"Higby pls" process explained - Page 3

phungus · 2013-06-27, 12:34 AM

I want to see what a game like this would play like if invisible god mode wasn't a core mechanic. That was a design decision that people have claimed numerous times was not part of beta (if your comp couldn't handle rendering the objects, that was your problem, not a core gameplay mechanic that caused players to literally generate invisible god mode cloaking fields around them). Is this true, or not? I never played beta.

Alot of you have no idea how aweful this invisible god mode cloaking field can be for aircraft. Especially since it self generates as a protective field around massed players which means often times ESFs get cloaked with god mode at ranges where they can still lock on and lob A2Am at you.

The observation that the devs ignored key advice from PS1 vets about game mechanics are also 100% spot on. I didn't play ps1 but there were two key items Ps1 vets kept harping on: 1) Dedicated Drivers and 2) Lattice. Both have been added to the game and both have been huge successes - these ideas should have and could have been tested in Beta, at leas the dedicated driver could have easily (don't even need coding for this, or if you do the game isn't set up very well, should be able to define driver positions and weapons with a container language). Also dymanic XP was such an obvious thing, seriously the fact that took so long makes no sense. Dynamic XP rewarding players for fighting against the odds really should have been common sense and should have also been in far, far earlier.

I also know game devs are some of the most passionate people out there and they really want their game to succede, so harping on these things is kind of shitty to do. But I really feel like there were some important feedback the devs just ignored cause they thought they knew better, and I can never get behind the decision to implement dynamicly generated invisible god mode cloaking fields that protects and give an advantage to massed players; it's probably the outright worst core gameplay mechanic I have ever experienced. Of course the fact I still play this game even though it has the worst core gameplay mechanic that constantly frustrates me does say there are some very cool parts about the game.

EVILoHOMER · 2013-06-27, 03:30 PM

These games are never finished, that isn't the problem, the problem is the game is shit...

I don't know a single person who is playing anymore, they all quit by December 2012 and haven't bothered looking back because most people never do.

EvilNinjadude · 2013-06-27, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

These games are never finished, that isn't the problem, the problem is the game is shit...

I don't know a single person who is playing anymore, they all quit by December 2012 and haven't bothered looking back because most people never do.

Uh... hi? I'm EvilNinjadude. I'm a player. Nice to meet you.

phungus · 2013-06-27, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

These games are never finished, that isn't the problem, the problem is the game is shit...

I don't know a single person who is playing anymore, they all quit by December 2012 and haven't bothered looking back because most people never do.

I've put in as much money and time as I did in Battlefield 3, which is considerable from my perspective. The game has alot of things going for it, and everyone definitely hasn't quit since SOE is still able to pay the devs to add new content.

Revenue for this game would be fascinating to look at. It really is a unique model, I mean just for statistical analysis - like how much $ comes from whales, how much from subscribers who just pay their monthly fee like this is a standard subscription game? I'm sure they haven't maximized that side of the equation yet either.

Also there are things I think are totally broken, like render distance. But if that was fixed it doesn't guaruntee I'll drop another $100 on the game, or even keep playing it. Who knows the gameplay changes from units no longer getting invisible god mode could make the game less enjoyable. Human behavior is a weird thing.

The game has two purposes (arguably 1, but they are intrinsically linked), get players to invest time playing the game, and get players to spend $$$. There are no games out there that are F2P MMO FPSes, this is it, so this game fulfills a market demand that no one else was willing or able to do, and that alone makes it at least somewhat succesful.

Wahooo · 2013-06-27, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by phungus

I also know game devs are some of the most passionate people out there and they really want their game to succede, so harping on these things is kind of shitty to do. But I really feel like there were some important feedback the devs just ignored cause they thought they knew better,

It is a double edged sword that every game goes through. How much do you listen to the community?
Online games are full of A-holes and Retards and frankly 90% of them regularly ask for things that if looked at from the perspective of "would this make the overall game play better?" the answer is a hard and fast NO.

BUT... there are also those out there who are JUST as passionate about the game as the developers, people who are fairly intelligent AND have good ideas. So many games have died because they either DIDN"T listen to the community and it pissed everyone off, OR they listened and implemented and it made the game suck.

I'm a pretty casual gamer, and I don't play that many different games but some of the games i've played in the last few years that have been damaged that I would attribute to player feedback, Rift they gave into some whining about the rifts and it killed the uniqueness of the game. Global Agenda they gave into the MMORPG crowd and ruined their PVP based TPS they had originally targeted. Darkfall they took the SUBJECTS people complained about and dumbed them down or changed them in a bad way rather than following the communities suggestions.

What I think is hard for devs to do is pick out WHO to listen to, and on which subjects. There are a lot of things I loved in PS1 I'd like to see in PS2 but I understand it doesn't fit with the overall vision SOE has for the game. I'm ok with that, like the class system, and the weapons and weapon restrictions, and the TTK, and hacking enemy vehicles, and enter exit animations.

There are other areas I find simply frustrating that didn't carry over. Like initially the lattice and dedicated drivers and dynamic XP (including for base caps)
But there are those who feel that things like not having the PS1 inventory system or PS1 style mines is just as game breaking as I feel not having the lattice to direct the flow of battle.
Who do you listen to?

I have hope for PS2 actually with the Reddit voting stuff. Even though I have yet to go on there and express my opinion there the amount of upvote down-vote so far has highlighted the important needs and squashed a lot of the crap ideas.

I haven't seen Espion around since middle of Beta but with DT coming back maybe he's around again. He is someone that should be listened to. He could have saved Global Agenda if they had just listened to his ideas.
I think he'd be happy where PS2 has come since release, or maybe a little frustrated that some of these things weren't implemented a year ago during beta.