Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2.. - Page 11

TAA · 2012-07-13, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

Why? It's pretty clear to me that the majority will always favor unbalanced and overpowered BS to things that will make the game fun and enjoyable. PS Vets included.

Difference is, we know how PS1 worked, and how PS2 will likely work. We've experienced the 133vs133vs133 battles that you haven't. There are immense differences in how you fight when there are 266 people gunning for you.

Blackwolf, when I say that they should take feedback from forum posters and PS1 vets with a grain of salt I mean this:

They should contract experts to give expert advice. Mr Whisenhunt is a good example of this. Did he play PS1 for years? Did he post on these forums before being hired? I was not aware that he did either. I certainly hope he didnt.
For player input they should rely on what people do, not on what they say. It doesnt matter if a 500 page thread pops up on the beta forums complaining about how overpowered (insert flavor of the month) are. Do the statistics of the game support the hypothesis that the (insert faction) is overpowered? If so then maybe more stats need to be run to see if (flavor of the month) is the main problem.
As for gameplay changes after launch, again it should come down to hired expert advice and consumer surveys. You dont know what the 'majority' will favor because you dont know what they have to say. They dont post on the forums. Use the expert advice for the beta, backed up by data. Then once the game launches use consumer surveys (through the game launcher) and more stats to drive gameplay changes.

Goldeh · 2012-07-13, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

You're right, people probably shouldn't be praising the gameplay of a game they haven't played yet. People are just excited.

No reason to be mad. This community is like Mother Teresa compared to some others. Try the LoL community, some of those people are only one step above 4chan.

Or the Blizzard Community

Ba-dum-tish

Sephirex · 2012-07-13, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by Goldeh

Or the Blizzard Community

Ba-dum-tish

If only that was a joke....

Absentis · 2012-07-13, 10:07 PM

I think the question should be: Is there enough hype to get PS2 on people's radar? I doubt DICE is worried since one could assume they've had their DLC planned from release.

If you look at Google trends for 'planetside 2' searches this month, it is comparable to the trends for 'battlefield 3' searches from a week ago.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=plan...=2012-7&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-7&sort=0

This concerns me since PS2 has had so much E3/TB exposure and it has such a low search volume, even a month ago during E3, they were comparable.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=plan...=2012-6&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-6&sort=0

While I hope PS2 has plenty of players and is highly successful, I just don't see enough hype (assuming search volume is approximately equal to hype). Ideally, this would be a much higher volume or searches ≤ hype. We need a lot more interest and success before any other FPS developer starts having to compete in the same MMOFPS market. While I have complete confidence in the dev team, the marketing has a long way to go if this project is going to change the FPS market.

To put it shortly, we need more interest from players of all games.

james · 2012-07-13, 10:14 PM

I would be slightly, well not the same, PS2 and BF3 seem to have similar traits and game play focus. Only thing ps2 doesn't have is destruction.

Ninjacalypse · 2012-07-13, 10:18 PM

I keep hearing people talking about how PS2 is going to kill BF3, hurr durr. PS2 and BF3 are apples and oranges. Not everyone who plays games like BF3/COD is going to want to play a sci-fi themed MMOFPS where patience, timing and planning take precedence over things like sticking C4 to your jeep and crashing into enemy tanks.

Also, what does EA have to be worried about? That all their BF3 players will migrate from BF3 to another game? EA has already been paid. EA doesn't even host dedicated game servers for BF3. Players do. If some people decide to stop playing it makes no difference to EA's bottom line.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-13, 10:20 PM

When the promise of 2,000 players on one server actually becomes a reality the hype machine is going to explode.

Deckura · 2012-07-13, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by dorgo

Are DICE Getting worried about planetside 2..

More importantly, who gives a shit?

Sephirex · 2012-07-13, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Absentis

I think the question should be: Is there enough hype to get PS2 on people's radar? I doubt DICE is worried since one could assume they've had their DLC planned from release.

If you look at Google trends for 'planetside 2' searches this month, it is comparable to the trends for 'battlefield 3' searches from a week ago.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=plan...=2012-7&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-7&sort=0

This concerns me since PS2 has had so much E3/TB exposure and it has such a low search volume, even a month ago during E3, they were comparable.

PS2: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=plan...=2012-6&sort=0

BF3: http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-6&sort=0

While I hope PS2 has plenty of players and is highly successful, I just don't see enough hype (assuming search volume is approximately equal to hype). Ideally, this would be a much higher volume or searches ≤ hype. We need a lot more interest and success before any other FPS developer starts having to compete in the same MMOFPS market. While I have complete confidence in the dev team, the marketing has a long way to go if this project is going to change the FPS market.

To put it shortly, we need more interest from players of all games.

Bad news but you're doing it wrong.
If you only look at trends for one item, it always puts it in the middle of the graph, since there's nothing to compare it to and Google won't provide hard numbers for actual activity counts.
Here's June's real comparison
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-6&sort=0

As you can see even with E3 footage, Planetside isn't even remotely comparable.

Absentis · 2012-07-13, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sephirex

Bad news but you're doing it wrong.
If you only look at trends for one item, it always puts it in the middle of the graph, since there's nothing to compare it to and Google won't provide hard numbers for actual activity counts.
Here's June's real comparison
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-6&sort=0

As you can see even with E3 footage, Planetside isn't even remotely comparable.

Thanks for the link, didn't realize that was how Google made the trend graphs.

All this confirms for me is that PS2 will need some more interest just before release if there are to be plenty of full/highly populated servers.

PoisonTaco · 2012-07-14, 12:04 AM

BF3's biggest problem isn't the map sizes or the scope. If DICE wanted to go bigger then BF2 or 2142 would have supported more players than 1942. Battlefield 3's problem is that they took away the tools necessary to communicate and coordinate effectively with a team of 32 players.

They nailed squad teamwork. How each of the four classes work well with each other is really great. Unfortunately that's where the teamwork stops. In Battlefield 2 and 2142 you had Squad Leaders and you had the Commander. The Commander could see the entire map, see where squads were going and issue them orders. Squad leaders could also see what other squad leaders were doing. Not to mention there was voip among squads and voip from squad leaders to the commander. Not everybody used the tools available here, but when you have a competent commander and two good squads on your team it makes a huge difference.

In Battlefield 3, my squad can go and capture point A. After that we decide what our goal is. Do we defend A or move onto the next point held by the enemy? Without the commander system, there's no way to tell what the rest of your team is doing. There's no voip at all, you have to rely solely on text chat. Not to mention you have no tools available to really coordinate with the rest of your team. Anything beyond the squad level is a jumbled mess. On top of all that there's nothing significant about being a Squad Leader. In BF2 and 2142 you could only squad spawn on the leader. In BF2142 the squad leader also had some really helpful equipment for the squad. Being a leader and being alive was important, and killing squad leaders could really hurt an enemy advance.

I could see where DICE was going when they spread out the Commander abilities to the various classes (ie mortars, motion sensors and etc.) but they're nowhere near as effective. A well placed UAV from the commander was so crucial and helped bring the team together. Artillery strikes provided excellent area denial and supply drops could really help a people holding a point.

Battlefield needs to bring back mechanics and means to work well with a team of 64 players. In this area, BF3 took a step backwards to that of BF1942 instead of building on excellent systems from BF2 and 2142.

TAA · 2012-07-14, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Sephirex

Bad news but you're doing it wrong.
If you only look at trends for one item, it always puts it in the middle of the graph, since there's nothing to compare it to and Google won't provide hard numbers for actual activity counts.
Here's June's real comparison
http://www.google.com/trends/?q=batt...=2012-6&sort=0

As you can see even with E3 footage, Planetside isn't even remotely comparable.

Much more accurate. Here are some more, with stats over all of 2012:

Planetside vs Firefall

Planetside vs Blacklight Retribution

Planetside vs Tribes Ascend

Planetside vs Mechwarrior Online

Planetside vs Call of Duty

Planetside vs Battlefield

Planetside vs Battlefield 3

If you stretch out the timeline to all years you will see that the small little bump in search volume that battlefield received for the Close Quarter expansion release alone is far bigger than any traffic ever received for the search term planetside - all the way back to 2004. PS2 is not even in the same order of magnitude as COD or BF. It is much more comparable to the the first four games I put on the list.

If you want pessimism, here is one for you: Planetside vs Tabula Rasa

If you want to be positive here is one for you: Planetside vs League of Legends

raidyr · 2012-07-14, 01:39 AM

Why would DICE be worried about Planetside 2, atleast financially? They just announced that over 800,000 complacent idiots re-bought the same constantly broken game for a knew knife skin and some unlocks.

The Kush · 2012-07-14, 01:43 AM

BF3 devs are shitting their small sized diapers. I mean seriously PS2 doesn't even have to drug BF3 to rape the living fucking shit out of it.

Let's all be men and put our honor on the table.

Everyone who has half a brain can tell PS2 destroys BF3, CoD, Halo, any game you want to name.

Hate it or love it, you got to respect the facts.

Graywolves · 2012-07-14, 01:50 AM

Blah blah blah blah skipped half the thread blah blah blah

F2P has proven to be effective business model

other AAA FPS games must now compete with a F2P model

Current AAA FPS titles have zero interest in player retention.

Blah blah blah

There's not some finite number of FPS players so it isn't versus 2000 paying $50 to play and 2000 playing for free with minor transactions.

This thread is boring and you should feel boring.