Top cause of players leaving PS2 (2014) - Page 8

Qwan · 2014-10-06, 12:03 PM

Hi guys long time no see.

I’ve been playing PS2 off and on, these last couple of months, spending most of my time in ESO. But it’s always good to log on during opps nights and have some fun. Currently I see one of the problems with this game is that it’s not expanding, there spending so much time listening to people whine about balance and base design. And the funny part is most of these guys crying about it want that one shot weapon and the "enemy can only attack from one direction". I personally log on and have a good time, whether it’s getting spawn camped or camping the spawn. Whether its getting the nice shot with my sniper rifle, to get that one shot kill. I think that most of these upset players need to understand it’s how gaming combat is, I mean I really want to see more crying over new vehicles, more continents, and getting the lattice system up so I can use the warp gate instead of having to abandon my vehicle every time we switch continents.

Personally the weapons work fine I have fun when I play, right now I’m just waiting for more vehicles, and more continents and a lattice system that connects the continents, and get rid of these warp gates. Currently I’m BR 100, so certs mean nothing and neither does station cash, it’s just sits there and builds up. I did spend a little on the Valkyrie (or flying coffin) but other than that I still log in once a week to join the guys in some opps hoping something new.

Figment · 2014-10-06, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Qwan

And the funny part is most of these guys crying about it want that one shot weapon and the "enemy can only attack from one direction".

Nice respectful hostility to open a debate with?

And actually, your grasp of who's doing the whining and what they want is less than... How shall I put it... Less than basic. Sounds like you've just got prejudices and have absolutely no clue what is being whined about.

So you saying "most of these guys"

I personally log on and have a good time, whether it’s getting spawn camped or camping the spawn.

Good for you. Ever imagined that not everyone is like you and MOST PEOPLE don't actually enjoy camping, nor being camped? Look at ANY game and the one thing that everyone always agrees on is that camping is a negative aspect of the game and should be reduced to a minimum, hardly ever stimulated as it does not contribute to gameplay, rather, it detracts since it's repetitive, doesn't allow anything exciting or interesting to happen where player skill actually matters to influence the outcome of a match and is therefore boring.

So. Good for you enjoying that, but you forget that the game isn't designed specifically for you, but for huge amounts of players, all with completely different personalities.

Most of which, again, don't enjoy camping and look down on it.

Whether its getting the nice shot with my sniper rifle, to get that one shot kill.

Although some sniper rifles one can imagine a one shot kill to be justifiable on, you seem to be unable to comprehend when a one shot kill is justified and when it isn't.

And by that I mean in relation to overall game design. Games are meant to be fun, so when one shot kills turn a game into a meat grinder, it might be "what could realistically be" and fun for those who exploit it under their own terms and goals, but it could be absolutely detrimental to the game experience of another user who is the target in a specific context where the user cannot deal with it, or the volume (amount) of fire that has that one shot kill potential.

PlanetSide, due to its player size scope, has a completely different balancing need from a game of 16-32 Free for All or Team Deathmatch, simply due to "volume of fire". The rate at which bullets and grenades are targeted on a player. If it hinders the player too much to accomplish the other goals set out by a game, this type of unit might have to compromise for the overall fun of players.

For example.

GAME MISSION GOAL:
"Cross open area X to hold semi-open area Y for 5 minutes against 100 respawning enemies"

(objective) (context)

Which is a very common goal in PS2. Now, if you give one shot kills to all those respawning enemies and a camping position with overwatch and no counter possibility and you also provide a swift rate of fire to this one shot kill, you then have a lot of lethal potential per shot, combined with a high rate of fire and a lot of people wielding this weapon. The chances of a player crossing an area that is (easily) camped and holding an area within the zone of influence of the enemy due to reinforcements being easily cut off with the camp, means it's very likely simply impossible to complete the game's mission goal.

Being rigged to fail leads to players being upset with the game when those actually want to succeed in accomplishing the game's goals. Which means that either the game goals have to change or the context in which the game goals have to be accomplished to change... Which basically is why so much emphasis has been put on base design.

And no, players that ask for base design changes don't ask for single direction combat. They ask for defensibility in a 540-1080 degrees direction: up and from all sides. Many of the existing and even more the early base designs wern't designed for defense in any particular combat direction (making it Suiss cheese, execution squads at teleport points and open to airborne rape) or strangely, designed for defense in a single direction, which meant that enemies just circled to the back by default, obsoleting these defenses completely.

The problem is that the level designs had no workable vision for a free roaming map conquest game at all. :/ We're still suffering the consequences of that, in that other content is delayed severely and gameplay is sub-optimal.

I think that most of these upset players need to understand it’s how gaming combat is,

"Gaming combat". I don't think you have ANY and I mean ANY right to provide the definition for what that is considering you show you have absolutely no clue. Sorry, but you're making yourself sound like one of those people who really should just shut up since you enjoy "anything" regardless of quality, unless it's a personal pet peeve. And voila, you present your personal pet peeves immediately:

I mean I really want to see more crying over new vehicles, more continents, and getting the lattice system up so I can use the warp gate instead of having to abandon my vehicle every time we switch continents.

You're whining about "gaming combat" too. I could just say the same ludicrous thing you just said "you just need to understand how (PS2) gaming combat is".

It's insulting, unnecessary, unquantifiable, lacks content and totally misses the point.

Btw. "New vehicles" is only worthwhile if there's a need and if it provides varied gameplay. I have put forth during Alpha that putting so many roles in a few vehicles removes the niches for a lot of these units and therefore severely limits the amount of potential vehicles to be added without creating significant role overlap. At which point it's mostly eye candy, or competition between units that obsolotes the one or the other.

The intercontinental lattice seems under the current circumstances somewhat hard to introduce (they should simply clear two warpgates per continent and link those up). However, I'm wondering if the rest of the game is able to cope.

What you request btw, changing from continent to continent by vehicle, is simply activating the warpgates between the current continents. Which should have been in in Alpha, but apparently has never made it in for whatever reason. I honestly can't imagine why aside them not being able to handle masses of warps per second (which seems easy enough to solve tbh using in game hard spawn points, auto drive, queues, etc).

Qwan · 2014-10-07, 06:37 AM

Damn figment take it easy you going into nerd rage here.

Your starting to sound like someone who is expecting soooo much from a free to play game.

I approach this game with very low expectation, because what it comes down to is money and PS2 just aint doing it right.

PS everyone enjoys a little spawn camping even you LOL.

Buggsy · 2014-10-14, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Calista

It's called repetition.

Repetition that could have been broken with some defensive tools like the PS1 AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, and PS1 motion detectors; know what I'm saying.

Buggsy · 2014-10-14, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by synkrotron

Well... I read most of that.

Seems a lot of the PSU hard core have given up on PS2, although they still like to chat about it. I find that interesting in itself and for me says that you've not completely given up on PS2 just yet.

As for me, I'm still playing. I don't look too deeply into this game. I don't care about "balance," "force multipliers," "TTK," "OSK," and all that jazz. I play a very simple version of Planetside 2. I pick fights that suit my limited skill and playstyle. My playstyle is hated by many, but why should I care as long as I am enjoying it?

I also don't get bogged down in all the nerf this, buff that stuff... Things are what they are, bases are fine, to me... I don't mind the Zergs, the spawn camping, air dominating infantry dominating armour etc. I just log on and see what is going at the time. Might be a 4v4 tussle or a 96+v96+ mega battle.

The only thing that would improve this game for me is performance, and that is it.

But that's just me and I appear to be very much in the minority...

I'm happy you're happy.

synkrotron · 2020-03-25, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

I'm happy you're happy.

Thank you