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.

[JackBoCracken]

Continued....


The level of immersion is not necessarily directly proportional to the amount of content in a game. Attention to detail, quality of said content, and how said content affects gameplay all play a part in immersing a player in a game. Currently, Planetside consists of three empires that are differentiated from each other with a grand total of 24 items: three colors, six vehicles, twelve weapons, and three models. Of these 24 items, only 18 actually affect gameplay. The other six are primarily cosmetic. Architecture, troop transports, and physical properties all lack differentiation. Sanctuary buildings and the layout of each sanctuary are largely the same. Bases and continents that are usually controlled by one empire have no imperial themes. There are no futuristic Vanu Sovereignty cities, nor are there archaic, sprawling Terran Republic metropolises. The New Conglomerate has never built any monuments as a testament to their power. The human race has not been able to grasp the basic concepts of agriculture. The ancient Vanu, despite their heavy involvement in the story of Planetside, vaporized all signs of their existence in the current gameworld. Flora consists of two varieties of grass, one variety of flower, and five or six varieties of indestructible, anti-vehicular trees. Fauna is nonexistent, as is wind, fire, tide, inertia, or seismic activity. Auraxis is fueled by invisible, infinitely available Nanite Technology Units that come magically from giant, indestructible bubbles. The strengths and weaknesses of each empire are largely the same. There is no differentiation among armor values, speed of travel, or agility (for the most part). Most of the differences lie in damage and rate of fire values. These existing distinctions are good, but they pale in comparison to the level of diversity found in games such as Aliens Versus Predator, Warcraft III, and any other game that has more than 3 teams. These are all nitpicks, but even if a fraction of these were improved, perhaps the gamer would believe he or she was actually on a planet named Auraxis, fighting for the glory of his or her empire.

The anemic content affects gameplay and gives players very little reason to keep playing. The combat experience on Ceryshen does not vary from the combat experience on Ishundar. If a new player were to fight on Ceryshen and expect that the snowy environment would make it difficult for the advancement of vehicles, he or she would be sorely disappointed. Likewise, if a player thought that the desert terrain of Ishundar would be less severe when compared to Ceryshen, he or she would find his or her vehicle stuck in a pit of despair. Planetside lacks both immersion and replay ability due to its relatively pathetic quantity of content.

Every single game on the market provides players with validation. In a typical first person shooter, validation comes in two forms: the player�s score and the player�s ability to actively benefit his or her team. Planetside rewards players with a score and experience points for the purpose of character advancement. While this may seem like a good idea, completely ignoring the aspect of benefiting one�s empire was not a good idea. Rewarding the player with just experience points gives the player only one motivation to capture bases: more experience points. While some may point out (and rightfully so) that Planetside should not be about gaining more experience points, these people fail to acknowledge that if experience points did not exist, there would be no reason to have bases, and vice versa.

Furthermore, those who believe that the point of Planetside is only to fight do not realize that other non-massively multiplayer games have better methods of validation. While experience points are beneficial to an empire because they guarantee that a player will not waste his or her certifications. Although experience points do indirectly increase the power of an empire by allowing more players in the empire to gain more abilities, it does not do so directly. Currently, the players of Planetside lack any ability to directly impact the overall power of his or her empire. Bases and terrain both have little or no strategic or tactical value so capture is pointless, and mindless killing does not improve an empire. Alexander the Great did not capture aloe for experience points. He did it to give his troops a means of controlling the symptoms of sunburn. Stalin did not burn fields of crops because it increased his command rank; he did it because it denied the enemy access to resources that would increase their power. Even in older first person shooters, the player is given validation or rewards through his or her degree of impact on his or her team. In Science and Industry (S&I), a five year old modification for Half-Life, a player can directly impact the power of his or her team by stealing a scientist. Capturing an enemy scientist decreases research time on new weapons and implants for the player�s team while increasing research time for the enemy. This is an example of direct impact on the power of a player�s team. Not only can a player gain personally from capturing a scientist in S&I (capturing a scientist equates to five points on the board), but the player also receives the added reward of benefiting his or her team. This is validation, and it makes a player want to play for his or her team.

Planetside fails to achieve the specific goals set out by the developers because bases and terrain have little or no value, the empires are not very unique, the continents are not varied, and the only reward for fighting are experience points.

How to Improve Planetside

Planetside differs from other FPS games in that the player must supply the publisher with a monthly fee to play. Currently, Planetside does not set the bar high enough to be worth the monthly fee. Changes to gameplay, additional validation, and more content would make it well worth the fee.

The developers must objectively consider the current state of combat in Planetside and ask themselves why they believe players feel that bases aren�t worth defending and why terrain/geography has no impact on the pace of an empire�s progression through a continent. They must also ask themselves how they offer players ways of directly impacting the power of their empire.

While I cannot think for the developers and do not have the same perspective as someone who has put very hard work into a project over the course of three years, I offer something that may be of value: an alternative perspective, and a few ideas. The validity of my point of view and the merit of my ideas are two things that should be judged by the developers when (if) they read this.

Currently, bases are horribly frustrating to defend. I hoped I established that. Please, please, please, do something to towers and AMSes. Give the defenders the natural advantage, as they should have it. Some ideas include:

-Limited NTU supply for AMSes and towers.
-Connecting towers to the lattice
-Increasing the spawn times in towers
-Limiting the amount of times a player can spawn from a tower
-Adding a generator to the roof of a tower that can be disabled
-Change the design of the bases so that they�re not so difficult to defend (must disable generator to open back door?)
-Make bunkers much better (a destructible power line that gives them a forcefield? An equipment terminal?)

Currently, bases have very little strategic or tactical value. Taking a continent should require some semblance of strategy, even if it is limited to simply �First we take the bio lab because we can heal much faster that way, then we take the interlink facility because it gives us better protection against hotdrops, and then we take the technology plant because then we�ll be able to repair/resupply vehicles faster.� Some ideas include:

-Make the biology labs vastly improve the medical terminals of friendly bases, and increase the number of medical terminals/make them easier to access. Maybe put med terms in towers?
-Capturing an interlink facility vastly improves radar range for commanders, or perhaps it makes wall turrets on bases latticed to the facility (and on the facility itself) automatically fire on things in the air. Or just automatically fire period (without needing to be hit first). Vehicles would be more important then (they�re good at disabling wall turrets), and a generator strike on the interlink facility could be potentially devastating for the enemy.
-Technology plants should have some sort of vehicle repair/resupply pad. Or perhaps they could decrease the time on repurchase of a vehicle. Or perhaps they could just have more vehicle terminals. Or maybe it gives people in vehicles to coordinate within a large radius (radio channels inside the vehicles)
-Dropship center seems fine as it is
-Amp stations are supposed to decrease NTU usage by 50%, but it�s not very noticeable�perhaps change it so that if a facility is linked to an AMP station, it draws most of its power (say, 80%) from the amp station instead of its own silo. This creates some semblance of a supply line (take out the amp stations, the bases will be forced to truck in ANTs more often) and increases the incentive to defend one (it�s much easier to ANT to a station behind the frontline than it is to drive an ANT to the frontline).

[JackBoCracken]

Continued...

While such ideas are somewhat random and probably aren�t that great, the aim was to create some sense of strategy to the fight over a continent. I�ll give an imaginary gameplay example:

Outfit A of the New Conglomerate wants to take Continent B. They already control a Dropship Facility, but realize that the Vanu control an Interlink Facility to the north, and a Tech Plant to the south. Since it�ll be way too hard to take out the bases in the north (automatic turrets) without some sort of armored support (a hotdrop over automatic turrets would be suicide), they head south for the Tech Plant. After taking the Tech Plant, they form three squads of vehicles, one composed of Vanguards, one composed of Enforcers, and another of four Reavers. The Reavers take off and circle the warp bubble, while the Enforcers are tasked with disabling the generator of the Amp Station that is latticed to the Interlink Facility. Because of their speed and agility, they can accomplish this relatively easily even though the Amp Station is behind enemy lines, and the Enforcers continue to harass and prevent the Vanu from repairing the generator, supplemented by a few . The Vanguards, which are not so agile or fast, travel on the main roads and overpower the turrets on a Bio Lab that is latticed to the Interlink Facility. As the turrets go down, the Deliverers and Sunderers speed into the base, and Outfit A succeeds in capturing the Bio Lab. While the Vanguards guard the Bio Lab (using the nearby Tech Plant to repair and rearm very quickly), a squad of MAXes is formed. The MAXes, paired with a Deliverer full of support infantry, head for a tower south of the Interlink Facility. By this time, the Interlink Facility is at 60% power due to the loss of NTU flow from the Amp Station. Although the MAX squad suffers heavy losses taking the Interlink Facility tower, it eventually succeeds. They quickly repair and rearm thanks to the vastly improved medical terms in the tower (they took a Bio Lab, remember?). The Vanu attempt to resupply the Interlink Facility, but the Reavers deny this. The MAXes attacking from the tower know that their goal is not to capture the base, but rather run it out of resources so that it will go neutral. Because of this, they only attack for just long enough to destroy wall turrets or other items that require power to repair. As the Interlink Facility goes neutral, the automated turrets on adjacent bases lose power, and the New Conglomerate pushes forward with renewed zeal, eventually capturing the north of Continent B.

What could be the converse? I.e., how would defenders use the base abilities to their advantage? Well, let's say the Vanu understand that an attack on their Amp Station generator would be devastating. They know from scouts on wraiths and in reavers/skeeters that a squad of enforcers is headed to the Amp Station, and they know that the enforcers are capable of relatively quick offroad travel. Thus, instead of say, deploying a sunderer to guard the mountain pass that the road leading to the station goes through, they assemble a small squad of two magriders with 2 combat engineers and 2 reinforced exo AV infantry (inside the mags). They use the magrider abilities to their advantage to cut across a lake that is near where the enforcers were last spotted. The enforcers, who are driving all the way around the lake, do not expect to be flanked from vehicles on the water (they're more concerned about reavers). The magriders appear from 9 o'clock (behind and to the left) of the enforcers, and managed to down two of them before the first magrider is destroyed. The gunner of the destroyed magrider bails, and uses his lancer to damage a third enforcer, but doesn't kill it. The second magrider, knowing that it cannot take on 3 enforcers, runs away. It waits at a place on the ridge that is shallow enough for vehicles to pass through, and the driver gets out to lay mines, while the gunner remains stationary in the mag as bait. The enforcers come up over the ridge, and the damaged one dies by mines, but the last two still survive and immediately kill the magrider. The CE attempts to hurt the enforcers with his pulsar, but dies as well. The Vanu have not completely eliminated a threat, but they have used terrain to their advantage, and have realized that their Amp Station has strategic importance. This is a war, a war for Auraxis, in a game called Planetside.

As of May 18th, the last day of beta, we still run around capturing bases for no reason beyond experience points. Both of these scenarios could currently never exist. But they could easily appear with a few gameplay changes. Just a few. There is no new content needed, no new vehicle types needed. Just a little bit of gameplay change.

[Prowler]

Anyone going to read that? lol

[JackBoCracken]

It's only like 2 pages typed single spaced. Takes like ten minutes.

[ZionsFire]

[Seer]

He had some good points, especially re: the point of holding territory. He is right to say the holding territory has no inherent advantages other than aesthetics for the holder. IMO, that's a pretty big flaw.

In the future, though, how about editing your posts down a little. I don't imagine people browsing a fansite are in the mood for an essay. Splitting it into more paragraphs wouldn't hurt either.

[Flameseeker]

I think you spent too much time on a game you dislike.
Nice points, but some aesthetically pleasing effects aren't as pleasing when you're on a bottom of the line, slow computer. If I ever get into the game, my incentive would be for the fun of it. It's to have fun, and help your empire. Everything helps the empire, in one small way or another.

[Fire_Monkey]

I've read the first page, and will continue but wanted to reply now. All of your points are objectionable opinions, if you notice, you states that Ps is "repetitive, tedious, and frustrating". Each of which is an obvious opinion. The only valuable piece of information you suggest is that PS has no rewards/penalties for losing/capturing bridges/mountain passes. This could easily be modified by putting CCs with a slightly faster hacking time than a tower in the bunkers on each side of the bridge. Since you can't really drive on the mountains this avoids mountain control.
Also you point out that defenders have a disadvantage, but that is wrong and easily countered. As defenders have walls, forcing the enemy to come through expected entrance points, allowing them to set up defenses. Defenders also have turrets AND a vehicle spawning area. Haven't seen an AMS get you vehicles recently. You used bio lab as an example of a base, but try loosing your tech plant. Uh no vehicles...crap. I think that adds some kind of reson to defend a base, ya think?

Sorry, but you don't understand what your talking about, this is extremly opinionated, and makes several invalid points.

I respect your opinion, and don't really want to flame you just defending PS

[JackBoCracken]

I said a few posts up:
So that my feedback may be constructive and concise to the fullest extent, I will explain my opinions

Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

Re: Defenders at a disadvantage

I believe that the defenders are still at a tactical disadvantage mostly due to the way base and tower NTU usage works. Attackers should have the iniative, but defenders really shouldn't have to constantly refuel a base just to hold on to it when the attackers can spawn indefinitely.

As far as the whole tech plant thing goes, yeah, it happens, but when was the last time you saw a 3 on 3 tank battle? I sure haven't. Dropship centers are usually more valuable anyway. Every continent is so close to sanctuary that reavers can get from sanctuary to a far continent in a matter of minutes.

[Fire_Monkey]

Then your entire essay will be construed as an opinion, while backed up with no solid fact is entirely worthless if trying to prove anything.

Also I thought you were quoting and reffered to you as he, that is fixed now, I apologize.

[JackBoCracken]

No prob man, I just wanted to make sure people didn't think I was the be all end all, unbiased source for PS information, because I'm not. I am biased, I know that.

[Fire_Monkey]

I believe that this is balanced by the fact that players recieve extremly large bonuses by fueling up a base, and and ANT run is easily completed using a galaxy. NTU does give defenders a disadvantage, but once a base falls neutral, it's a free for all until someone gets an ANT. This allows for AMS to become vital making them a prime target for destruction and providing more ways to dispatch an enemy.

I would also like to point out that there is no fauna because they didn't want any NPCs and stuff is indestructible because the server doesn't reset, and the landscape would be bare in a matter of hours.

[JackBoCracken]

It just didn't seem very logical to me, that's all. I mean, why on earth would anyone build towers with infinite energy supplies next to bases with limited energy supplies?

[Fire_Monkey]

Someone had talked about linking tower NTU with base NTU...
ah I'll respond tommorow off to bed..