Planetside 2 is a major disappointment

[Figment]

Originally Posted by FatherJack

The system from PS1 was heavily flawed in regards to teamplay. I was playing PS2 last night and in the middle of a fight I needed a medic in my squad to heal and revive. I needed an engineer to drop ammo packs. They in turn relied on me to blow up tanks. This is something that did not happen in PS1 past the first month. In PS1 I could take a med gun, I could repair tanks, I could bring a sniper rifle as well as an AV weapon. This allowed for great flexibility as a single player, I could almost do everything as infantry.

A class based system is much easier to balance. In an MMO players like progression, in PS1 this progression was done in the form of BR. Now the more people who hit your maximum cap means that you eventually have to raise the cap to keep players feeling like they are getting somewhere. This means more players becoming jack of all trades, not really needing the assistance of others.

Also as Hamma said PS1 was not a great financial success. It had enough players to keep the servers running but thats about it. Player numbers dropped considerably the first month after release, we then saw the servers drop from 5 to 1 over the years. So its quite understandable why they did not want to reskin PS1.

You make it sound as a bad thing. PS1's flexibility (BEFORE BR40) was one of dependence in independency, but not overdependence. PS2 took the dependency thing way too far. This is not about actual balance, this is about rock-paper-scissors balance, where you're not allowed to compete at all. If you rely on a single HA in a group of three, then you can just /suicide if you see more than one tank or your HA dies, or your engi dies while the HA runs out of rockets after the first volley. That's not teamwork, that's slaughter. If you can even beat the one tank with your group: if the HA misses (which with dumbfire is absolutely more than common, particularly against Magriders) then no, teamplay fails.

In PS1, your TEAM, note the word TEAM, could help each other take out those bigger threats in a large variety of ways: they could all grab AV [IF CERTED], someone could disable the approaching tanks with EMP, giving the others more time, someone could have placed a minefield [IF CERTED] to provide an alternative means of killing, all could at least damage with machine gun fire even if ineffective, someone could use a Rocklet instead [IF CERTED], someone could use a Falcon instead [IF CERTED], someone could grab (you) a vehicle to fight back [IF CERTED], someone could try and jack the vehicle once stationary [IF CERTED]. But at least you could always do something! Currently, EVERYONE can grab you a vehicle, but nobody wants to get in as they'll just get their own: the internal vehicle teamwork element is all but gone. Everyone is looking at others to do a job, while everyone knows that if you want to have something done right, you do it yourself. You can't expect others to always step in where you can't. Knowing you have no means of doing anything in a game once alone makes a player feel helpless. That is a horrendous thing to do to a player.

What's so stupid about PS2 is that they inflict severe role restrictions on the weakest and least mobile of units (infantry), while providing utter independence to the strongest and most mobile of units (vehicles, MBTs in particular). It's the world turned upside down. The advantage of infantry has always been flexibility. That advantage is gone and shifted to MBTs. That's why you currently see people mass solo supposed multicrew tanks everywhere. With it, inter-vehicle balance is gone.


THAT is teamwork as well. It's just not sitting back and waiting for the other guy to beat them because you can't do anything to help. THAT is NOT team play. That is called boring and overdependence, since if your one buddy fails, your entire TEAM fails.

Hooray? Not really. What does this mean? You can't play the game in small groups at all. Even groups of 5, which were very common in PlanetSide are basically told to join a bigger group or get screwed if they encounter a bigger team. I'm sorry, but I don't think this game can be succesful if lone and small group players are being outed. Why?


Because every NEW player is a LONE player. You can't keep them in without forcing them into random squads? They'll leave if they get ganked time and again by numbers without being able to hold their own or play smart to outsmart the larger group.


Sure, PlanetSide is intended to be played primarily as a group effort: squad - platoon - outfit - empire. But before squad comes loner. In PS1 groups of 1-3 players could make a difference, making you feel like the Hero of the Conglomerate. And we're not even per definition talking about a 100/1 K/D. I don't give a rats arse about K/D and happily went with negative K/Ds in order to make that damn difference. I'm talking about having a fighting chance. I'm talking about being able to turn the tide by doing something that disables the enemy or enables your side to turn a fight around. Currently, a single player is a drop in the bucket, sure you might be the one that makes it spill over, but you and others won't actually know that was you. That reduces the satisfaction the game provides tremendously.


Don't come to me with the argument "you should join a good outfit". I LEAD a good outfit. Each of us as individuals can hold their own in their own expertise. As a group, we work well together. However, since we're not a zergfit, we're not able to mass the numbers that make the real difference in PlanetSide 2. Sheer numbers of armour and troops overwhelms you with ease, since everything can get bypassed from 6 directions. You need huge numbers to even hold a single building in PS2 and tbh, that's utter shite.

I'm not asking for PS1, with just 3 entrances to a base. But I am asking for positions where you can multiply smaller numbers by focusing fire and covering fire. That's inexistent right now due to base design and you continuously get shot in the rear. Since the TTK is so low, there's nothing you can do about that either by proper positioning and by the second respawn, you're already spawncamped by a large tank group with no way to hit them first because of the outside angle and explosion radius and TTK being far superior to yours after a respawn.

That makes the game simply boring, because there IS no contest. This game is designed to make zergfits win without breaking a sweat. If that's how you want to play great.


But let me tell you now that more and more of my outfit members can't be bothered to login because there's just no point.



Base design as is, is very poor. Nobody here is asking for carbon copies of PS1, I certainly am not asking for the return of Interlinks in particular. However, I do expect these things:

1. Force multipliers (more select amount of choke points, more entrances than PS1, less than PS2)
2. Solid defense perimeter (walls without gaps everywhere if you can already jump over them everywhere)
3. Lines of defense, meaning you have an outer defense and inner defense and then another inner defense ring (or two) for bigger bases. The removal of Galaxy spawn made the outer defense ring an option.
4. Defenders being able to deny attackers access to control points, generators and spawn control units, rather than attackers denying defenders even to get out of the spawnroom. That means that your spawn should be connected directly to these things and not separated by the frontline and lines of fire constantly. Outpost design is particularly bad and I'd easily take any camped PS1 tower over camped PS2 outposts, despite of the already meh-design of the PS1 tower (too chokey). Why? Because the PS2 outpost cannot be defended at all unless you outnumber the enemy.
5. Passive defenses where you can use area denial tools to create your own funnels and cover at least some of your flanks: valid minefields

You can say all you want that PS2 is a different game, that doesn't mean it doesn't need these things or can't have room for these things. Everyone knows they can. Everyone also knows that a class system is NOT a selling point on which they decided to try a game or keep playing it. However, what it can be, is a put-off. Class systems, especially stringent ones, really put me off games. Especially multiplayer games. To make sure people can play, there should be some overlap possible at all times.


To make a class system work for me, classes should have enhanced abilities in a field, probably some exclusive abilities, but not only exclusive abilities in a field and then no abilities outside of that field. Of course specific classes have restrictions for balance sake and role suitability. A cloaker should not carry AV launchers, but they should have access to mines, even if they can't carry as many as others could.

There's never been anything wrong with being able to lay minefields, suddenly instead of say halving the amount of mines you can place due to there being more people in game, the amount is decimated and it is made completely impossible to use mines because minefields only work in quantity (a bullet, being aimed, is based on quantity and quality, a mine is passive and cannot relocate, thus relies solely on quantity).

Those are random and arbitrary, baseless changes. If you want to claim PS2 is a better game than PS1, you can do that, but only on individual elements. In many respects, PS1 still outbalances and outthinks and outplays PS2. Why? Because PS1 is a refined game. PS2 is riddled with child deceases.

The problem is, the patient (and part of its bloodcells) often doesn't know its sick and is ignorant of existing cures and just blames any issues on "novelty". Sorry, but novelty is not an excuse to ignore past lessons.