A few things that Matt Higby needs to realize

[stargazer093]

Originally Posted by Matt Higby on GamesIndustry`s Q&A

And sometimes, people will say, "I heard you say this. I hate that. We don't want that. Change it."

And in some instances, we have. I mean, in some cases we've heard feedback from people and we've said, "Okay, this is something that's just not gonna work and the people who know this game the best, they know how to play an MMOFPS." If they don't like it, then we have to take that seriously, you know.

QFT

[Malorn]

I also agree with the OP.

Especially on map size - the PS2 maps seem small to me for the scale of players that will eventually occupy them. For a team of 25-50 people developing it, the world may seem big - even too big, but when you put a couple thousand people there you will see it's a lot smaller than you think when you can't go anywhere without being shot at by someone.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I also agree with the OP.

Especially on map size - the PS2 maps seem small to me for the scale of players that will eventually occupy them. For a team of 25-50 people developing it, the world may seem big - even too big, but when you put a couple thousand people there you will see it's a lot smaller than you think when you can't go anywhere without being shot at by someone.

64 sq km is big, man. Oblivion and Skyrim are both around 40 sq km. Fallout NV is around 50. That's a lot of space considering people will be clustering around a few big fights.

[SgtMAD]

how big is Cyssor?

thats the question,because you would think with 2k ppl on one map it had better be that big or it will be one big clusterfuck.

I do wonder about catering to a playerbase that has shown repeatedly that they will be gone as soon as the next big title is released.its basically the same group buying the FPS's,

I wish that the devs had actually played enough to discover all the fun you could have doing different things in PS so they wouldn't be so quick to throw out some of the great things in PS,the game is in danger of losing it's soul.

I am eager to see what happens in Beta, I still have some hope.

I just did the math and I have spent 83 days guarding hacks in PS

[Sardus]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

I just did the math and I have spent 83 days guarding hacks in PS

And it was worth every second. I'd like to think I crashed a few of those parties though (and made it interesting for you ).

[ringring]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

I just did the math and I have spent 83 days guarding hacks in PS

There's a video kicking around of my outfit guarding a hack in an amp station. It's 14 minutes of nothing much happening........ and then ...... NC outfit Fight Club dropped 2 gals of folks on us.... total mayhem!

Happy days.

But will it happen again in PS" is the question.

[Dreamcast]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

'Dumbing it down' is sort of a catch-all phrase for a lot of different things here. It doesn't necessarily have to do with complexity, it's also the changes aimed at the trigger happy ADD riddled children people tend to associate with the CoD fanbase. Things like the flat XP system (FLASH +200 XP for VEHICLE DESTRUCTION FLASH) and Rambo MBTs.

I honestly don't think there's much of that in PS2, thank god. Just saying that phrase "dumbing down" isn't meant to be taken literally.

Of course is not....Is just meant to slander a game by saying something stupid like "dumbing down"...basically what it means is you don't like it and your an elitist so theirfore is "dumbing down" since you don't like it because the idea is too mainstream or different from when u were a kid or something.

Wow I get +100 xp for killing people...who cares?....Is not a big deal really...BTW COD fanbase is around the same age as Planetside Fanbase.

Originally Posted by Rbstr

"Dumbed down" is just a buzz-term meaning "not the way I like it" for those who can't articulate a real argument.

There is one thing that has been simplified to a meaningful extent: Tank gunner/drivers.
Maybe an argument for inventory removal...but, as I see it, now you've got classes and weapon customization and so on, it's a wash if not more complex from a game-impact standpoint, rather than a "can I arrange boxes" manner.



.

I wanted inventory in the game....they took it off...that sucks but is not really dumbing down..

The Planetside Elitist claim that is they took it off because "CoD players can handle putting things in an inventory"...Which is BS, that was so easy to use lol....Only reason they did it was probably balancing issues.

If a was a complex game and the features actually did dumb it down...It will really make sense but as of now, the way they are saying "dumbing down"....well is just stupid IMO

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by ringring

There's a video kicking around of my outfit guarding a hack in an amp station. It's 14 minutes of nothing much happening........ and then ...... NC outfit Fight Club dropped 2 gals of folks on us.... total mayhem!

Happy days.

But will it happen again in PS" is the question.

For the Resource nodes I would say yes it will be very similar due to there only being one objective. However, with the multiple Objectives SOE has put into bases now it won't quite the same. To many key objectives to guard. If the enemy find's one heavily defended objective they will just move to the other four that have little to no resistance and take the base. You'll need to have a platoon or better to hold hacks behind the lines.

[SgtMAD]

no, the inventory was removed because Higby said "No one wants to play PS Tetris" or something along those lines.

there were shitloads of players that never figured out how to set up a proper backpack load-out,I know because I played with "Elitist Asshole"players and they would loot every backpack they could and when they found a funny one, we all looked,everyone has found the famous "gold ammo" loadouts

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

For the Resource nodes I would say yes it will be very similar due to there only being one objective. However, with the multiple Objectives SOE has put into bases now it won't quite the same. To many key objectives to guard. If the enemy find's one heavily defended objective they will just move to the other four that have little to no resistance and take the base.

that's why you bring more ppl

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

that's why you bring more ppl

I agree , however not many ppl outside of larger outfits will be able to field that type of teamwork.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

I agree , however not many ppl outside of larger outfits will be able to field that type of teamwork.

subscribe to my command feed in-game LOL

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

"Dumbed down" is just a buzz-term meaning "not the way I like it" for those who can't articulate a real argument.

Not exactly. It's perfectly justifiable when it's used in reference to Battlefield 3, for example. In which case, 'dumbed-down' refers to the removal of core franchise features that were deemed to be too complicated for the game's new target audience; in an attempt to lower the game's accessibility threshold.

Originally Posted by Dreamcast

The Planetside Elitist claim that is they took it off because "CoD players can handle putting things in an inventory"...Which is BS, that was so easy to use lol....Only reason they did it was probably balancing issues.

You're the one spouting BS now, chum. Accessibility is clearly the reason Planetside 2 doesn't have an inventory. They're trying to boost accessibility by making sure that the game's interface is as simple and as familiar as it can be. They want this game to have a distinctly similar overall characteristic to its contemporaries, so an MMO interface/inventory system would feel way out of place.

Higby said it himself.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

no, the inventory was removed because Higby said "No one wants to play PS Tetris" or something along those lines.

there were shitloads of players that never figured out how to set up a proper backpack load-out,I know because I played with "Elitist Asshole"players and they would loot every backpack they could and when they found a funny one, we all looked,everyone has found the famous "gold ammo" loadouts

i do think they had to drop that though, its a really outdated concept, i just wish they hadn't gone for a class system. Hopefully they still have a lot of different options we can have for weapons thought and we're not tunnelled into roles too much.

Anyway, I do hope they have some devs in there that ahve played some PvP mmo though, the good and bad ones and they;re capable of deconstructing them and figuring out what made them good and bad, because you cant simply tack whats essentially a battlefield game into a open world and expect it to work.

[ArbitraryDemise]

The title sounds exceedingly arrogant, even if there are good points made in this thread.

1. Features are there to be used, not glossed over because the majority of your player-base could care less about them. A feature can also be needlessly complex, in which case it is better to just simplify it. I have faith that the design decisions being made are being done with logical reasoning, not the arbitrary BS that a good number of people seem to think is going on.

2. If it works, then don't touch it. people don't want something new, they want something intuitive, fun, and that works as advertised. If CoD MW-X got something right, it was smooth, intuitive gun play.

3. If the core audience of PS was large enough to be catered to, then PS would not be dead. As is, the PS2 team does not want to alienate the PS player base, but also wants to create an experience that is not so far off the beaten path that it holds no recognition with other audiences. In this case, as BF 2142 player, I'd say they have my money. Why? Because this has all of the thing that I loved about BF 2142, but on a freaking larger scale.

4. Speculation without basis, we will see what happens in the beta.

5. You play a shooter to shoot, you play a tactical shooter to use tactics while shooting people, and you play a tactical mmofps to use grand-scale tactics while shooting people.

Travelling for more than 15 minutes does not somehow allow a person to have that mystical light-bulb go off, where they've just found some deep insight into how to defeat their opponents.

Tactics often require more time than that, and in PS I suspect that most in-game battles were the result of on-the-fly planning. With the exception of plans that were drawn up outside of the game.

The balance needs to be struck between grand-scale tactics and actually playing the game.

Oh, and lets not forget that we have no clue which design decisions have been motivated by time/financial constraints.