Developer Paradigm

[amblingalong]

So it seems to me that the design decisions that are being made- particularly in terms of changes from PS1- largely follow a single pattern. In general, it seems like there are tradeoffs between meta- and strategy-level gameplay, like trying to lock a continent, and pure FPS play, that is, shooting at people. For example, low TTK and respawn times (arguably) make shooting more satisfying, because you kill people more quickly and get back in the fight more quickly, but also make long-term gains difficult to realize, and make it extremely difficult to plan coherent strategy for winning battles.

It seems the devs have largely chosen to emphasize the immediate FPS gameplay experience at the expense the larger strategy experience. Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls). That's not inherently good or bad, but it seems to be a common theme in many of the most controversial changes.

I really don't intend for this to turn into a rehash of things people hate or love or to extend endless debates over TTK or footholds- there are other threads for that- but I am interested to hear if people think this accurately summarizes the design decisions being made.

[Sturmhardt]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

I really don't intend for this to turn into a rehash of things people hate or love or to extend endless debates over TTK or footholds- there are other threads for that- but I am interested to hear if people think this accurately summarizes the design decisions being made.

Yes, I agree. Its not that hidden though

[Rivenshield]

Yeah. And frankly it sucks. One of the things that made PS great was logistics and supply. You had to park the AMS as close to the action as you could so people could top off on ammo; you had to make ANT runs. Now we have healing grenades and teleport-out-of-thin-air spawning on top of your SL. Oh, and we get to bound through the air on magical trampolines a la Tribes. I'm not sure why that rubs me the wrong way. It just fucking does.

No mixing/matching certs, no Spitfires, no hacking.... I can't do any of the things I did TEN YEARS AGO, and that's taken the wind out of my sails. I'm more or less in passive-waiting mode, seeing what SOE is going to come up with *this* time.

[CutterJohn]

Every coin has a flip side.

Base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting, for instance. Yes, it makes offense easier. But, it makes defense harder. You can't just line up and spam the choke point anymore. So how can you argue that its all to make things easier?

Also, I'd love to see exactly when and where people used coherent strategies in PS1 on a continent level. They did not. You will never, ever, ever, ever get strategic/coordinated play in pubs. It does not happen. If you want that kind of experience, you join an outfit that caters to like minded people. This has always been true.

As for footholds, stop bringing it up. You cannot eliminate an empires spawn points, else.. How could anyone spawn on the continent? Its an absurd argument, like asking how to shut down the warpgates in PS1. You can't.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

So it seems to me that the design decisions that are being made- particularly in terms of changes from PS1- largely follow a single pattern. In general, it seems like there are tradeoffs between meta- and strategy-level gameplay, like trying to lock a continent, and pure FPS play, that is, shooting at people. For example, low TTK and respawn times (arguably) make shooting more satisfying, because you kill people more quickly and get back in the fight more quickly, but also make long-term gains difficult to realize, and make it extremely difficult to plan coherent strategy for winning battles.

I like how you are stating your opinion as fact here. You have no idea how a shorter TTK will affect strategic or tactical gameplay since PS2 will be for quite some time the only MMOFPS in existence with a BF3/BC/COD style TTK and you haven't even played it yet.

Originally Posted by amblingalong

Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls).

These are all things that PS1 emphasized as well, except for the rapid TTK part. What is your point? I fail to see how these contribute to the devs seeming to focus on immeadiate FPS gameplay over larger goals for your specified reasons.

I don't disagree. We all know why they are focusing on the FPS experience. It was the biggest things lacking in PS1 and hurt it's sales when compared to other FPS's.

[amblingalong]

Originally Posted by ArmedZealot

I like how you are stating your opinion as fact here

"Arguably" was the key word.

These are all things that PS1 emphasized as well,

Uhhh... what? PS1 was on the other extreme, with base fights in corridors which led to AOE spam and (IMO) boring gameplay. I'm a big fan of opening things up.

[Luieburger]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Oh, and we get to bound through the air on magical trampolines a la Tribes. I'm not sure why that rubs me the wrong way. It just fucking does.

Oh yea... it bothers me too. I hope they get rid of those.

[Malorn]

From what I've seen the developer intent is to..

1) build on what was great about PlanetSide
2) remove what sucked
3) "modernize" the shooter experience.

You can see all three of those goals in the game today. The rub, as always, is perception on what each of those things are.

Some things were removed that people liked, but they were removed with a reason - like sanctuaries. The slow pace of Planetside was perceived as something that sucked and so they have attempted to speed things up, including logistical. Sanctuary + Broadcast Warpgate - loading screen = Foothold. Instead of going back to sanc, getting a vehicle, going back to the gate, waiting to load/get into the continent, you can instead just do it at the gate directly. That's an optimization. It has other implications but that's the idea behind it.

Also people seem to widely vary on what "modernize" means, as people like different things about modern shooters.

Most concern I see is that the effort to modernize may be ripping the soul out of PlanetSide and their effort to remove some of the bad stuff is resulting in some babies getting thrown out with the bath water.

[Xeb]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls).

I have disagree here, It may have looked that way at E3 but only because they had made special spawn points for all the factions around the base...

To be spawning that close to a base you would need a gal, to get a gal that close you will need air superiority, to gain air superiority in a large battle you need AA and fighters to cover the area... etc etc Just getting to a base requires alot more coordination than it did in PS1... AMS was easymode

I don't want high walls and open courtyards back... they hardly glow with tactical opportunities...

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

"Arguably" was the key word.

There isn't even an arguably. That would imply that there is evidence to build an argument on. There isn't any here. Just building off false assumptions based on peoples anecdotes.

[amblingalong]

I think the idea that a rapid TTK/ quick respawn makes it harder to plan long-term strategy is entirely arguable, since it suggests that gains evaporate more quickly and losses are replaced more quickly.

If you don't think that it'll work out that way, fine, you might be right- we really don't know. But claiming there's no argument to be made here is just silly.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

I think the idea that a rapid TTK/ quick respawn makes it harder to plan long-term strategy is entirely arguable, since it suggests that gains evaporate more quickly and losses are replaced more quickly.

If you don't think that it'll work out that way, fine, you might be right- we really don't know. But claiming there's no argument to be made here is just silly.

My claim is it doesn't matter. Things were perfectly fine in PS1 when you'd wake up the next morning and find everything you fought over the night before gone to 3am hacks.


PS is an unwinnable game. The only viable long term strategy is to expect things to be stagnant, because that is all that will happen. Enjoy the fight for what it is. Figure out how to win tonight. Worry about tomorrow tomorrow.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

I think the idea that a rapid TTK/ quick respawn makes it harder to plan long-term strategy is entirely arguable, since it suggests that gains evaporate more quickly and losses are replaced more quickly.

Players will come up with coordination and tactics independant of TTK in lieu of other gameplay mechanics. Revives become more important and commander skills with squad spawning are as well.

It's a sandbox, players will adapt and change tactics but that doesn't mean it is harder to do so.

[Synapse]

Congratulations, you've just found 3 points you can draw a line through and say its going somewhere. The evidence really isn't there.

Your pattern matching is overreaching on this one, and you need to reign it in. As others said you have no idea how the TTK will affect strategy (if that's even quantifiable after playing it...) and you've seen ONE base out of 70 on one of three continents?

We all like to make patterns, but you're grasping for one with this post, and it's not there.

They only did one thing to clearly affect strategic play and that's to remove continent lock. As someone who believes you shouldn't have to sacrifice fun for strategy (AKA: be stuck fighting on your base continent AGAIN), I think that's fine. Hopefully they do something else for bigger strategy play.

Lets see where else the devs go before we start drawing conclusions, eh?

[JPalmer]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Yeah. And frankly it sucks. One of the things that made PS great was logistics and supply. You had to park the AMS as close to the action as you could so people could top off on ammo; you had to make ANT runs. Now we have healing grenades and teleport-out-of-thin-air spawning on top of your SL. Oh, and we get to bound through the air on magical trampolines a la Tribes. I'm not sure why that rubs me the wrong way. It just fucking does.

No mixing/matching certs, no Spitfires, no hacking.... I can't do any of the things I did TEN YEARS AGO, and that's taken the wind out of my sails. I'm more or less in passive-waiting mode, seeing what SOE is going to come up with *this* time.

The Galaxy is now the AMS and will need to be parked and defended. It is huge which will require team work to defend. Squad spawn has its limits like there is a huge delay between squad spawns, the SL has to have the CERT, and you look like the damn human torch coming down.


The jump pads are so defending the base can be easier for the defenders as the bases are now way bigger or more open. The tech in Planetside allows for people to not die and respawn. I think you can accept some jump pads.

Healing nades. Logically make sense. It would be impossible to heal a group of 20 people in a reasonable amount of time. And you can still heal the old fashioned way too.

Oh and spitfires? Spitfires = A.I. They want everything player controlled and team work oriented. Is that not what you want? I find it funny you hate them adding things you think remove team play yet you want a A.I. turret that requires no team play.