I want to hear from non PS1 players what do you think of PS2

[Qwan]

Nice to hear alot of input thanks guys, I do hear alot of people saying meta game. To me this is what make PS1 and PS2 interesting, it leaves the meta game up to the player. For example the meta game or the win is when you actually take a base that you planned on taking when you first put together the squad. You guys have to remember this is not a FPS its a FPSMMO, meta game is the goal that is set by the leaders when they start a squad, whether its to support the zerg or take certain bases to turn the tide of the battle. From the moment players log on and jump into the frey to the time they have taken the base. For example in my outfit we select a certain night to log in, we squad or platoon up and the leaders set the goal for the evenings events. Now in PS1 it was to lock continents and maintain those locks for the benifit of the over all population. This was taken away since the removel of linked bases, In PS1 if you didnt have a tech plant then you couldnt select tanks at the spawn points. The meta for tonight is to support the zerg going to Hossin, protect the tech plant to ensure we had access to vehciles to win the battle. Sometimes it would be smaller misison to take away base benifits from the enemy by blowing a gen to a linked base.

So the meta that alot of players are looking for really starts when they log in and ask there outfit " so whats the goal tonight guys". If you guys find a good outfit, examples would be M.A.P/TNGC, or Azures Twighlight. These outfits are mission oriented, so once you log in join a squad there is usually a misison going on, or about to start. You could run solo, and I guess there really is no meta because you just go were the zerg takes you. But by joining an outfit with good leaders who know how to run ops, could give you a very clear picture of what the objective is and how there going to do it. Once the mission is complete I believe you will get the sence of completion, but as we all know in PlanetSide there is so much more to do.

So for alot of guys looking for that meta, just join an outfit, run missions and I think you will find what your looking for. PlanetSide is a ever evolving game, there will never be a Meta, but there is a mission and by finding the right people and working together you will find a sence of accomplishment.

[Qwan]

Originally Posted by Skepsiis

I hope some of the ps2 devs read this feedback. I think it is great. And coming from what i assume will be the demographic that will form the large majority of their player base (as a pose to the minority of ps1 vets).

I played ps1 for years so my opinion on the game doesnt count here but i find it very interesting that some of your problems with the current ps2 and proposed solutions are almost exactly the same as how those issues were handled in planetside 1 and it baffles me why these have not been carried over into the sequel.

Things like a spawn time penalty if you die a lot in a short amount of time or variable xp rewarded for base captures based on contribution.

I have to agree with you here, alot of the issues in PS2 were in PS1 and were solved but werent brought over to PS2 now those same issues are popping up again. I think there getting lost in there efforts to make PS2 so different there missing the answer, which is right in front of them. You know the old adedge we learn from our mistakes, is not being applied here.

[Dagron]

About meta game, the problem is that an outfit leader can decide to send his troops somewhere and that assault may be fun, but it's still pointless. Game mechanics to encourage action might not be essential, but they're still important to keep things interesting.
I'm not talking specifically about getting a bonus to some stat or making some money, it can be anything: be it money, or denying a road to the enemy, or having access to different vehicles, or the ability to shut down and maybe even take control of an enemy warpgate... anything that would give your side an advantage.

Would you still want to lock down a continent if it gave your empire no benefits? Definitely! But tell me it wouldn't be much more exciting if it had an actual strategic value instead of just being worth bragging points?

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Dagron

About meta game, the problem is that an outfit leader can decide to send his troops somewhere and that assault may be fun, but it's still pointless. Game mechanics to encourage action might not be essential, but they're still important to keep things interesting.
I'm not talking specifically about getting a bonus to some stat or making some money, it can be anything: be it money, or denying a road to the enemy, or having access to different vehicles, or the ability to shut down and maybe even take control of an enemy warpgate... anything that would give your side an advantage.

Would you still want to lock down a continent if it gave your empire no benefits? Definitely! But tell me it wouldn't be much more exciting if it had an actual strategic value instead of just being worth bragging points?

Yes, that's true. But it's not the complete story and I'm sorry but I'm going to have to reference PS1 here.

PS1 did have 'benefits' that empires gained when they locked down a continent. The best example of how that changed the approach to the game was the TR and Oshur.

The benefit a locked Oshur gave was that is activated vehicle rapair points in bases. I don't how it started but the entire TR empire across all servers decided that it would be a point of honour that Oshur would be perpetually painted red. The outcome was that in NC or VS started a base hack on Oshur the TR would respond with extreme violence.

The other thing that kept things fresh was the concept of home continents. If your home continent was attacked you would be bound to go and defend it for fear of being sanc locked/foothold locked.

Both of these thing worked together strategically ... so you would think whether it was wise for you empire to take a certain action if you feared that it would indirectly cause an attack on Oshur or your home cont ..... I don't thin I explained it very well.

[Dagron]

No, that wasn't the complete story. I was just painting a very broad picture.

[Dragonskin]

I think it would be cool if bases were upgradeable. Like being able to put out more turrets, make them have more defense or higher hit points and do more damage. Even the outposts should be able to be upgraded. Maybe able to build walls and turrets around them... allow the players to turn them into mini-fortresses.

Make bases also worth defending. Have Biolabs or Tech plants generate more resources. Make the outposts and stuff not generate anything, but to make sure there is a reason to take them. Make some system of you have to hold outposts around a Biolab or Tech Plant before you can take the Biolab or Tech Plant at all.. I don't know, but some way to make the grid more like a progression path. The way it is now it seems like outposts help because they have portals to the bigger bases, but you aren't required to take them.. it just helps some.

I don't know but right now bases aren't very defense friendly and there doesn't seem to be much of a reason to want to defend them. That is probably my biggest gripe about PS2 at the moment. Coming from Warhammer and Guild Wars 2... games that gave real progression paths to holding objectives and valid reasons to defend those... this game just seems lacking. Which is why I gravitate to the crown and surrounding territories.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Dragonskin

I think it would be cool if bases were upgradeable.

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/...?title=Phalanx

[Dragonskin]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/...?title=Phalanx

So another thing that Planetside 1 had that Planetside 2 is lacking... I heard Higby talking about something might come in the future in Levelcap's interview I think.. but would be nice if it was in prior to launch.

[MrBloodworth]

The list of what is lacking...is long, my new to Planetside friend. But, I suppose this is not the thread for that.

Continue on.

[Illtempered]

Most constructive thread evar...and I love these new guys.

Edit to say: This is not sarcasm, and it's sad I have to qualify my post like that. We, as vets, can become quite jaded. There are things I miss a lot about PS1, but I still have hope it can be easily remedied.

[VaderShake]

Backround: 38 years old, Playing video games since Pong 1978, owned just about every console ever made (until X360 - PS3) started PC games on an Apple 2C early 80's. The last 10 years I have pretty much been a Battlefield player (aside from some other great games) but BF was my thing......until being lied to by DICE/EA and given the steaming pile that is BF3.

Ok...PS2 thoughts..I will be brief and bigger picture focused..

As an FPS experience it is solid and can be and has been improved since beta started. The meta game is basically not installed yet IMO, once we see the commander features and see how players embrace them we will see how this comes together. Even in beta form is has made me forget about 10 years and 10,000+ hours of playing the Battlefield franchise. You cannot get this expirience in another FPS.

Final points and perspective...

I've been gaming a long time, the industry has gone down hill in the last 7 years IMO, that said PlanetSide 2 is a benchmark game in FPS history point blank.The shear size, scale, and the aspirations of the dev team (if they follow though) set this apart from most other games out there and there is no FPS even close. I think we as gamers/customers need to see this is probably the future of developing games, no longer having them 100% finished out of the can but rather have them progress with the customer base for longer periods of time and be highly customizable. We have seen this with expansion packs but now PS2 will be a long term constantly updated game being able to turn on a dime if need be to keep customers/players happy, playing, and paying $$$.

To the PS1 vets...

I know your frustrated about things in PS1 not making it to PS2....I just went through this with DICE/EA....but there was 1 major difference....the DICE team lied point blank to it's long time customers about BF3 and what it was going to be and would not even entertain it's customers feedback about ideals and changes. So far I have seen stellar interaction with the SOE dev team and they are at least saying everything is on the table for the most part and they have a long term plan to give the players what they want, but it will take time. PS1 vets I hope you give them a little time, I know if DICE would have delivered and said they will get BF stuff into BF3 I would have given them more time to get the game I wanted....unfoutunatley DICE/EA would not even listen to their customers.

I hope you stick around PS1 vets, it would be great for you to guide the new players and shorten the learning curve for them while helping to craft a game we can all enjoy for the next 5-8 years, make some new friends, have some laughs, and kill the VS and TR haha.

[Qwan]

Originally Posted by Dagron

About meta game, the problem is that an outfit leader can decide to send his troops somewhere and that assault may be fun, but it's still pointless. Game mechanics to encourage action might not be essential, but they're still important to keep things interesting.
I'm not talking specifically about getting a bonus to some stat or making some money, it can be anything: be it money, or denying a road to the enemy, or having access to different vehicles, or the ability to shut down and maybe even take control of an enemy warpgate... anything that would give your side an advantage.

Would you still want to lock down a continent if it gave your empire no benefits? Definitely! But tell me it wouldn't be much more exciting if it had an actual strategic value instead of just being worth bragging points?

Well that was the thing with linked bases and locked continents. With linked bases simply blowing a gen would change the tide of battle dramatically. And dont get me wrong you would usually have to hold that blown gen, in the mean time the zerg is taking advantage of the opportunity and pushing in on the enemy. I think this concept should be brough back along with resources also connected to bases. Like I stated some of the old wasnt that bad, and alot of the new is nice as well.

@VaderShake we PS1 vets may complain and whine but were not going anywere. The heart of the game is still there, Its just the way we did buisness is no longer fesible (hope I spelled that right). Tactics have changed alot, when we played it was to make a difference, now you just move with the zerg or play whack a mole with back hacked bases because some cloaker thinks its funny. But we know from past experience with PS1, that changes are coming and the way were playing now will not be the same 6 months to a year from now.

See you on the ground gentlemen.

[james]

I have been playing fps for about a decade now everything from Bf, to cod, to tf2 and so on. I never did play ps1.

The meta game is one of my major issues with the game, base fights end up in way to many meat grinders, and spawn camping. That is basically the strat for this game meat grinder into the base then spawn camp the defenders. That needs to be fixed otherwise the major battles are going to get boring quick.

The level of teamwork system is great, but almost to much its rarely that fun to play ps2 without an outfit. Its very hard to jump in a random squad and get everyone to work together to a certain extent.
Performance is rubbish.

The game-play is above average, but when it really comes down it the shooting is nothing better than a run of the mill fps, the biggest thing it has going for it is scale, and that was incredible well done.

Having a sub model to does bring some concerns, that there will be major elitism in the community and the community will shun the f2p/new players. Also the risk of the game turning into p2w.

PS2 has a ton of pontial, but it needs a ton of work, game play needs to be tightened up, teamwork aspects need to be improved, and the meta game needs a fix.
The major concern is that many f2p players will hop in, and not fully enjoy the game, as you need a group of friends to experience the game as it meant to be, plus lack of polish, and other issues. These will make it interesting if it can have mass appeal.

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by Qwan

@VaderShake we PS1 vets may complain and whine but were not going anywere. The heart of the game is still there, Its just the way we did buisness is no longer fesible (hope I spelled that right). Tactics have changed alot, when we played it was to make a difference, now you just move with the zerg or play whack a mole with back hacked bases because some cloaker thinks its funny. But we know from past experience with PS1, that changes are coming and the way were playing now will not be the same 6 months to a year from now.

I hope so Qwan, I do know that a ton of Battlefield vets dropped BF3 like a hot rock and won't go back. There are about a dozen of them I regularly played with who are currently in the PS2 beta and looking forward to years of gameplay in PS2.

[Kaldamar]

Background: I'm 31 years old and have been gaming in different forms since I was five. I played Team Fortress since it was just a mod for Quake and my first FPS was Wolfenstein 3D. Been on and off in gaming for a while, playing all sorts of titles. Never been a Call of Duty or Battlefield fan. You could say that I've been a casual FPSer for the past three or four years. Also, I've only been playing PS2 since Friday or so.

You could say I'm more or less the demographic of a game like this. The PS1 vets who are going to play have likely already been captured and more casual gamer types usually aren't into an experience like this. That leaves people like me, the casual FPSer.

Now, my thoughts on the matter...

Let's start with the cons...

Certification Points: At first I found it a little difficult to be able to accumulate points at enough of a rate to be able to afford much beyond the initial 1 or 4 expenditures. 240 certs per second tier weapon seemed so far beyond my reach that I figured I'd be into the game for a day or two, then would probably end up giving up like with most PvP. I'm terrible at it. Of course, I found my solution, but that'll be mentioned further on.

Vehicles: The flight is tricky, to say the least, and even I haven't tried flying again since the first few times I tried and ended up slamming the last one into a tower by accident. It doesn't seem overly intuitive to me and it could feel a little more solid in the controls. Maybe it's just me. The AA everywhere doesn't help at all either and it makes it intimidating to try and fly others around when you're inexperienced. Ground vehicles feel pretty good and I love the Quad, I really do. However, there are a LOT of tanks everywhere and it gets a little difficult to do anything when there's twenty in one location looking for your head.

Every Weapon Needs New Certs: This just seems like an artificial method to extend the person's play time. Reaching for the next shiny apple on the tree doesn't always work as well as developers hope, because you start to feel like Sisyphus after a while. You roll that boulder up the hill...which then rolls back down and you start again. Too much repetition can nab the OCDs, but most people will just end up pissy.

Stop Running Into My Line of Fire: Seriously. I'm discharging my weapon. Strafing so your head is filling my sights and accidentally killing you, thus earning ME a warning on the screen, does not make me want to revive you.

There's a few other little beefs here and there, balancing and what not, but nothing really worth going on about.

For the Pros, I think the best place I can start is with a story.

When I started, I took a 'normal FPS' attitude to things and I was clumsy. I got slaughtered pretty consistently and actually got kind of frustrated with it. Then something happened...I put down the game, basically figured I wouldn't go back and that was that. Then I came back the next day because I found myself wanting to find a reason to like it. There was something about the game that really pulled me in. So I went back in, determined to do that.

Then I started playing Medic. A matter of hours after I started playing the medic, I ended up in The Crown after a hot drop there and found a rather massive fire fight in progress. I was actually quite impressed because there had to be over a hundred people involved when my previous experiences usually looked like 10v10. Determined to help out, I went to the south western ridge and started healing. Explosions were all over, team mates were getting killed so I'd revive them and people were actually saying thanks and started running over to me when they needed a heal or just holding their ground and waiting for me to heal them as I patrolled. Those who died just waited for me to revive them because I'd get there within a few seconds. And right then, I actually felt like I was doing something constructive and helping out, even though I couldn't head shot people or get a tonne of kills (though I've gotten better now at the rifle). It also made me the certification points that I had been lamenting not being able to acquire. I've found a bunch more situations like that, constantly in fact, and they've not been boring to me, because each situation seems a little different, even if the location isn't.

I haven't fiddled around with Outfits and what not yet. I don't have anyone on my friends list. I didn't even know what Planetside was until I happened to see it on Sony's page when I was playing around with EQ2. I've been playing by myself without really knowing anyone, which is exactly what people are going to be doing when they try the game for the first time. For me, that was sold for me right there. For others, their mileage may vary.

I think they have a rather solid base to work from and that things will probably be balanced and get better from here. Either way, I'll be coming back because now I know what Planetside is and I like it.