Copy/Paste

[wattle]

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I don't play games so I can go "HOLY SHIT THIS SO FUCKING REALISTIC OH MY GOD SO REAAALLL".

A lot of others don't either, but I think you're taking it a little too seriously. Tactics and strategy in firefights doesn't equal realism, it merely makes firefights less barbaric/boring. One of the downsides to Planetside for me was the fact it always played out the same way as both a defender and attacker.

I'm not saying iron-sights are magically going to fix this, but I think the headshot mechanic is going to add a lot of depth to the gun play. Paired up with iron-sights though, players are less likely to try and rush into an open area without getting behind cover (vehicles, structures, etc.) or taking another route and using (for example) assault to flank and distract enemies as heavier classes can make their way past bottlenecks and such.

This whole thread just has me even more excited to play. Iron-sights and headshots sound A-OK with me, but we'll only know how it plays out, well... when we get to play it.

[IceyCold]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Of course they are.

One was made in 2003.
One is currently being developed in 2012.

Thank god (or whatever sky fairy you believe in).

Someone actually fucking gets it.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

This may not be what you guys are focusing on but from the point of view of disgruntled BF fans, it isn't about whether or not the low TTK does or doesn't require skill, of course it requires twitch skill, but the lower the TTK goes, the more twitch skill matters over any other skill, such as tactical preparation, anticipation, etc.

And this is where older gamers start hating. We're old. We have the strategic advantage, we might just have the tactical edge but I've lost my twitch skill. I'm turning 43 in a few months so I'm literally 3 times the age of most of the new players.

A low TTK will SUCK because they only have to hit me twice. Some highly coked up 14 year old with ADHD will get headshots on me faster than I can identify, crouch and fire.

Now, don't get me wrong, anybody who obeys my orders will end up on the winning side because of superior strategy but I'm going to be of no help to my team in the tactical stage of the game. A highter TTK gives me some advantage - not enough - but a low TTK will probably just leave me angry, sitting there going WTF just happened?

I'll get back in my gal.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by IceyCold

Thank god (or whatever sky fairy you believe in).

Someone actually fucking gets it.

Well, the idea is to have the best system possible, which isn't always the newest. The difference between 2003 and 2012 is mostly graphical. They could have made PS1 have aim down sight/scoping in if they wanted to, it's not like the 2003 tech didn't allow it.

Personally I don't see how it matters whether we have to ADS or not. If you had to crouch in PS1 to focus your cone of fire, that slows you down about as much as ADSing would, doesn't it? I mean, ADSing is realistic, and while balance and fun should always take priority over realism, in this case crouching and ADSing do the same thing, so using ADSing for a bit more realism doesn't hurt surely.

With that said, I prefer ADSing from a purely aesthetic standpoint, it's what I'm used to, and as a result, I can understand PS1 vets wanting to keep crouch and zoom for that same reason. I almost want them to keep crouch and zoom simply because I want the underdog to win. We lost the battle for many Battlefield features that were clearly superior, such as in-game VOIP(which you guys can appreciate since you will be getting it in PS2), it'd be nice to see the incumbent live to fight another day.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

And this is where older gamers start hating. We're old. We have the strategic advantage, we might just have the tactical edge but I've lost my twitch skill. I'm turning 43 in a few months so I'm literally 3 times the age of most of the new players.

A low TTK will SUCK because they only have to hit me twice. Some highly coked up 14 year old with ADHD will get headshots on me faster than I can identify, crouch and fire.

Now, don't get me wrong, anybody who obeys my orders will end up on the winning side because of superior strategy but I'm going to be of no help to my team in the tactical stage of the game. A highter TTK gives me some advantage - not enough - but a low TTK will probably just leave me angry, sitting there going WTF just happened?

I'll get back in my gal.

Get off my lawn!

I mean...

It looks like the TTK isn't going to be in the "Whoa I died?" area. From the game play footage it took quite a few bullets to kill someone at medium range.

[Death2All]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Zooming in was Planetside's iron sight equivalent. Was that really less view obstructing?

Ironsights are great for 2 reasons. 1) Because they give you a greater control over where you're firing, and 2) it's harder, but not impossible to hit a target with a tiny dot as things get further away.

It wasn't the equivilent to iron sights for a few reasons.

1) You didn't have to do it in order to be accurate at long ranges, much like how you have to do in BF/CoD because the hipfire spread is so inaccurate. A lot of times I'd sacrifice zooming in to see the target in order for a tighter CoF spread. Especially with the Sniper rifle (of all guns).

2) It didn't affect movement speed. When you ADS in CoD/BF you move drastically slower than how you could without looking down the sights. Zooming PS1 didn't hinder your movement speed at all.

Also, zooming it didn't obstruct my vision nearly as bad as it does in modern FPSes.

Half of my screen wasn't taken up my the weapon, I didn't lose a ton of peripheral vision and with what little vision I had left it wasn't blurred out.

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The CoF in Planetside actually made aiming easier because it was larger and covered a greater portion of the models.

I found that to be quite the opposite consdiering how your CoF could bloom to twice the size of the target thereby making your shots go around them instead of laser beam accuracy weapons that we're used to seeing.

Originally Posted by roguy

Let me put it this way, how can you consider your opinion to be valid when your reasoning is wrong in the first place?

What the hell did you just say? Do you know what an opinion is in the first place? An opinion is a personal thought or feeling towards a subject. How can someone's opinion be wrong? If someone said what they were saying was a fact, and that the fact was wrong, then you'd be correct to call them out. But to say someone's opinion is wrong just makes you look like an ass.

Originally Posted by roguy

Wasn't Planetside 1 a bastardised rip off of another popular FPS (Tribes 2)? Yes or no?

No. Planetside wasn't a bastardized rip off of Tribes. It was heavily influenced from Tribes, but they didn't take the exact same mechanics from the game, toss it into their game and stamp "Planetside" on the cover. You didn't see anyone with jetpacks hovering around in PS like they did in Tribes, did you?

Originally Posted by roguy

On another subject, what's funny (and ironic) is that as much as you "berate" COD or BF3, Planetside 1 innovated on a far dumber, more broken and more controversial mechanic that was later included in both games. Health regen.

What? When did I say or do any of this?

Originally Posted by XPquant

I am so tired of seeing ps1 vets and old school pros hide behind this argument solely because they are not good at 'modern' (fun) shooters.

The issue of whether or not we're good at the game is completely irrelevant. I'm not against ironsights because I'm not good with them. If you must satisfy your curiosity I'm plenty decent, certainly above average at CoD/BF and they include iron sights. What an idiotic argument.

The discussion is about the inclusion/exclusion of mechanics from the pervious title into the sequel. Saying that the only reason someone would oppose against a mechanic because we're not good at it makes you sound like a 13 year old. Seriously, grow up. Don't be so narrow minded.

Originally Posted by XPquant

You want to remove firing options and reduce possibilities of death to make it less boring? what?
How can you even claim to represent this for any other reason then you want a game made for you that you can win at. SOE isn't copying any game, they are simply making a game for this decade.

What in cunt's fuck are you on about? How in the fuck would remove ironsights reduce the possibilties of death and make it less boring? You're quoting bits and pieces of what I said. Try actually reading it this time about how I explained what made fun and took more skill.

Originally Posted by XPquant

How can you even claim to represent this for any other reason then you want a game made for you that you can win at.

Okay, now I know you must have some at least mild form of autism. Where did I say anywhere that I'm unable to succeed at a game if it's not a carbon copy of Planetside? Where did I ever say that at all in this thread?

Originally Posted by XPquant

There is a reason why planetside is not currently successful and why no one else tried to copy the game, it's archaic and not a fun shooter.

The reason Planetside isn't successful is because of the previous poor decisions made by SOE, the awful idea's implemented and the complete lack of attention they paid to the game over the years the drove players away.

People who played the game during it's zenith will tell you that it was an amazing game. Everyone agrees in it's current form, yes it's a disaster.

Originally Posted by XPquant

If you want planetside go play it, we all want to play planetside 2.

I'm really disappointed. I've seen your other posts and I thought you were a great guy with a good head on your shoulders. It saddens me to see your rabid fanboyism is take over and witness your foaming at the mouth simply because I don't agree with a mechanic they're adding into the game.

Relax, buddy.

[IceyCold]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Well, the idea is to have the best system possible, which isn't always the newest. The difference between 2003 and 2012 is mostly graphical. They could have made PS1 have aim down sight/scoping in if they wanted to, it's not like the 2003 tech didn't allow it.

Personally I don't see how it matters whether we have to ADS or not. If you had to crouch in PS1 to focus your cone of fire, that slows you down about as much as ADSing would, doesn't it? I mean, ADSing is realistic, and while balance and fun should always take priority over realism, in this case crouching and ADSing do the same thing, so using ADSing for a bit more realism doesn't hurt surely.

With that said, I prefer ADSing from a purely aesthetic standpoint, it's what I'm used to, and as a result, I can understand PS1 vets wanting to keep crouch and zoom for that same reason. I almost want them to keep crouch and zoom simply because I want the underdog to win. We lost the battle for many Battlefield features that were clearly superior, such as in-game VOIP(which you guys can appreciate since you will be getting it in PS2), it'd be nice to see the incumbent live to fight another day.

The difference is more than just graphics. Look at the games that dominated the 2001-2003 times when Planetside 1 was being developed; they all focus on much more crazy weapons, large HP pools, fast movement and target acquisition rate over accuracy. Games like Halo, Red faction, Quake, Unreal Tournament, and so on; those were the games of the day back then. Now look at the games today, all of them are much more "realistic" and more focused on quick deaths and pure twitch skill.

As I have said many times, I am not a huge fan of all the changes made but I can understand why they are being done. A lot of the mechanics from PS1 are just old and to many modern shooter fans they are a step backwards in the genre. If PS2 is going to be successful it has to adapt in some areas, and in some places I feel it has changed for the better.

[QuiCKaNdDeaDLy]

Im with Arrow!
The fact that you get slowed down for Ironsighting and cant really dogde bullets is the most Gamebreaking thing for me. Where is the Fast Paced Combat Part when you end up stay in Front of each other and just point to hold the mousebutton down?

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Arrow

If you faced me in Planetside, lets see how far the K/D spread would be compared to if you kept facing me compared to a game like BF3.

Some people may say its sterile but honestly its like a soccer game you sit on the edge of your seat and go bananas when your team scores, when your able to take on a few healthy people and come out alive its a lot more rewarding then saying I mowed down 4 people cause i was able to sway my gone and spray them down with in a matter of 3 seconds.

3 seconds? thats pretty long dude...I love it when I'm playing BF or MW and i spray down a hallway at 2 guys and kill 4 extra dudes by accident. bonus kills are sweet. I mostly like the part where I clearly out skilled them.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by IceyCold

The difference is more than just graphics. Look at the games that dominated the 2001-2003 times when Planetside 1 was being developed; they all focus on much more crazy weapons, large HP pools, fast movement and target acquisition rate over accuracy. Games like Halo, Red faction, Quake, Unreal Tournament, and so on; those were the games of the day back then. Now look at the games today, all of them are much more "realistic" and more focused on quick deaths and pure twitch skill.

As I have said many times, I am not a huge fan of all the changes made but I can understand why they are being done. A lot of the mechanics from PS1 are just old and to many modern shooter fans they are a step backwards in the genre. If PS2 is going to be successful it has to adapt in some areas, and in some places I feel it has changed for the better.

I happen to think that ADSing is an improvement, but, in general, mechanics don't exactly get "old", and they don't get superseded by "better" mechanics, what happens is, more kids grow up where the first games they played had different mechanics. I suspect that's where I come in, I was playing Everquest in PS1's golden age, and while I did play shooters back then, they happened to use the ADS mechanic. So while I do think ADS is better I am bound to admit that it may well be simply because that's what I'm used to.

In BF2 to BF3's case, it's actually quite a complicated affair. The base mechanics didn't change. BF2 had prone,crouch, sprint, ADS, etc, so too does BF3. In BF3's case, except for the vaulting and restrictive prone, those mechanics are roughly the same. BF3's differences come in the weapon performance and casualizations like 3D spotting, audiospotting and killcam. Weapons shoot farther, have no meaningful cone, and spotting/killcam casualizations make it so that no one can sneak around, and 3D spotting even tells you exactly where to aim even if you can't see your target. Those are not so much mechanics changes as...well, assistance from the game itself. And yet people try to say that these things are an improvement.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I happen to think that ADSing is an improvement, but, in general, mechanics don't exactly get "old", and they don't get superseded by "better" mechanics, what happens is, more kids grow up where the first games they played had different mechanics. I suspect that's where I come in, I was playing Everquest in PS1's golden age, and while I did play shooters back then, they happened to use the ADS mechanic. So while I do think ADS is better I am bound to admit that it may well be simply because that's what I'm used to.

In BF2 to BF3's case, it's actually quite a complicated affair. The base mechanics didn't change. BF2 had prone,crouch, sprint, ADS, etc, so too does BF3. In BF3's case, except for the vaulting and restrictive prone, those mechanics are roughly the same. BF3's differences come in the weapon performance and casualizations like 3D spotting, audiospotting and killcam. Weapons shoot farther, have no meaningful cone, and spotting/killcam casualizations make it so that no one can sneak around, and 3D spotting even tells you exactly where to aim even if you can't see your target. Those are not so much mechanics changes as...well, assistance from the game itself. And yet people try to say that these things are an improvement.

2142 is my favorite in the series.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by wattle

A lot of others don't either, but I think you're taking it a little too seriously.:

DeeTwoEh takes everything too seriously. And likes to be in the middle of drama far too much.

[UnknownDT]

Arrow's a baddie anyways.

[QuiCKaNdDeaDLy]

To the People who think the TTK is fine or even to slow please consider that Higby was only using a Gauss in the Demo to allmost instagib people (headshot scene for example). What do you Guys think how long will take a fight when you face a Jackhammer or even Double Armed Scatmax with this settings?

[IceyCold]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I happen to think that ADSing is an improvement, but, in general, mechanics don't exactly get "old", and they don't get superseded by "better" mechanics, what happens is, more kids grow up where the first games they played had different mechanics. I suspect that's where I come in, I was playing Everquest in PS1's golden age, and while I did play shooters back then, they happened to use the ADS mechanic. So while I do think ADS is better I am bound to admit that it may well be simply because that's what I'm used to.

I'm not saying they are better / worse. I am saying that the average shooter player today sees them as old and outdated in a lot of cases. We are pretty much agree here, just wording it differently. It comes down to the tastes of the average shooter fan, and atm that happens to be more BF like.

In BF2 to BF3's case, it's actually quite a complicated affair. The base mechanics didn't change. BF2 had prone,crouch, sprint, ADS, etc, so too does BF3. In BF3's case, except for the vaulting and restrictive prone, those mechanics are roughly the same. BF3's differences come in the weapon performance and casualizations like 3D spotting, audiospotting and killcam. Weapons shoot farther, have no meaningful cone, and spotting/killcam casualizations make it so that no one can sneak around, and 3D spotting even tells you exactly where to aim even if you can't see your target. Those are not so much mechanics changes as...well, assistance from the game itself. And yet people try to say that these things are an improvement.

BF2142 was by far the best BF game. Everything just felt right and it had a good handle on weapon range and lethality. Hopefully PS2 borrows more from it than BF3.

For me personally it is a win either way, I enjoy the BF series and I enjoy PS1; so whatever it ends up falling closer to I will be fine.