Important Issues, Life or Death of the Game

[Ritual]

The map in Planetside 1 was an extension of my mind.

While I havent playtested Planetside 2 yet, I support the idea of having the same map functionality as its predecessor. Im up for new and creative ideas to convey all of the important information however. If it's pie charts and icons so be it.

My most important issue however remains base variety and design, and the types of base offensives and defenses they are stimulating. I would like to see more base variety with additional brainstorming on how to make them logical from an attackers and defenders point of view, while keeping them large and complex. I only know what I see in videos so take my opinion as generalized.

[Realmofdarkness]

I dont know how well it would fit in PS2 but I loved a game called Enemy Territory where the maps were designed in such way that the attackers had to complete small tasks to progress on the map while the defenders had to build defence mechanics along the way. I think defending/attacking bases would be more fun if defending team engineers could build protective stuff like walls on fixed locations that could be blown up by C4 or tanks for example. engineers could build obstacles so that vehicles couldent just drive in the base but foot troops can pass.

Even doors to lets say field generator room should be a task for the engineer to build, and the door has to be destroyed with C4.

[RodenyC]

Originally Posted by Realmofdarkness

I dont know how well it would fit in PS2 but I loved a game called Enemy Territory where the maps were designed in such way that the attackers had to complete small tasks to progress on the map while the defenders had to build defence mechanics along the way. I think defending/attacking bases would be more fun if defending team engineers could build protective stuff like walls on fixed locations that could be blown up by C4 or tanks for example. engineers could build obstacles so that vehicles couldn't just drive in the base but foot troops can pass.

Even doors to lets say field generator room should be a task for the engineer to build, and the door has to be destroyed with C4.

PS1 had bases like that.You couldn't blow them with C4 but the prep the base for attackers were there.Mines,Spitfires and their variants,and TRAPs were blockades that enemy vehicles couldn't go through.And the goal before that was too capture said tower near it unless it was a capital base.

The original games are always better.PS2 proves that.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by RodenyC

The original games are always better.PS2 proves that.

Status quo bias and confirmation bias in one sentence. This thread is a metacognative delight.

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

The BF3/COD players are use to riding in steam trains, let's show them the automobile.

Translation: The BF3/COD players don't know what they want.

I think you have a misconception that BF3 and COD players are the same thing and also that they do not know what they want. I have over 10,000 hours in the BF franchise and after a month of PS2 beta I will easily leave 10,000 hours behind. BF is more COD than PS, PS is nothing like COD, PS2 is much diffrent than BF. Apples and Oranges is still to close, more like Apples and Tripe kind of difference.

Give SOE some more time to build features into the game they say they are adding (mission system) & keep providing customer feedback about what you want.

I also think we all have to consider what exaclty they are building here, the vision they are presenting for the future, and the possibilities this may lead to 5+ years down the road.

I have been gaming since 1978 and I have seen the progression and benchmark games, make no mistake what ever PS2 ends up being it will be a benchmark game for years to come, don't miss what it is even if it's not enough PS1 for you. I'm not claiming it's "perfect" yes it could use more structure variety, yes the business model is fuzzy, ect. but it does have a team of devs that will atleast acknowledge their customers and that is way ahead of the curve in the industry which is rare, not unheard of but rare.

[Gonefshn]

The main reason I still think lattice is the main issue is because so many other complaints people are raising in this thread have been mentioned and are sure to be addressed.

People are also not remembering the upcoming mission system.

Sure, the mission system could fail too, but it also could fill these holes.

The lattice told you where to go and directed the flow of battle.
The mission system could do exactly that for the zerg. Current mission is to attack a certain base or territory, when it flips the mission system reasigns a new target based on priority. This is basically the lattice system.

Wait for the mission system and more UI updates.

[ShadoViper]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Back in my day, back in my day..

Disappointing.