List of PS1 issues that need fixing for PS2

[Dir]

Originally Posted by roguy

Feel free to add to the list...

It would take one hell of a lot of work but it would be more useful to consolidate many years of actual PS1 hate posts so we can see why the majority of people left the game. Less personal opinion and more public opinion...not that you aren't entitled...but in the end it's just a rehash. There must be hundreds of posts from players saying, “I've had it!! I'm leaving!!! and this is why”.

In the end even if someone at SOE had already done this and presented mounds of data to the developers it still wouldn't explain why hundreds of people with uber computers have virtually ignored every new up to date video game since then in favor of returning to troubled Auraxis every night since launch. I went through incredible withdrawal last night!!! ...and you know what? There was NO WHERE TO GO?!? So you can understand how upsetting it is to see the current developers injecting certain flavors into the soup. If it were the original developers with complete autonomy making changes we wouldn't be so distrustful but with these new guys? ...some of us have underwear older than their short hairs!!

Dir

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Dir

In the end even if someone at SOE had already done this and presented mounds of data to the developers it still wouldn't explain why hundreds of people with uber computers have virtually ignored every new up to date video game since then in favor of returning to troubled Auraxis every night since launch. I went through incredible withdrawal last night!!! ...and you know what? There was NO WHERE TO GO?!? So you can understand how upsetting it is to see the current developers injecting certain flavors into the soup. If it were the original developers with complete autonomy making changes we wouldn't be so distrustful but with these new guys? ...some of us have underwear older than their short hairs!!

Oh boy hundreds of players still love our ancient game!

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by basti

This is not a list of Vet concerns. Of course some cross what vets think, but others dont. Most Vets want to keep the driver just driving for example.

But the list does make me realize that Vets may not be as uniform as i assumed. GOtta make sure i short my stuff correctly...

Hmmm....I was thinking...it might also be a good idea if you made a list of changes that you believe vets would accept on each topic...if it's large enough, it should discredit people who say vets only want a carbon copy of PS1. you have to show that just because you don't agree with all the decisions made for PS2 doesn't mean that you want a reskinned PS1.

[SniperSteve]

As an ADAD warper, I liked the buggy netcode and long TTK. I call them features. :P

That being said, I hope they don't make a comeback because it is bad for the game as a whole, but if they do... ^_^

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by roguy

-2 man tanks: Were horribly boring to drive, there simply wasn't anything to do. Especially after the patch that made it so you couldn't really kill people by running over them anymore. Gunning them was always quite fun though.

ITS YOU! Its you part of the reason they want dumb down tank play do BF level? I hate you. Drivers all the way. Dont like driving? there is planty room in gunner positions or lighting.

Originally Posted by roguy

-Half the vehicles were useless fluff: What's the point of an ATV when you can fly a mosquito? Whats the point of a harrasser when you can drive an assault buggy? Whats the point of an assault buggy when you can drive a MBT? And so on.

ATV/harasser were low certs vehicles, used as basic transport if you were pure grunt. They had their reason (until they broke it by BR25+).
Same with buggies and tanks, and both had their uses.

Originally Posted by roguy

-TTK (Time to kill): Way too high. Some vets like to call it part of PS1's tried and tested "unique" gameplay, even though it was just done that way to cover up the netcoding and lag issues. Tanks having enough HP to require more than TWENTY direct hits from AV rounds to take down was way beyond the realms of stupid.

I liked slow TTK. You had to think, you have time to flank, to retreat, to cooperate. With fast TTK its just reflex and twitch. Same mechanics as in tons other games, with no thinking needed.

Originally Posted by roguy

-Free form class system: Good idea in theory, in practice it was not only impossible to balance (even in other games that had it too like Tribes) but also worked against teamplay by allowing everyone to be everything at once (rexo/HA/AV/adv med/adv eng/CR5 builds...) rather than opening up choices such as, do I want to be a medic or an engineer? a sniper or an anti tank guy?

It worked, till they starting to increase BR cap. Class system will be even worse that everyone will have everything. You had to make choice and stick with it (reaver/gal or tanks, AV/med or CE/hacker). Even with BR40 you cant have everything. With class system there wont be time you cant take tank or aircraft due cert system. when you dont have AV or something. Everyone will have everything eventualy.

Originally Posted by roguy

-The heal/repair system: Most COD, halo or BF3 "haters" point to health regen as one of the worst casualised/consolised features in modern mainstream FPS. Sure, in PS1 you had to have certs and press a couple of buttons to do it, but the mechanic was just as stupid. Even more so, if you consider the ridiculous advantage it gave to players high enough to have both medical and engineering certs.

You had to cover, and without weapon to heal/repair yourself. You was defenseless and need to be protected. If whole squad would start healing/repairing themselves at same time they would die. With regen you just stay put, weapon ready to kill anybody who come near and wait till you are full again. Yes i call that dumbing down.

[Arius]

The class system has to be forced to work. Give a player a healing ability and you can bet your ass he will use the healing abilities just for himself.

I've played a ton of Return to Castle Wolfenstein as a kid, and alot of people played the medic just because they could heal themselves. The developers thought giving them just one clip of ammo would make them stick to actually being a medic; Nope! They just spammed the Lieutenant for ammo and went solo from there on.
Like Team Fortress 2 did, sometimes you just have to force class roles in order for people to play them properly, and TF2 is one of the best FPS games concentrating on teamwork these days.

A class system is not a bad idea at all, its just a matter of getting people to do their job.

I just wish they left switching classes to terminals in the game rather then a limbo menu.

I wouldnt call a medic with heavy armor and a huge ass sniper very balanced.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Hmmm....I was thinking...it might also be a good idea if you made a list of changes that you believe vets would accept on each topic...if it's large enough, it should discredit people who say vets only want a carbon copy of PS1. you have to show that just because you don't agree with all the decisions made for PS2 doesn't mean that you want a reskinned PS1.

Good point. Here goes although perhaps it deserves it's own thread.

I would have been very happy with a reskinned PS1. However SoE didn't want to do that, I understand why and I accept it. Having accepted the fact of change I don't nerd-rage at every change that is suggested.

I do however want the spirit of PS to continue.

To that end I will be completely happy with nearly every update to the FPS part of ps. I thought the GDC video looked fantastic.

There are some elements that I am doubtful about. These are, no ams, squad spawning. In practise, these may work out and it's just my lack of imagination that is the problem, so I'll wait for beta.

One aspect I don't like, although again I understand why the devs have done it is driver gunned tanks. I hope they'll fix it so at minimum the driver has the minor gun.

The part that is concerning me particularly is the seeming lack of a cross-continent meta-game, you might call this Planetside's end game content.

From what I can understand, the battle on each continent is complete in itself. There are no cross continent consequences and so it appears that it is impossible to lock a continent. There are no continental benefits and in fact here is no overall goal such as complete global domination however improbable that may be. (In ps1 the overall goal was achieved a few times on every server).

The strategy on PS1 depended on ability to lock continents, links between continent meaning you could only attack along the links and therefore preserving them was important and home continents.

So the question is, apart from the big tactical fight on a continent where is the meta-game?

If we canot win a continent, does that mean all fights will be perpetual 3-ways? That would be boring and I think will impact on the games longevity.

Advice to DEVS.... create more continents, ie more space for the battle to progress to, allow the possibility for an empire to be effectively kicked from a continent (perhaps hex timers can do this), create a continent 'win' that forces the battle to progress elsewhere and means the winner will want to defend the continent they've captured.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by ringring

So the question is, apart from the big tactical fight on a continent where is the meta-game?

If we canot win a continent, does that mean all fights will be perpetual 3-ways? That would be boring and I think will impact on the games longevity.

Advice to DEVS.... create more continents, ie more space for the battle to progress to, allow the possibility for an empire to be effectively kicked from a continent (perhaps hex timers can do this), create a continent 'win' that forces the battle to progress elsewhere and means the winner will want to defend the continent they've captured.

The meta game is all about resources. The fact that not all continents have all resources in same amounts means that there IS a link between continents. A shortage in one continent will prompt action in another. Both offensively and defensively.

And there already is more space. One of the arguments of the devs was that combat in PS1 only happened around bases, towers and some bridges.

Since things are different in PlanetSide 2, thanks to the larger amount of bases, all around the landscape and the fact that there is no lattice, opening up a lot more strategic options.
This system allows for a much more efficient use of the space on continents.


I also don't see the necessity for Empires to be kicked from a continent. That was a victory condition in PS1 that worked for PS1 because PS1 is a different game than PlanetSide 2 will be.
There's no reason to think PlanetSide 2 won't have entirely new victory conditions.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The meta game is all about resources. The fact that not all continents have all resources in same amounts means that there IS a link between continents. A shortage in one continent will prompt action in another. Both offensively and defensively.

And there already is more space. One of the arguments of the devs was that combat in PS1 only happened around bases, towers and some bridges.

Since things are different in PlanetSide 2, thanks to the larger amount of bases, all around the landscape and the fact that there is no lattice, opening up a lot more strategic options.
This system allows for a much more efficient use of the space on continents.


I also don't see the necessity for Empires to be kicked from a continent. That was a victory condition in PS1 that worked for PS1 because PS1 is a different game than PlanetSide 2 will be.
There's no reason to think PlanetSide 2 won't have entirely new victory conditions.

Now, I know we don't know, but what is current speculation on how powerful a base the continental foothold of an empire will be? meaning how quickly/how many infantry, vehicles, etc it can spawn? How large an area of the continent it will take up, etc?

I was thinking that, OK, each empire has a foothold on each continent. OK, no problem. But, each empire could have a "home continent" which means that on its home continent, its foothold is more powerful than its foothold on the other 2 continents. As of right now, I have no ideas on how to enhance this idea...maybe you guys can help...

Actually, here's a thought. You have an advantage on your home continent, obviously, by virtue of a more powerful foothold. But on the other two continents, you might need to coordinate troop movements both out of the foothold and through the warpgates in order to have a big enough assault going to make any progress? In other words, once you secure your home continent, and have some troops dedicated to keeping the enemy backed up into their footholds on your home continent, you can think about shifting the focus to another continent by fighting from the foothold on that continent and coordinating assaults through the warpgates. In fact, you could choose to totally ignore one continent completely and focus on two.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Now, I know we don't know, but what is current speculation on how powerful a base the continental foothold of an empire will be? meaning how quickly/how many infantry, vehicles, etc it can spawn? How large an area of the continent it will take up, etc?

I was thinking that, OK, each empire has a foothold on each continent. OK, no problem. But, each empire could have a "home continent" which means that on its home continent, its foothold is more powerful than its foothold on the other 2 continents. As of right now, I have no ideas on how to enhance this idea...maybe you guys can help...

Actually, here's a thought. You have an advantage on your home continent, obviously, by virtue of a more powerful foothold. But on the other two continents, you might need to coordinate troop movements both out of the foothold and through the warpgates in order to have a big enough assault going to make any progress? In other words, once you secure your home continent, and have some troops dedicated to keeping the enemy backed up into their footholds on your home continent, you can think about shifting the focus to another continent by fighting from the foothold on that continent and coordinating assaults through the warpgates. In fact, you could choose to totally ignore one continent completely and focus on two.

I actually really like this idea. It solves my personal problems with sanctuaries and is a compromise for having 3 footholds on each continent. You should post this to the foothold thread.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by roguy

-Half the vehicles were useless fluff: What's the point of an ATV when you can fly a mosquito? Whats the point of a harrasser when you can drive an assault buggy? Whats the point of an assault buggy when you can drive a MBT? And so on.

Think you just sucked with them :P the ATV was a monster, i used to solo MBT's with relative ease, anything smaller was fodder for it.

As for your other coments, they're just stupid, the MBT had the most firepower but that doesn't mean it's the only useful one, the smaller vehicles had speed which was great for LLU runs etc

Plus you can't go rednecking in a tank.....

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Now, I know we don't know, but what is current speculation on how powerful a base the continental foothold of an empire will be? meaning how quickly/how many infantry, vehicles, etc it can spawn? How large an area of the continent it will take up, etc?

I was thinking that, OK, each empire has a foothold on each continent. OK, no problem. But, each empire could have a "home continent" which means that on its home continent, its foothold is more powerful than its foothold on the other 2 continents. As of right now, I have no ideas on how to enhance this idea...maybe you guys can help...

Actually, here's a thought. You have an advantage on your home continent, obviously, by virtue of a more powerful foothold. But on the other two continents, you might need to coordinate troop movements both out of the foothold and through the warpgates in order to have a big enough assault going to make any progress? In other words, once you secure your home continent, and have some troops dedicated to keeping the enemy backed up into their footholds on your home continent, you can think about shifting the focus to another continent by fighting from the foothold on that continent and coordinating assaults through the warpgates. In fact, you could choose to totally ignore one continent completely and focus on two.

Why is implementation of your idea needed? Just because it gives one a "home continent"? The only reason you value that is because it was in PS1.

Frankly, home continents with advantages have the potential to unbalance the entire resources system and will most certainly make much less efficient use of the maps as much larger parts will remain uncontested for longer amounts of time.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Why is implementation of your idea needed? Just because it gives one a "home continent"? The only reason you value that is because it was in PS1.

Frankly, home continents with advantages have the potential to unbalance the entire resources system and will most certainly make much less efficient use of the maps as much larger parts will remain uncontested for longer amounts of time.

Actually, that is not true. I don't know how it worked in PS1 other than abstractly from this forum. I have only played PS1 to the extent of running around testing some stuff.

I used the term "home continent" but it's more like "area of greater influence". The fact remains that you have a foothold on all continents.

[Malorn]

Most of this stuff has already been addressed by the PS2 team or is now by-design.

-Wonky grief system: that would often punish victims (e.g: intentionally landing a galaxy on top of a tank, tank driver is now weapons locked).

Punishing the "victims" is a necessary part of any grief system to prevent people from abusing it.

Here's an example - intentionally standing in front of tanks, blocking their path. That is another form of griefing. As the system cannot know whether you are intentionally standing in front of the tank, the tank driver was being reckless, or if you were just not paying attention to your surroundings and giving the tanks some room. Either way, grief system worked well to account for all of those possibilities and assign some grief to everyone. End-result - stay out of the way of tanks. Paying attention to surroundings is a good habit to be in regardless. But some people didn't learn and just kept getting run over because they were erratically running around expecting everyone to move for them. Those poeple blamed the grief system. Working as intended I say.

The grief system was actually very very good and one of the better systems from PS1. It used frequency of griefing activity and current grief level to assign either a little grief or a lot of grief. If you were a reckless driver and ran over lots of poeple, more and more grief. If you were an idiot and getting run over by a lot of different drivers, you'd get more grief than the driver did.

I've never seen the example you provided where someone lands on a tank driver and he gets instantly weaponslocked. The only way that's happening is if there's a severe bug in the system (which is a bug, not a poor desing), or the tank driver had lots of grief already and/or a lot of recent grief activity. Another name for it is "edge case". It certainly wasn't rampant.

For PS2 Higby mentioned the grief system would also take time played into account, giving veterans a little more leeway compared to brand new players (who may have been created for griefing purposes). This makes sense with the F2P element.

Grief system was great. It punished people for being bad and taught them fire control, situational awareness, and better habits. Well, assuming they actually stopped and thought about why they were getting grief.

I never had a problem with the grief system, and I rarely went over 100 grief (and that was when I was being reckless myself or TKing a few asshats).

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The grief system was actually very very good and one of the better systems from PS1. It used frequency of griefing activity and current grief level to assign either a little grief or a lot of grief. If you were a reckless driver and ran over lots of poeple, more and more grief. If you were an idiot and getting run over by a lot of different drivers, you'd get more grief than the driver did.

Yeah, the only time it got crazy is with vehicle collisions, since they'd start to vibrate against each other, resulting in a crapton of 'events' in a very short order, skyrocketing your grief. A FV that landed on my lode gave me 300 once.

But yeah, otherwise it was a pretty solid system.

I heard a cool idea now that the game has resources.. TK someone, and you get charged for what they lost.