The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[Bittermen]

Not to mention many people who played the gimped BF3 are now finding out about PS2. People want massive scale warfare. They aren't going to care if the gun play is exactly like BFBC2...Which IMO is a great idea.

[cellinaire]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Hello.

Pointing out that there were fairly optimal loadouts for various roles does not discredit my complaint that by creating rote 'kits' variability can be hampered. Actually, it reinforces it. After all, even years after the launch of the game, top players would compare loadouts, figuring out creative or personalized ways of arranging items, combining weapons types, and so forth.

There was a lot to be said for being a rexo who carried maybe a suppressor and a loadout full of decis, if you could make it work. That was the magic of Planetside. Half the fun was figuring out how to make yourself the most useful you could be with limited resources, certs, inventory space, and slots.

Now we're edging more towards Battlefield, where the kits allow you to, oh, maybe choose a different color of gun. The game is basically doing it for you, patting you condescendingly and offering that you not worry your pretty little head about it, it'll figure out the best stuff for you, and pidgeon-hole you according to the rote classes the devs have decided they will employ. And why do they do this?

1) It's easy. All you need to do is copy the system wholesale from Battlefield, and then pump in a little planetside flavor, and knock off for lunch.

2) It makes balancing a breeze. If you don't allow players the freedom to explore the game's space, you can decide FOR THEM what they'll use, and not have to worry about pesky players who figure out optimal loadouts and such.

3) See reason 1.

I don't care if your MAX can have a machine gun or mine can have a laser. In PS1, there were three MAXes per empire. That's how they handled it; by adding additional content. And this fits in nicely with your rebuttal that there are 'less but better designed'.

If you mean 'glossier' then I agree with you; they are much better on the eyes. If you mean designed better from a gameplay perspective, I'm not so sure I'm sold; that's one of those things where it will be past the point of no return once we have an opportunity to actually see it. I will say this: any time you approach a game from a design standpoint and say "What the players really want is LESS VARIABILITY IN THEIR SURROUNDINGS" then you are on the wrong side of history.

When I hear "three facility types" I see all worthwhile infantry combat going down in the same three samey environments, and that's terribly boring. It's a lazy approach to design.

It just bodes very poorly when the starting position of the sequel is, when viewed from an objective standpoint of gameplay variety, starting off from a position far behind it's predecessor. You know what I see? I see an SOE meeting where someone said exactly what you did: "Hey, what is people wanna play Battlefield, but as an MMO? We can do that! They didn't copywrite all those little gameplay elements, and we have the Planetside brand. Let's just crib everything from DICE or whatever, make it all sci-fi, shove it in there."

Ask yourself; who is this game for? I know of many PS1 players who are leery of the Battlefield influence because, hey, we've all played battlefield, and the original Planetside lent nothing to that kind of pacing and setting. Is it for Battlefield players? Maybe some will show up for a month or two before going back; As good as PS2 looks, it will never match the populations, and the Battlefield players who are used to static, reliable match-based gameplay will get tired of hunting for battles and the considerably more deliberate, slower pace of Planetside.

Instead of offering something drastically new, SOE seems to be trying to go for the "It's Battlefield, but an MMO, with lasers!" appeal. The graveyards of the gaming industry are rich with headstones that read "It's like [popular game] but with [alternative setting]!"

Some of your points I agree with, but If I really wanted to play some highly innovative games which drastically changed from the norm, industry standards/trends, or cliche(or from it's predecessor) I can easily find heaps of indie projects and several franchises that's known to offer innovation out there. I know it's sad that several things derived from the PS1 got degraded in PS2, but not all games have to drastically change in every freakin' sequel. (I'm pretty sure that PS2 is, IMO, one of them)

[Bags]

Major games almost never completely innovate. Innovation occurs slowly over time.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

And using HA as a cloaker or bolting an armor repper to your max were verboten in the old planetside, whats your point?

That for obvious balance reasons you'd never give a cloaker a bolt driver?

But they are far, far better designed. Facilities are superficially similar, but individual layouts will differ. Fewer vehicles, but they can actually be customized now.

How do you know they are far better designed? There seem to be quite a few people with the opposite opinion to yours.

Loadouts have always been limited. They are now limited in a different way. MAX units gain mucho customization.

Yeah, but then the question arrises, do MAX units need to gain mucho customization, or should they be niche units? Just saying they get that doesn't mean it's good design. You need to rationalise WHY they need to get that. So far I lack that rationalisation of why you get both power and armour and why you would ever pick another class during defense if there are no timers. And especially why it would be a good thing that 1000 players don't even need to invest in the class in order to pull it period. Meaning you can instantly create MAX crashes, which means people WILL. And that doesn't sound like a balanced system if everyone can be everything at the same time, it means the most skewed balance classes will be overused.

Imagine in CoD you could pick between normal class and Juggernaught freely (needs headshot with explosive weapon to kill). You think that'd "balance out" when you hand such power to players without giving up much?

You mean my creative rexo/ha/deci interior loadout? Or my rexo/MA/ESAV outside loadout? Or my creative Agile/ma + glue gun in the pack driver loadout?

All of those have their weaknesses and strengths.

What if you want to play a Battlefield MMOFPS?

How about we just play PLANETSIDE, version 2? Because you know, we've been wanting to play a proper PLANETSIDE MMOFPS for years again that would improve on the original. Not scrap its core concept completely. If you want to play a BF MMOFPS, how about you wait for the core franchise of BF to do that?

[Marsgrim]

Originally Posted by Figment

That for obvious balance reasons you'd never give a cloaker a bolt driver?



How do you know they are far better designed? There seem to be quite a few people with the opposite opinion to yours.



Yeah, but then the question arrises, do MAX units need to gain mucho customization, or should they be niche units? Just saying they get that doesn't mean it's good design. You need to rationalise WHY they need to get that. So far I lack that rationalisation of why you get both power and armour and why you would ever pick another class during defense if there are no timers. And especially why it would be a good thing that 1000 players don't even need to invest in the class in order to pull it period. Meaning you can instantly create MAX crashes, which means people WILL. And that doesn't sound like a balanced system if everyone can be everything at the same time, it means the most skewed balance classes will be overused.

Imagine in CoD you could pick between normal class and Juggernaught freely (needs headshot with explosive weapon to kill). You think that'd "balance out" when you hand such power to players without giving up much?



All of those have their weaknesses and strengths.



How about we just play PLANETSIDE, version 2? Because you know, we've been wanting to play a proper PLANETSIDE MMOFPS for years again that would improve on the original. Not scrap its core concept completely. If you want to play a BF MMOFPS, how about you wait for the core franchise of BF to do that?

This is a very good post, and I hadn't appreciated the impact of the current MAX design. 300 MAXes defending a base with instant respawn and repull.

Further to that, only 3 base layouts is effectively playing the same 3 BF/COD maps all the time and rather disappointing.

[Skittles]

Originally Posted by Marsgrim

This is a very good post, and I hadn't appreciated the impact of the current MAX design. 300 MAXes defending a base with instant respawn and repull.

Further to that, only 3 base layouts is effectively playing the same 3 BF/COD maps all the time and rather disappointing.

Thats if you even get the chance to play the 3 base layouts. There was a post someplace Im not interested in searching for, that stated theres something like 18 capture points to a biolab. Its certainly with in the realm of reasoning to suggest that your entire night may very well be 6hrs of capture Biolab X, much like Cyssor/Cery bridge battles.


Against the 300+ max btw

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Skittles

Thats if you even get the chance to play the 3 base layouts. There was a post someplace Im not interested in searching for, that stated theres something like 18 capture points to a biolab. Its certainly with in the realm of reasoning to suggest that your entire night may very well be 6hrs of capture Biolab X, much like Cyssor/Cery bridge battles.


Against the 300+ max btw

You may have forgotten "tiny door chokepoints at the barracks leading straight outside" in there (which is either defensively "awesum", or would otherwise lead to getting pinned down fast by heavy spam weaponry and result in predictable movement patterns from a single source. Aka Cave Redoubts/Module Buildings. >.> The way the doorshields work will also be very impacting.

Definitely something I'll be looking at critically during Beta.

[cellinaire]

Hmm.... I thought there will be 3 base types and the things like 'layout within bases/object placement' will be different(will vary) in all bases.


Furthermore, compared to the case of PS1, many 'outposts' in PS2 will be a lot more diverse in ther layouts/appearances/locations(an outpost built within canyon or in the middle of desert) and exciting. Heh

[ItsTheSheppy]

I feel like my central point is being lost in the chaff.

You and I (and I'm using the 'you' here generally, not specifically) may disagree about whether or not basically remaking Battlefield and slapping Planetside decals over it is a good idea. Personally, I think it's just going to alienate people who were hoping for Planetside. On top of that, the people who were hoping for Battlefield will probably just find themselves disappointed that it's not Battlefield and wander back to BF3, since the original will always do it better than an imitator.

Oh goody, we might retain the minority subset who really were hoping for a Battlefield knockoff in space with bigger environments? Gee whiz, aim for the stars.

No, my central point is this:

There seems to be little to no actual innovation on display.

The only new element I've seen is the Wraith, or whatever the Vanu aircraft is called. Sitting here, typing out this post, I cannot summon to mind anything else that's actually "new"; that wasn't in PS1 and, more importantly, that wasn't cribbed from other games. Oh, the Pulsar looks different, I guess. Some of the weapons have been replaced with other versions so... zero-sum difference there...

Everything we've seen from SOE so far is old-hat stuff we've seen done better, elsewhere. The game mechanics seems cribbed from BF3 almost wholesale, right down to the killcams, lack of vehicle enter/exit animations, soldier kits, and so forth. The leveling/cert system, the one thing about PS1 that made it truly unique, has been replaced by a system cribbed almost directly from EVE. (A system that to this day is debatable in its quality).

Most importantly, though, is that the innovations that truly made Planetside unique, that made it different and special among the thousands and thousands of games out there, have been reduced. Three facilities? Three continents? Fewer vehicles, starkly reduced player loadout variability? All I'm seeing is less, less, less.

And the saddest part is, people are so hungry for a PS2 sequel they've got their blinders on and are just hand-waving this away, because they're happy to get what little they look to be getting. Or they're comforted because Higby will say "Well not at launch, but AFTER launch..." as if that ellipsis at the end contains an actual promise of some kind, whereas what it really means is nothing. Saying 'but after launch...' is functionally the same as saying 'We'll see, maybe.' Which isn't saying much at all.

I'm not seeing anything new. I'm not seeing any attempt to truly make a splash with something innovative. PS2 looks to be a hodge-podge of other people's ideas shoehorned into a product wherein they've cut numerous corners to get it out as fast as possible and start milking that f2p revenue. It looks weak, and that makes me nervous.

[Skittles]

Originally Posted by Figment

You may have forgotten "tiny door chokepoints at the barracks leading straight outside" in there (which is either defensively "awesum", or would otherwise lead to getting pinned down fast by heavy spam weaponry and result in predictable movement patterns from a single source. Aka Cave Redoubts/Module Buildings. >.> The way the doorshields work will also be very impacting.

Definitely something I'll be looking at critically during Beta.

Im sorry, Im not sure what you mean by your post in relationship to mine?

Im saying its quite possible that we may end up having to fight for the base for hours and hours based on the sheer numbers of capture points and Marsgrim/YOUR comment about 300+ untimed maxes. I would assume there are chokepoints in every base or building, its the nature of the beast.

I essentially agree with your post and Marsgrim's, and would further advance that at some point yes, there will be 300+ maxes running around because there is NO penalty for pulling that many. Especially since now we dont need a REK to retake the CC, just a mass of meatshields will suffice.

[Skittles]

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I feel like my central point is being lost in the chaff.

You and I (and I'm using the 'you' here generally, not specifically) may disagree about whether or not basically remaking Battlefield and slapping Planetside decals over it is a good idea. Personally, I think it's just going to alienate people who were hoping for Planetside. On top of that, the people who were hoping for Battlefield will probably just find themselves disappointed that it's not Battlefield and wander back to BF3, since the original will always do it better than an imitator.

Oh goody, we might retain the minority subset who really were hoping for a Battlefield knockoff in space with bigger environments? Gee whiz, aim for the stars.

No, my central point is this:

There seems to be little to no actual innovation on display.

The only new element I've seen is the Wraith, or whatever the Vanu aircraft is called. Sitting here, typing out this post, I cannot summon to mind anything else that's actually "new"; that wasn't in PS1 and, more importantly, that wasn't cribbed from other games. Oh, the Pulsar looks different, I guess. Some of the weapons have been replaced with other versions so... zero-sum difference there...

Everything we've seen from SOE so far is old-hat stuff we've seen done better, elsewhere. The game mechanics seems cribbed from BF3 almost wholesale, right down to the killcams, lack of vehicle enter/exit animations, soldier kits, and so forth. The leveling/cert system, the one thing about PS1 that made it truly unique, has been replaced by a system cribbed almost directly from EVE. (A system that to this day is debatable in its quality).

Most importantly, though, is that the innovations that truly made Planetside unique, that made it different and special among the thousands and thousands of games out there, have been reduced. Three facilities? Three continents? Fewer vehicles, starkly reduced player loadout variability? All I'm seeing is less, less, less.

And the saddest part is, people are so hungry for a PS2 sequel they've got their blinders on and are just hand-waving this away, because they're happy to get what little they look to be getting. Or they're comforted because Higby will say "Well not at launch, but AFTER launch..." as if that ellipsis at the end contains an actual promise of some kind, whereas what it really means is nothing. Saying 'but after launch...' is functionally the same as saying 'We'll see, maybe.' Which isn't saying much at all.

I'm not seeing anything new. I'm not seeing any attempt to truly make a splash with something innovative. PS2 looks to be a hodge-podge of other people's ideas shoehorned into a product wherein they've cut numerous corners to get it out as fast as possible and start milking that f2p revenue. It looks weak, and that makes me nervous.

Ive posted before about this, but...........



THIS.....100% THIS

This MF'er has my vote..

QFT

[cellinaire]

Originally Posted by Skittles

Thats if you even get the chance to play the 3 base layouts. There was a post someplace Im not interested in searching for, that stated theres something like 18 capture points to a biolab. Its certainly with in the realm of reasoning to suggest that your entire night may very well be 6hrs of capture Biolab X, much like Cyssor/Cery bridge battles.


Against the 300+ max btw

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

I feel like my central point is being lost in the chaff.



There seems to be little to no actual innovation on display.

The only new element I've seen is the Wraith, or whatever the Vanu aircraft is called. Sitting here, typing out this post, I cannot summon to mind anything else that's actually "new"; that wasn't in PS1 and, more importantly, that wasn't cribbed from other games. Oh, the Pulsar looks different, I guess. Some of the weapons have been replaced with other versions so... zero-sum difference there...

So, you know/have heard about many infos and details about PS2 already, I guess. But 'Wraith'? Obviously from Starcraft, huh?

And it's teh Scythe, man. Traitor of our empire

[Aurmanite]

Every time you say "they're remaking Battlefield and slapping a Planetside paint job on it" you instantly lose any sort of credibility. It's having an opinion without having to actually think about it. It gives you an instant talking point with absolutely no substance.

How many mini-changuns are in Battlefield? What about tri-barreled shotguns? Does Battlefield have regenerative shields? Lasers? Planetside 2 is almost nothing like Battlefield. The only similarities in actual game play revolve around the fact that they're both shooters.

If you can't see how #2 has condensed some of the features from the original, made them more potent and important, perhaps you should check to make sure you aren't wearing the blinders. It certainly looks like there will be more interesting, compelling and diverse game play in the 3 base types they've announced than there ever was in the terrible bases in the original. Did we suddenly forget how shitty the bases were in Planetside? Why are we arguing for having more shit over slightly less excellence? Are you thinking about what you're saying?

The devs have mentioned, over and over again, that they will be adding more post launch. They want to release a tightly honed core game as fast as they can, and add more to it as time goes along. With the addition of ES-assault buggies we will nearly meet the vehicle count of the original. I don't understand this need to have a bunch of shallow one role vehicles that have almost no room for customization. Should the devs really add stuff just to have it? No.

I keep seeing the word 'innovative' being thrown around, that Planetside 2 will lack it. This is going to be a free to play, modern FPS, with resources, certs, levels, classes, and vehicles. Do you understand what the word innovation means?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Skittles

Im sorry, Im not sure what you mean by your post in relationship to mine?

Just saying the situation you described could actually become even worse from a gameplay perspective with design decisions that could potentially amplify the effect.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

The devs have mentioned, over and over again, that they will be adding more post launch. They want to release a tightly honed core game as fast as they can, and add more to it as time goes along. With the addition of ES-assault buggies we will nearly meet the vehicle count of the original. I don't understand this need to have a bunch of shallow one role vehicles that have almost no room for customization. Should the devs really add stuff just to have it? No.

See... you could ALSO have niche vehicles built for specific roles and customize the type of niche weapon that goes on top.

Create a Skyguard platform with 5 different types of customized AA with different mechanics.

Create light, medium and heavy tanks, each with alternative forms of anti vehicular and anti infantry firepower.

This seperates the roles, but still allows for quite extensive customization and characteristics, even gameplay adjustments. I think it's narrowminded to think all roles should be crammed on the same vehicle platform, as that would be "the only way to do customization".

Again, I'll have you refer to World of Tanks, where it is obvious that vehicles with the same role, even the same basic frame, can have very different playstyles. Simply because you put a different weapon on it (fast rof, small caliber, low rof, high caliber, etc), change the amounts of armour in specific locations of the tank (customize weakspots for certain battlefield roles) and more.


Say you have a Tank Destroyer chassis, you could customize it into a flamethrower tank. Or for instance a fast relocating, nimble, lightly armoured, harassment TD that is more adapt to fighting in swampy areas and more capable of rotating and firing fast but with low damage, so it can deal with fasts moving targets better. Or you could make it heavier, with thick frontal armour and a big, slow reload gun, that's adapt at taking out slow moving, heavy tanks. In the latter case it would have very poor handling and rotating speeds, making it vulnerable to buggies.

Anti-aircraft could have both a heavy and slow chassis with strong AA to be used against Galaxy and Liberator class aircraft. While a light and nimble chassis could have weapons that are more suited at taking out light and fast moving aircraft.

Aircraft with one single design are from an aerodynamic pov not suited for every role. There's a HUGE difference in use between the platforms of for instance an A-10 Thunderbolt, an AH-64 Apache and a F-14 Tomcat. Making ONE single frame that is used for A2A and A2G alike is... Meh. The handling can't differ as much as it could with multiple types of units. A Messerschmidt 107 fighting a Hurricane or Spitfire is completely different based on their aerodynamic handling characteristics. Different engines, weapon locations, stall speeds and angles result in different top speeds, rotation speeds, etc. PS2 will have a bit of that with its customization, but it won't feel that way because you can't see it. You won't be able to know in advance just how well the opponent will be able to turn, you don't even know if it will have AA missiles or machine guns, which means you can't properly plan your strategy in advance.

Similarly, you could easily define different setups and roles for medium tanks, scout tanks, heavy tanks, buggies, anti-aircraft units, anti-infantry units, etc. Whether you customize one tank or pull another is moot, beyond being able to switch weapons (rather than frame/hull) instantly at a terminal. I really hope you'll be at least stuck in a role so you have to make due with the choices you made. Choice of weaponry should impact your play directly. It should make you at the very least semi-dependent on those allies who brought other types of weaponry.

Making everything a potential jack of all trades will just diminish the variety in gameplay and reduce the variety of strategies you can use to take these out. Learning how to deal with one type of unit or another with completely different characteristics is part of the fun of playing. If they are all the same and all you got is minor visual cues like guns and kibble on the tank, meh. Sure, I can recognise the differences between KV and KV-2s in WoT (different turret and guns), but in the end, I shoot both in the same parts of the hull and there's only a minimal difference in gameplay compared to an entirely different platform like the M4 medium tank variants (basic, Jumbo, Easy 8, etc). Gameplay differences between M4 with 50mm frontal armour or 200mm frontal armour and a speed difference between the two of 20km/h are pretty big, but not by far as big as gameplay differences between M4 variants and the KV and KV-2. More platforms is more diverse base-stats and base-gameplay to customize.

Less is not always more. Often, less is simply less.