If anyone cares, here's what I thought of PS

[JackBoCracken]

A little background on me: I occasionally play BF1942 and WC3, but that's about it (currently, that is). I don't usually game more than ~8 hours a week. Most of my time is spent modding BF1942. I did, however, play PS enough to rank BR18 before the last character wipe (I played a little more, but only made it to BR8 or so).

It's not worth the money, not at all. They built a foundation, but the gameplay is heavily flawed.

This is a repost from the beta forums, that was never answered. I had several similar posts:

After testing for a little over a month and lamenting my ideas in various posts on the beta forum, I've found that only the whining posts receive attention from the developers. Regardless, I will repost my constructive criticism here so that the public can see a little bit inside the various flaws of Planetside.
Note that this is not in any way supposed to be a review of the game. The game itself is very solid and stable, and it does pull off the MMO part of MMOFPS. It does not, however, have any depth to its gameplay.

To the developers: perhaps you could reply more to well-written posts and give less attention to those who write simply "THE CURRENT XP SYSTEM SUX ITS TOO SLOW" when the next beta rolls around?

================================

"The range of EXP was always intended to be thin in Planetside and *not the point of the gameplay*. You play to fight. EXP is a byproduct of that but *not the point* nor was it ever intended to be. When we think of ways of retaining customers, we do NOT think of EXP as a tool for that. All our thoughts along those lines are "how do we make the game fresh and cool so people keep playing". It's implied in all of those discussions that everybody we're considering from a retention standpoint is capped out on exp already."
-Twist, 5/13/03
So that my feedback may be constructive and concise to the fullest extent, I will explain my opinions in a multi-paragraph essay designed to convey an argument supplemented by quotes from the developers and from the game�s website. I will try to avoid using personal anecdotes as these do not provide concrete evidence to prove my point. The first essay describes why Planetside is not �fresh and cool.� The afterword suggests several means of improving the game. Please read the following carefully, and consider it in your development process. I believe it will improve the game as a whole. Also, for those who don�t know, tactics = how you do it, and strategy = what you do.

Why Planetside is Not �Fresh and Cool.�

According to the game�s website, Planetside (PS) is the first attempt at a massively multiplayer, online first person shooter �where thousands of players wage war on a planetary scale.�i It features �first-person player-to-player combat and vehicular warfare across ten continents.�i PS is more than an FPS or an RPG, rather, it is an amalgam of the two designed to satisfy fans of either genre. Unfortunately, Planetside fails to achieve the specific goals set out by the developers due to a combination of inherent gameplay flaws, a lack of overall content, and a completely misguided method of player validation.

Although PS is a stable, �massively multiplayer first person action game,�i it falls short of ��war with thousands in a persistent global conflict�i because its gameplay is repetitive, tedious, and frustrating. Gameplay in PS lacks both tactical and strategic depth. On a tactical level, the player either fights to gain control of a base or fights to defend a base. A typical base assault will consist of several dozen players attacking and capturing a tower as a base of operations for the main push to capture a nearby base. Towers provide both protection and reinforcements in the form of wall turrets and respawn tubes, respectively. Alternatively, an attacking force may supplement its assault with an Advance Mobile Station (AMS), which is essentially a mobile spawn point. Unlike the respawn tubes in bases, tower and AMS respawn tubes do not require Nanite Technology Units (NTUs) to operate. They can provide an unlimited fighting force for the empire that controls them.

The defenders must first prevent the attackers from securing a tower. If that fails, the defenders must fall back and guard two main entrances, an auxiliary personnel entrance, and the doors on the upper outdoor level that lead to the compound�s interior. Bases have both turrets and respawn tubes, but the respawn tubes in bases require NTUs to operate. As the defenders die and respawn, the amount of available NTUs diminishes. Herein lays the problem: the defenders must resupply the NTU silo periodically or the base will lose power and revert to a neutral status, at which point the defenders will be unable to spawn and do their jobs.

In a base assault, the attackers are faced with a much smaller tactical burden than the defenders. They do not need to worry about a lack of reinforcements or resources, and they choose the angle of attack. Meanwhile, the defenders must guard multiple entrances and make regular roundtrips in a slow moving, relatively fragile vehicle to an arbitrary NTU resource point several kilometers away. Thus, when given the choice between attacking a defending, a typical player will choose attacking simply because it is much less frustrating. This is what many in the industry call a gameplay flaw.

Furthermore, defenders lack any sort of incentive to guard a base. The loss of a base only extends to the loss of a few minor things: one less spawn point, one less vehicle pad, and one less set of equipment terminals. The loss of a base does not have any sort of tactical or strategic detriment. If a Biology Facility is overrun by an opposing empire, the defenders lose only certification terminals, implant facilities, and advanced medical terminals, all of which are of questionable tactical and strategic value. However, in another first person shooter, Battlefield 1942 (BF1942), the loss of the equivalent of a PS base incurs both a tactical and strategic cost for the player and his or her empire. In BF1942, if a spawnpoint is lost at a mountain pass, the enemy can then send armored reinforcements through the pass, giving them the strategic upper hand. Tactically, if a spawnpoint is lost in BF1942, the player�s team loses access to vehicles, stationary guns, and reinforcements from the spawn. In Planetside, there is no strategic or significant tactical value given to an empire by a base. Therefore, there is very little motivation for an empire to waste time defending a base.

Moreover, Planetside failed to give the player an opportunity to �join a team to conquer territory,�i because in PS, territory has little or no imperial value. It does not matter if the player�s empire fails to hold a valley, defend a bridge, or suppress the flow of troops through a mountain pass. General Sherman did not burn a swath through the South of the United States for no apparent reason. Alexander the Great did not capture aloe because it colored his map with a pleasing blue. They acted in ways that would give them the strategic or tactical advantage. In PS, players do not undergo �tactical combat for control of planetary regions,�i they fight only to control bases of little or no value (why anyone would build a base inside an active volcano presents a great puzzle to the human mind). It is a combination of frustrating gameplay and a lack of incentive that prevents PS from achieving the goal of a �war with thousands in a persistent global conflict.�

Planetside is said to appease gamers of both the FPS and RPG genres, but due to a lack of content, it barely manages to interest either. Content is designed to immerse the player and increase replay ability. Keeping in mind that PS is not designed to be a full-blown RPG and rather a war simulator, the amount of content need not be excessive. Unfortunately, Planetside�s amount of content fails to be even close to adequate.