Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS

[Xaine]

Originally Posted by Ailos

You mean PS2 in its own genre? I think that argument is easier to make than calling PS2 an RTS game.

Agreed.

[Captain1nsaneo]

The zerg follows the outfits. Good inter-outfit coordination can lead to RTS like situations. I had a friend who would sit in the spawn and just be typing to a bunch of squad leaders in order to make our forces more effective. PS has a lot of RTS element potentially, it's up to the players to reach out and talk to the other units to get something done.

It's both. It can never not be both.

[WaryWizard]

Originally Posted by Ailos

Lol you want actual zerg controls? Good luck with that.

I think you may have misinterpreted the meaning of his idea, but I think he did not thoroughly explain his meaning either.

You wouldn't "control" the zerg, but instead have it easy to setup directives for outfit members, and if your high enough on a tree, set something for people in the area. Net really "control", but it is more of an suggested route they take. It would be up to the zerg whether or not they would want to follow these orders.

I see this as a vote on do you want the game focus even more on solo lone wolf style tactics, or do you want it to focus more on teamwork and strategy. Having it focused more on the solo soldier might make it more accessible to the newberts, but may detract from the outfit experience. Having it focused on teamwork and strategy will make it even more important to join up with an outfit early on, since solo style will be harder.

At least this is how I am interpreting it.

[HitbackTR]

Originally Posted by alienmoose

I want to hold your face down in a plate of spaghetti

Only if we replace the spaghetti with venomous snakes and the sauce with violetzero's arterial blood.

[ThGlump]

In planetside your goal shouldnt be your k/d ratio, it should be about our team finishing empire goals. I guess that take me to "RTS" side, but FPS/RTS arent best chosen names for that.

[VioletZero]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

In planetside your goal shouldnt be your k/d ratio, it should be about our team finishing empire goals. I guess that take me to "RTS" side, but FPS/RTS arent best chosen names for that.

I agree with that. But I needed identifiable names for each to prevent the thread title from being an eye sore.

[dai shan]

More RTS -- it's basically the biggest draw in comparison to BF3 / MW3.

As someone who didn't play ps1, I'm really excited and hopeful for the resource / territory control to have a very significant impact on gameplay -- and even more hopeful for some of the stuff they've talked about adding down the line eventually making it into the game -- like player built bases, structures, and etc.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Xaine

I see it like this.

If people wanted a standard FPS with Team Deathmatch, Search and Destroy and/or Conquest. They'd play Counter Strike, MW3 or Battlefield 3.

If people want a game like Planetside, then they'll play Planetside 2.

You're not going to be able to beat MW3/BF3 at their own game. By all means, give it all the nice FPS things that people love, but remember its Planetside 2 and not Call of Duty.

Tactics, thought and depth > Akimbo, Juggernauts and 14 year old children screaming down the comms.

No, no, no.

FPS games like COD, BF, and Halo all have scripted events to make it seem like you are part of a larger epic battle. In Planetside, you actually ARE part of a larger epic battle. That's the draw.

The sheer scale of Planetside lends itself to certain RTS elements, but it is and always should be an FPS first. Not every FPS game is Team Deathmatch. Objective based matches are not too dissimilar from Planetside apart from the scale. K/D really only matters in Team Deathmatches.

[Rbstr]

The whole premise of this thread is based on a false dichotomy of good FPS mechanics and meaningful persistence and scale. We can, and should have both. It's not an RTS, you're not sitting at an isometric view above little minions.
Strategy flows from the fact you can get other people, who are playing an FPS, just like you, to cooperate with you. FPS play I enjoy is decidedly NOT individual play.

Yeah Planetside wasn't a simple death match, but nor are any of the other FPS games I play. What is hacking a base, if not capturing the flag or king of the hill or planting a bomb or even an escort mission, in the case of LLUs, with different accoutrements?

You're a dude on the ground looking through the first person view. Everything starts and end at this. If the experience of being that dude sucks there's no point to any wildly impractical, neckbeard-theorycrafted, pre-beta strategy because no one's going to want to play as the soldier.

[VioletZero]

I was hoping to avoid this.

This thread is really about the decisions that come down to one or the other. Like Artillery. On one hand, you could have artillery and have greater tactical depth. On the other hand, it's not very fun for the people on the ground.

It's not about the extremes and you're right, it can and SHOULD include both.

[PoisonTaco]

I look at it as BF2/2142's commander mode on steroids.

[2coolforu]

The problem is RTS only works if you have a way of forcing people to actually follow the commands.

This can be fun for the commander but it might not be very fun for the people following the orders. Often it can take a long time of calm before any action is had in the execution of a strategy and there's nothing stopping an armchair general or someone woefully incompetent from being in command.

I mean I'd fucking love to be a Char Aznable leading the TR and make grand strategies but if you want to do that then form an outfit or get people to follow you. I don't think its particularly fair to give someone absolute control over all the separate players. Anyway it sounds like they are adding in a mission/reward system so players can get an xp bonus or whatnot from obeying commanders so that's the best compromise.

[Graywolves]

there's no purpose in having a game on a massive scale and allowing over 40 people to coordinate together if it's going to be focused on individual gameplay.

[Lonehunter]

I don't think Planetside fits either of those labels by themselves. It is in fact it's own genre. I've always said the game is more about tactics then any other, but that isn't fun unless the FPS portion of the game meets expectations.

[VioletZero]

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

I don't think Planetside fits either of those labels by themselves. It is in fact it's own genre. I've always said the game is more about tactics then any other, but that isn't fun unless the FPS portion of the game meets expectations.

And here I tried to make that fact as clear as possible in the original post.



Oh well.

I agree with you. However, this just comes down to issues like Artillery where it is one or the other.