Becoming Disappointed.

[Tigersmith]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I really do not like the Auto repair and auto Re-supply. There are invisible walls over land. People get resources automatically every once in a while, just because ( Everyone is special? ). You can switch seats with a key press, you can enter any vehicle from any angle. You can't kick an empire completely off a continent, they have an impenetrable base. You can bail instantly from anything. One man tanks/gunners other than the lightning. No Enter/exit animations, makes the game feel cheap and disassociated. You can spawn on squad leaders. There is no way to deny opposition any equipment ( you spawn fully equipped ). They have power increases in my Planetside.

This isn't a post that "Battlefield did it" but a post about none of the above fits a WAR game.

I thought this was a War game. War games have elements of logistics/denial in it, required teamwork, and you can loose. Most of the above is great for session based shooters where it does not matter after the timer/tickets expire. Session based shooters are DESIGNED to remove reliance on others, it does not discourage teamwork, but its not required.

I personally do not mind that aspects of PS1 have changed. It always needed things like better net code, and more refined shooting mechanics and such. Also, the engine is stellar so far, and the art wonderful ( The VS max is a bit silly ). The team themselves very open, and very much appreciated for all the work to even bring Planetside into 2012.

I just do not understand the push to remove required teamwork to this degree, or aspects that are found in war games. It seems more and more like its becoming imposable to fail in this game, other than death, for a second. Not for a title that is supposed to be a strategic war game at its core. Not for a game that one of its core rules was no player was better than another because of time played. Not for a game that has such a grip on many people IF it got you. I feel many of those PS moments are being removed. I feel like the baby is being tossed out with the bathwater in many areas.

2c

PS: before it comes up. I like the Battlefield series. They are great games. But they are not war games. They are Battle games. Two different types of Shooters. Just like Quake is an arena shooter. Battlefield is a Battle shooter. Planetside is a War shooter. Different designs, different focuses, different game play.

Fantastic Post. I agree with you in every single one of these areas..But I have no hope any of this stuff will get taken out. Believe it or not. they want the game to be for casual players..And that is it.

[Xyntech]

Considering how this thread is largely opinion, I'm going to respond in kind.

I am not becoming disappointed.

In fact I am more excited every time we see more footage/info.

The game will get some things wrong that will need to be fixed in beta. The game will also surprise many of us, with certain things we thought would never work, actually turning out to be perfect.

I'm much more interested in ideas for alternative solutions at this point, because anyone who claims to know what will work or fail in 90% of these discussions is at least partially talking out their ass. They may be right, but there are a lot of changes from PS1 to PS2, and even more differences between PS2 and any other shooter (no matter how much the game takes from BF3). We can propose ways we think will work better, but most times we really can't know if they will be better.

So be disappointed if you want. It's your call if you want to be depressed. But really, there is still a huge opportunity to fix anything that's broken in beta. So why get bummed now, when you haven't even had the chance to see if you are right or wrong?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by WildVS

So what do you propose a win condition should be in PS2? From what it looks like to me all that matter is K/D?

There are many types of winning, like you said. 1v1, taking a hex, taking a base, taking a large number of resources. But it's a persistant world, so there is not going to be a total "win". Let me say it again, persistant warfare. If you want to win rounds, there are plenty of games that provide that.

[Duddy]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Again. I do not think anyone is asking for a end game win condition ( Credits! ), just not to take away the win milestones. Even a Sanc lock did not end the game, it simply changed the game play you needed to do to move forward.

I don't understand how you can really fault the new implementation over the old.

The new implementation is exactly the same as the previous one, whereby you are pushed all the way back to the warpgate, except that it removes the worst part about it.

By which I mean, it removes the part where you have to keep returning to sanctuary to form up an offensive. It was terrible when people would go get their own vehicle and try one by one (not always one by one, but the same concept) to push out and they'd die, go back to sanctuary and try again. This led forces fragmented and generally inefficient.

Of course you could organise a singular large push from sanctuary, but it still meant calling people off of the cont you wanted to gather up and then going back again.

All the current implementation does is removes the middle-man steps in the process and make it easier for actual gameplay to resume.

The only conclusions I can come to as to why the old system was better is that either making the enemy players have reduced enjoyment from the game because they lost, or to make holding onto the stuff you already won so much easier for the defenders.

Either of which doesn't make much sense to me.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

I just think it's the wrong argument being had here.

Well, its also not the Crux of my posting. Its just another aspect, or example of my overall point.

[meiam]

I think being worried about certain aspect of the game is the perfect attitude to take into beta, as long as it's a real beta and not glorified demo. The dev seems pretty pen minded about player feed back so lots could change.

I really doubt they'll remove the foothold on every continent, like someone said there's just too few continent to lock people out of them. I also doubt we'll ever see more than maybe 5 continent up at the same time, too much continent just spread the pop.

I'll agree that some sort of win condition would add a lot to the game, like the carrot on the stick. In wow you have the new gear, it force player to always go to new area if they want it, where new stuff in PS2 can be earned by doing just the same things over and over again. Now I don't think there should be a reset, but some sort of really long term win would be cool, someone posted something like build a spaceship (I would love it if every part would be manufactured on certain hex only and then you'd need to escort them back to the main base for assembling the whole things) and then once the ship is done it give temporary bonus, or maybe just some cool stuff, like exclusive camo or w/e.

As for switching seat on the fly, they could probably implement something where you need to keep a certain key held down for like 1.5 sec, during which you can't control the vehicule.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Well, its also not the Crux of my posting. Its just another aspect, or example of my overall point.

truth.

I'll just say everything I keep finding out about this game gets me more pumped and that's my opinion.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Duddy

I don't understand how you can really fault the new implementation over the old.

The new implementation is exactly the same as the previous one, whereby you are pushed all the way back to the warpgate, except that it removes the worst part about it.

By which I mean, it removes the part where you have to keep returning to sanctuary to form up an offensive. It was terrible when people would go get their own vehicle and try one by one (not always one by one, but the same concept) to push out and they'd die, go back to sanctuary and try again. This led forces fragmented and generally inefficient.

Of course you could organise a singular large push from sanctuary, but it still meant calling people off of the cont you wanted to gather up and then going back again.

All the current implementation does is removes the middle-man steps in the process and make it easier for actual gameplay to resume.

The only conclusions I can come to as to why the old system was better is that either making the enemy players have reduced enjoyment from the game because they lost, or to make holding onto the stuff you already won so much easier for the defenders.

Either of which doesn't make much sense to me.

See, I do not see the recourse you talk about as bad things. In a war game.

Fall back your troops? Ok.
Lone guys getting mowed down? That's OK too.

If you come from the idea this is a team based war game, the lone wolves ( Zerg ) are irrelevant, they should have known they had no chance before hand to Rambo a continent. The other, regrouping, is not out of the question to do. I don't see why it would be, its a war game. For many, it was enjoyable, and seeing a major offensive mount up like that was epic, and park of the stickyness for many I am sure.

Part of my problem with a good deal of the overall thrust of this version of Plantside is this seeming need to be in action, all the time, 24/7 now now now! Couple this with removing the need to think beforehand on what to bring, what troops to muster, how to advance, coordinating with others.

It seems like the major design point for the impenetrable bases is so... and please excuse me. Its so that no ones feelings can be hurt. You are always going to be within feet of combat. No sting. No reward.

Its as if the ZERG is the Target group for the game, and they need to be protected from themselves. But I digress.

Am I saying we need ARMA level of game play? Hell no.

As it stand now, it seems there will always be a three way on every content, the only way to see another continent will be by clicking a different spawn point. Instead of you must now change your strategy, because you lost it. I can't really see any of the three ever not having three ways constantly. I can't see any movement in forces, why would they? They have a foothold on each. Its basically picking what server to play on. Where are the fronts on the global scale? I can't see there will be any. Part of the beauty of the Sanc system, and the lattice is, there were not just fronts on each content, but also the world.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

truth.

I'll just say everything I keep finding out about this game gets me more pumped and that's my opinion.

I would not be posting if I didn't give a shit I'm not all doom and gloom!

[LegioX]

If they have auto-repair on vehicles, they need it taken out ASAP. Worst component to any game, and severely downgrades the games.

Also DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO REPAIR IN THE AIR!! God i still have nightmares in BF 3 where 2 engineers in a helo can keep it in the air the entire map. No matter how many times you shot missiles at it.

[Gonefshn]

Originally Posted by LegioX

If they have auto-repair on vehicles, they need it taken out ASAP. Worst component to any game, and severely downgrades the games.

I actually think that if tanks are going to take far less shots to destroy then they did in PS1 that auto-healing will help facilitate the type of tank gameplay I loved in PS1. Part of what made it fun in PS1 was your ability to bail out of a fight and stay alive if you chose to. In a game like BF3 it's annoying because your limited in the number of tanks and the game has rounds.

In PS1 however part of the fun was choosing whether you would run when low health or stay and die while attempting to get a few last kills.

Unless they increase the TTK on MBTs id love to have auto healing so I can remain in the fight longer like in the original.

And yes you could say repairing it yourself will do the same thing but with lower TTK youd have to do that WAY more often and thats taking something already not too fun and making it worse.

[QuantumMechanic]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Agreed. Autoregeneration of vehicle health is bad, unlimited ammo is bad <snip>

Wait... unlimited ammo? This is the first I've heard of that. They intend to have a class be able to drop ammo boxes ala BF series... is that what you meant?

Unlimited ammo for infantry or vehicles would cheapen gameplay, I'd be quite surprised if they put that in. Maybe they just don't have a system for re-arming yet (other than going and changing classes at the equipment terminal).

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I am already disappointed with the closed mindedness of so many who haven't played the game yet.

Yep. So sad.

[Hmr85]

I'm not disappointed in the game. I fully intend to still play it and throw my support behind it 100%. I'm just slightly annoyed with some of the decisions/paths that SOE has chosen in the game design.

List of annoyances below

1.Boarders for one is my hot button right now. I feel like it takes away from the more tactical style of play and ruins the immersion. There is a thread on this.

2. My last slight annoyance with the game is how tanks are setup right now. As I favor a dedicated driver/gunner. Not the current setup they have atm.

[LegioX]

They really need to force the player to have a gunner or make it extremely difficult to drive/shoot at sametime.