Planetside 2 Opinions from a PS1 Vet. Partially Satisfied yet not fully engaged.

[Emperor Newt]

Originally Posted by Palerion

I've been struggling back and forth with the high or low TTK argument. I can't seem to decide for myself if high or low is best. If you wouldn't mind explaining in a little bit more depth how the high time to kill would work better for such a massive-scale shooter, I would appreciate it. Personally I would be worried about players being almost invincible to make stupid decisions and run out in the open with high time to kill, and I think low time to kill forces the player to be smarter and more conscious about his exposition to the enemy. I think it also allows the player to take out groups of unaware enemies if the situation presents itself, which is good, since power should not derive sheerly from numbers.

Well, I dont know Of course it's a fine balance with pros and cons on both sides. The issue I see with the current implementation is that in huge engagements required pushes towards the enemy do not happen because people are afraid to die. Also many engagements lack infantry because people prefer to sit in their tanks, simply because they won't die as fast in it (and rank up more xp). And one cannot really blame them for that, as the game requires you to stay alive to get those certs and infantry dies incredibly quickly, especially to vehicles (which are over abundant in numbers).

But I don't think that is is actually related all too much to ttk, although I would say infantry should be able to take one or two additional bullets (especially the personal shield, to give emp more of a use). Maybe it's more of a problem related to the counter system of the game, like some AV weapons also being highly effective against infantry.
Also the are other related issues like the current ttk in combination with the screen shaking when hit highly favors weapons with high rate of fire, making slower firing weapons often weaker then their high-rof counterparts (like with shotguns).
So in the end I don't think it's not a problem that would be fixed just by increasing the ttk.
Before anything can be adjusted here other gameplay mechanics like the counter-system for AV/AI (and others) need to be improved. It's not a singular issue, it's connected to a lot of the problems PS2 still has. Including vehicle spam and the amount of aoe weaponry.

[Calisai]

I've found myself playing less and less over time. I think it's got a lot to do with the lack of metagame. Capping a continent is fine, but it doesn't give the same sense of accomplishment as it did in PS1.

I think the rotation of the warpgates and other changes will help short-term, but they really need to push forward for as many new continents as possible. Even with only 5 conts, they could start imposing a timed locks (even if it was only like 15-20 minutes) that would push the majority of the fighting from the locked cont to another cont, mixing things up and giving you a feeling of... hell yeah... we just screwed the other two factions from being able to play on Indar... (etc, etc)

[Calisai]

Originally Posted by Emperor Newt

Well, I dont know Of course it's a fine balance with pros and cons on both sides.

To be honest, I didn't like the short TTK very much at first. It was a big change from PS1. Now that i've gotten used to it, it doesn't bother me anymore. It does require a little more situational awareness and rewards those that get the drop on someone more, and gives less of a cushion to those caught off-guard.

One thing I have noticed due to the shorter TTK... it seems like you need more players to accomplish a goal than you did in PS1. I think it rewards a larger force (with more medics, etc) and hurts the smaller single squad groups. Teamwork can overcome some of this, but can only due so much. (solo players are probably mostly unaffected by it)

I think the short/long TTK argument has a lot to do with personal play styles more than actual impact to the game. There were always people in PS1 sitting in tanks outside a big infantry push spamming doorways... and PS1 probably had one of the longest TTKs of all the FPS's.

I think aggressiveness comes down to risk/reward... A lot of players will take the easiest way to get XP/Kills/Caps (whatever they are focused on) and therefore things like ability to camp spawns, spreading out of goals, metagame.. needs to be tweaked with that in mind.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Calisai

I think the rotation of the warpgates and other changes will help short-term, but they really need to push forward for as many new continents as possible.

They did rotate the empire footholds during beta. For the life of me I can't remember why they did that though. I thought it was to give the players more variety of game-play (a chance to see more of the continent). I like the idea you propose of bringing that back for the short term until they add more continents and a proper cont lock system.

Originally Posted by Calisai

Even with only 5 conts, they could start imposing a timed locks (even if it was only like 15-20 minutes) that would push the majority of the fighting from the locked cont to another cont, mixing things up and giving you a feeling of... hell yeah... we just screwed the other two factions from being able to play on Indar... (etc, etc)

I don't think this is necessary... It wasn't really needed in PS1 using the inter-continent lattice system. I just think locking a cont is too restrictive...

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Calisai

I think the rotation of the warpgates and other changes will help short-term, but they really need to push forward for as many new continents as possible.

They did rotate the empire footholds during beta. For the life of me I can't remember why they did that though. I thought it was to give the players more variety of game-play (a chance to see more of the continent). I like the idea you propose of bringing that back for the short term until they add more continents and a proper cont lock system.

Originally Posted by Calisai

Even with only 5 conts, they could start imposing a timed locks (even if it was only like 15-20 minutes) that would push the majority of the fighting from the locked cont to another cont, mixing things up and giving you a feeling of... hell yeah... we just screwed the other two factions from being able to play on Indar... (etc, etc)

I don't think this is necessary... It wasn't really needed in PS1 using the inter-continent lattice system. I just think locking a cont is too restrictive...

[Calisai]

Originally Posted by Crator

They did rotate the empire footholds during beta. For the life of me I can't remember why they did that though. I thought it was to give the players more variety of game-play (a chance to see more of the continent). I like the idea you propose of bringing that back for the short term until they add more continents and a proper cont lock system.

They rotated Indar to give a little variety for those that were there during tech test, and probably to test that the sides were balanced. Which I think they kinda are... to a point. I think the north is intended to have a lot of territory, but be hard to keep it, while the two southern sides are an east/west back-forth push. The map looked the same when the VS was in the north, we had everything up to the middle ridge pretty consistently and the NC/TR would back and forth over the south.

I've never added up the resources, but i'm betting they are pretty equal, even though the north has vast amount of space/resource... and the south is more compressed.

Originally Posted by Crator

I don't think this is necessary... It wasn't really needed in PS1 using the inter-continent lattice system. I just think locking a cont is too restrictive...

As it is right now, 10% pop keeps a good amount of the conquering zerg sitting there at the warpgate farming kills.

I'm thinking the lock should be around to be an incentive to move the zerglings to another continent as reward. I would also say that it should be a short-term lock... allowing for the move back to the cont reasonably soon thereafter. I would also say that you could only lock 1 cont at a time. So, if one cont is locked, then a second... the first automatically unlocks. (at least with the small amount of conts we have now).


These are my thoughts only because we won't have 10 conts open in the short term. It's just not going to happen. So, I'd rather try and figure out how to enhance the short/middle term while they work towards the long term. I would have preferred them to open up with the same amount as PS1 did, but that was probably not feasible.

[JojoTheSlayer]

Adding a actual mmo persistent planet via warpgates and thereby removing constant 3 ways and adding a bit more strategy is the long term game breaker for me.


The seperte islands and faction warpgates feels so Guild Wars 1 to me.
Its not what I really picture a mmofps universe to be.

[Gonefshn]

Sorry to revive a thread many pages deep but I never replied to my own thread I had been busy.

Thanks for the feedback.

I just believe that people are taking planetside 2 and breaking it down so much into a ton of micro issues when it all adds up to one main problem.

I'm not saying smaller issues are irrelevant but let me point out one thing.

The FPS mechanics and empire to empire balance was never perfect for PS1.
Just like Planetside 2 they changed things over and over and over, nerf this, buff that, over and over. one day air was too good, then it sucked, tanks are too good, now they are too weak.

The same simple issues always existed just like in Planetside 2. Yet, despite this Planetside 1 was always more compelling. To me this is because in such a broad scale game little balance issues are minimal parts of the whole experience. It never mattered if the jackhammer was better than the lasher or the magrider was OP on bridge battles because PLAYERS found a way to deal with it and could still enjoy the game for what it offered.... HUGE intercontinental warfare, massive territory domination, huge battles and massive coordination.

Planetside 2 has massive coordination, planetside 2 has huge battles.
It's missing true conquest and ownership.

This is the biggest issue. And yes I know more continents are coming I'm just saying it should be the #1 priority over any sort of MLG partnerships, new weapons/vehicles, external apps, customizations, even the mission system. Planetside never had a mission system. Why does planetside 2 need one? well... because in its current state we need to be told what to do because there is no clear objective such as the ever simple, lock the continent.

Bring us continents, bring us sanctuaries. Priority #1. Glad many of you agree.

Stop spending so much time trying to get so nitty gritty about the minor issues they mostly have nailed down. No one is going to leave PS2 because the magrider is too powerful, but they will because of a lack of motivation to play.

[ThirtyMartinsen]

Thank you gonefshn for point out that the game as it currently is is amazing. I too played PS1 and I see no reason to be discontent - what we have is very good! Too many use forums and chat to complain - there is noe experience in gaming like PS2 battles so enjoy what you have!

That said, I doo agree on the big one. Remember looking at the PS1 continent map while at work (when will they bring that back?) and planning yet another attack on half-blue Solsar which was 100% red when I quit the previous night

[Gonefshn]

I never really said it was amazing, I mentioned there are some balance issues etc. I just meant to say these adjustments are not what is truly driving and/or hurting the player experience.

However, thanks for the positive feedback my friend.

I'd say what we have so far is good, as in a good start.
But I feel like it's a beautiful body without the soul.

For it to be amazing we need that True conquest gameplay. SOE wants to make a true War FPS but a big battle that never ends isn't really much of a war. What made Planetside 1 feel like a war was continent locking.

[Ghoest9]

Basically I like the current game.

-We definitely need more areas that favor infantry.

-Most of the devs plan is good.

-Changes in XP could be be used to alter game play

[Rockit]

I don't quite know what it is but PS2 just isn't immersive for me. When I first started PS1 I was hooked into it for the long haul. Couldn't wait to get home from work everyday to login for at least 4 hours and this went on for years. PS2? I could care less now and this happened after only a short period of time. PS1 was more of a cohesive world where you really felt attached to your character, maybe because it wasn't some canned class but one that was unique to you. PS2 (and I think by design) is a series of BF maps all hodgepodged together and the conts are too separated. This will change over time of course but for now, I can take it or leave it... mostly leave it.

[Badjuju]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

This is the biggest issue. And yes I know more continents are coming I'm just saying it should be the #1 priority over any sort of MLG partnerships, new weapons/vehicles, external apps, customizations, even the mission system. Planetside never had a mission system. Why does planetside 2 need one? well... because in its current state we need to be told what to do because there is no clear objective such as the ever simple, lock the continent.

Bring us continents, bring us sanctuaries. Priority #1. Glad many of you agree.

I agree with you completely but continents are something they are working on and we need to wait on. They have stated that they understand the need and have a team dedicated to it. I recall during beta in an interview they said it takes them six months to create a continent. This may not be the case now that the game is out as they may be able to dedicate more resources to the task, but still I would imagine this being a big job. Good post though.