option to select a mini-base type which acts as a huge immovable AMS. This allows for where PlanetSide1 had dead areas of landscape to be more active.

DviddLeff · 2009-11-14, 10:26 AM

Regarding BFRs, they could have been awesome.

If they had taken 3 men to crew the standard version, and 4 to man the gunner variant.

As it was instead of the most powerful vehicle being a Reaver, you had the most powerful vehicle being something that put out 400% more fire power and had much more survivability. It took months of nerfs to get the thing to almost fit into the game, and by that time probably half the player base had left because of them.

If they had truly been heavy tanks with 3-4 crew, and had the option of EITHER a shield, roof turret OR flight pack they may have worked right off the bat, requiring a large investment of both certs and players to be effective.

Kumoblade · 2009-11-15, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Regarding BFRs, they could have been awesome.

If they had taken 3 men to crew the standard version, and 4 to man the gunner variant.

As it was instead of the most powerful vehicle being a Reaver, you had the most powerful vehicle being something that put out 400% more fire power and had much more survivability. It took months of nerfs to get the thing to almost fit into the game, and by that time probably half the player base had left because of them.

If they had truly been heavy tanks with 3-4 crew, and had the option of EITHER a shield, roof turret OR flight pack they may have worked right off the bat, requiring a large investment of both certs and players to be effective.

Even then they wouldn't have been awesome. BFR's were failed from the get-go because of the world they were being dropped into. Their clumsily large size made them neither larger-than-life awesome to merit a bunch of crewmen nor Small enough to be versatile. Their scale put them in an awkward limbo within PS.

They are essentially Planetside's paperweights, IMO. They're big, bulky, encumbersome, they get in the way, and their firepower doesn't match their size. They fail like ED209. (But ED209 has some sort of cool factor to him)

if they were going to make large robots, they'd need to go all out of the box. Make them rediculously huge or reasonably smaller.

Bases just aren't big enough to accommodate them without pissing everybody off. Adding something of their scale comfortably would require dynamically shaping the bases.

Toimu · 2009-12-05, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Penda

I don't want:

Practically non-existant marketing.
Empire swapping
Black Op's
BFR's
NPCs
Identical empires.
Identical bases.
Earth,the moon or anything we actually know about.
Classes/roles instead of Certs/Skills.
'Levels' or Battle rank affecting your weapons damage e.g making your Cycler do 10 less damage at BR 5 than BR 6 or anything along those lines.

Strongly agree with the green text, been out too long to comment on the white text.

DviddLeff · 2009-12-09, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kumoblade

Bases just aren't big enough to accommodate them without pissing everybody off. Adding something of their scale comfortably would require dynamically shaping the bases.

I tried and failed to find the spoiler shots for BFRs before we found out how small they looked; they had a VS one next to a tower, and due to the perspective of the shot it looked like it was about the same height; I was damned excited to say the least.

Regarding altering the bases to accommodate them, just put the BFR terminals outside the walls (I would do the same with Gal terminals to get more of them in the world) and due to their size they would not be able to enter courtyards, reducing the damage they could do door camping.

JackEarthrider · 2009-12-09, 03:58 PM

if you want to stop them from going into cy's the best thing to do would be to get rid of the ridiculus "jump" feature. BFR's shouldnt be able to fit through doorways and their spawn terminals should be outside the base.

Oh and while im on the subject of "what I don't want" the ground AA is way OP, totally insta-kills any airbattles when even one person grabs an AA MAX. The wasps should be able to dish out more damage from aircraft to aircraft to put the fear into gunships and libs, but as it is right now it only takes one AA max to clear THE ENTIRE SKY, fix it.