Be Constructive when referencing PlanetSide 1

[Figment]

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

He doesn't have to prove anything in that respect when it's his opinion on the matter of game quality. That's the thing about opinions, everyone has one and they are all valid.

That's the thing, if he just likes something better and states his reasons, I couldn't agree more.

Thing is, there's a claim of antiquation of PS1 systems due to being a decade old. I find that hypocritical, because the current systems aren't new systems, they're just different design choices that haven't really been used in a MMOFPS yet. They're untested on this scale, but that doesn't mean they're actually new systems or design choices. The problem is that it shows in gameplay problems why those design choices wern't made in 2001-2003, as they were available then as well as options.

Hence I'm questioning that claim and would like to see some evidence of this supposed antiquation. In fact, when I compare design elements, the "new" systems seem more antiquated and conservative to me and horseshoed in.

Don't forget, the MMOFPS genre is still being pioneered. So anything applied from (traditional/conservative) multiplayer FPS games is actually a form of conservatism. Even if you could argue retaining PS1 stuff is also a form of conservatism, the PS1 systems were actually a progressive mixture of evolutions of RTS and FPS game mechanics. The gameplay that's copied now from "modern games" seems primarily based on quite traditional FPS design vision.

Personally I think that PS1 is better balanced, features better metagaming and I would like to see underground bases again. I don't see PS2 being so much inferior as much as I do incomplete, I guess that in some ways that could be viewed as being the same thíng.

I can agree with that, I think the game hasn't lived up to its potential (virtually at all yet) and that this is primarily due to not learning from PS1 and evolving the systems, but starting from scratch and radicaly reinventing the wheel and forcing it into a square, because the other games are squares.

I mean, Far Cry 2 pushed the envelope of solo player FPS gaming in a lot of ways, things that PS1 already did with several free roaming open worlds (!). PS1 did things no game had ever even dared dream off and it had more ambition than technology could chew at times. But is PS2 beyond enlarging the scale really evolving the genre and ambitious in evolving things? PS2 is a bit of a mix-match of hit and miss design and perhaps too preoccupied with matching solo-mini multiplayer games to be really as ambitious to push the envelope and screw FPS gaming conventions as much as the original Verant team did. :/ Don't get me wrong, PS2's engine and graphics push the envelope by miles, but as of yet I don't have the same feeling about the gameplay and it just feels unrefined and a step back, rather than forwards in that respect.

That's why PS1 remains such a source of ideas.


@Assist: October '03. Not '04, you're right on that one. However, it didn't lose the amount of pop you suggested (it lost around 10% pop then) and the pop was quite stable after the Flails had been nerfed. In fact, people started to come back prior to the bending.

And you honestly can't compare it to other MMO's. Different genres of games attract different playerbases, not to mention marketing efforts of other games being much better. In fact, one could argue that being one of the only FPS games (if not the only one from a rather unknown developer, Verant) on a monthly subscription was a much bigger issue than gameplay. And not actually selling in European stores where everyone else got their games and learned about the existence of games might have had something to do with not getting wild amounts of players in as well.

Most people never heard of it, so how could they ever flock to it?

You're not being fair and rather closeminded to the existence of external factors to the game. Pinning everything on core gameplay is just weak. Besides, the marketing effort this time around was far more encompassing and far more internationally oriented and viralled on youtube. Youtube was in its infancy during PS1. In fact, I'm not even sure how often I saw a Youtube video at that point since my connection had been a 4k modem for a long time. In fact... I know off players who tried to play PS1 with a 4k modem...

Your comparison is extremely unfair and I'd like you to at least admit that.





As for elements missing, it's more than that. Why? Because we're talking about the presence of substitute systems. Some can't be helped due to graphical demands, but some are simply a choice for a different gameplay flow.

A central building with a clear perimeter, or a group of buildings with no clear perimeter are the different design philosophies for bases. Things like that are conscious design choices and were based on wanting to do away with epic choke point holds, which is to a point quite understandable as it could get really messy with all the "300" last stands.

However, they went too far and that's a design comparison that isn't a simple 1-2 fix.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

I am one of the "newbs" to Planetside. If you can call someone with 6+ days played a newb. Even if I play 1000 hours of PS2, I'll still be pigeonholed into the newb category because I never played PS1. Not to say I haven't read up about PS1 when faced with "you don't know anything" arguments.

Kerrec, 6+ days is a drop of water on a hot plate for a game with a learning curve as big as PS's. It's really, really, very little. You know how many people got on the highests command chat in PS1 after years of grinding CEP and were just making the shittiest calls ever just because they thought they got it, but in reality were just going to ruin the entire campaign?

Loads more than you can imagine...



We get it, you don't like being called an inexperienced newbee just because you're an older gamer. BUT YOU ARE. SORRY. Accept it and move on.

The problem is rather than doing that, you regularly make extremely presumptious argumentations and often maintain a position that has been proven wrong a decade before you even tried to make the assertion. You just don't know that and you can't know that. And why? Because you use assumptions instead of experience.

I personally lose respect for people who can't admit that they're not knowledgeable of everything if they're new to something. I mean, if I told an electrician "you can't know things better than me, I've got a few hours of wiring experience", he'd look at me funny too and I'd look like an utter tool.


I mean, take your current stance:

1) PS2 is a Free to Play game. 3 characters per account, and an individual can make infinite accounts to get around any kind of restriction. Any kind of restriction that forces players to switch accounts to do what they want will just piss off players instead of improve the game.
2) PS2 makes it's money from microtransactions. Things have been bought, and new game mechanics forcing a player to permanently choose between one thing he's bought and another thing he's bought will never happen. Same as flat out removing something that has been in the game and purchased by players.
3) A server can have 6000 players on it. 2000 per continent. It is unlikely, but feasible that a large portion of those 2000 players MAY end up in one area. This is NOT good. The game NEEDS those players to be more spread out over a larger area.

1. Wrong.

Account restrictions can be circumvented, but account character progress cannot. There is no reason to switch account, instead, there's more reason to stay on your account's characters and NOT switch accounts because it has significantly more progression.

2. Wrong again.

World of Tanks is entirely microtransaction related as well and removal and replacement of products and readjustments of costs have been extremely regular occurances. If you give significant warning beforehand and compensate players plenty, they'll easily accept any changes. In fact, items to be replaced were extremely popular to get BECAUSE they were being replaced. Why? Because the compensation was very lucrative for players.

We're talking about gold purchased tanks like the Type-59, the T-34 tier reduction (nerf) and turning into a gold tank while being replaced by another tank, the KV-2 being split from the KV-1, the Pershing being lowered a tier to make room for the M46 Patton, the KV-3 and IS-4 moving a tier up, a dozen or so French tanks having all their stats changed entirely (for the worse) and the list goes on. Players simply got their money back, an extra tank, or some other digital commodity and SOE can easily do the same by resetting cert points and station cash on a weapon that's adjusted or replaced.

How does the game do? It is currently one of, if not the most successful and moneymaking f2p game in the world.

3. Which doesn't preclude the notion that they need to be guided. They need more options than in PS1, certainly, but not per se "this" many options. Especially not when you consider that the continent count will increase over time and more two-ways will start to occur.

[Assist]

Originally Posted by Tatwi

"My guess" - Figment's case closed. Assist, you can guess all you like until you're blue in the face, but it would be appreciated if you would stop attacking people (in this thread and others) who don't reside within your particular interpretation of reality. It seems as though anyone who does not kiss your ass and blindly agrees with you ends up being a target of your attempts to invalidate their perspective. It's childish, annoying, and entirely unhelpful. Give it a rest.

What? How did I attack anyone? Post was about people being constructive when referencing Planetside1. Guy posted that he believes it's Planetside 2 players who ruin these threads. I disagreed. Figment posted numbers he believed about PS1, I disagreed and responded. You posted that I should stop posting because it's childish, annoying, and entirely unhelpful.

Because I said 'my guess', based on statements from the CEO of the company who runs the game, suddenly I'm being childish, annoying, and entirely unhelpful? Thanks for proving my point about Planetside 1 vets who feel their opinion is more important and should drowned out the opinions of everyone else.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Figment

That's the thing, if he just likes something better and states his reasons, I couldn't agree more.

Thing is, there's a claim of antiquation of PS1 systems due to being a decade old. I find that hypocritical, because the current systems aren't new systems, they're just different design choices that haven't really been used in a MMOFPS yet. They're untested on this scale, but that doesn't mean they're actually new systems or design choices. The problem is that it shows in gameplay problems why those design choices wern't made in 2001-2003, as they were available then as well as options.

Hence I'm questioning that claim and would like to see some evidence of this supposed antiquation. In fact, when I compare design elements, the "new" systems seem more antiquated and conservative to me and horseshoed in.

Don't forget, the MMOFPS genre is still being pioneered. So anything applied from (traditional/conservative) multiplayer FPS games is actually a form of conservatism. Even if you could argue retaining PS1 stuff is also a form of conservatism, the PS1 systems were actually a progressive mixture of evolutions of RTS and FPS game mechanics. The gameplay that's copied now from "modern games" seems primarily based on quite traditional FPS design vision.

I can agree with that, I think the game hasn't lived up to its potential (virtually at all yet) and that this is primarily due to not learning from PS1 and evolving the systems, but starting from scratch and radicaly reinventing the wheel and forcing it into a square, because the other games are squares.

I mean, Far Cry 2 pushed the envelope of solo player FPS gaming in a lot of ways, things that PS1 already did with several free roaming open worlds (!). PS1 did things no game had ever even dared dream off and it had more ambition than technology could chew at times. But is PS2 beyond enlarging the scale really evolving the genre and ambitious in evolving things? PS2 is a bit of a mix-match of hit and miss design and perhaps too preoccupied with matching solo-mini multiplayer games to be really as ambitious to push the envelope and screw FPS gaming conventions as much as the original Verant team did. :/ Don't get me wrong, PS2's engine and graphics push the envelope by miles, but as of yet I don't have the same feeling about the gameplay and it just feels unrefined and a step back, rather than forwards in that respect.

That's why PS1 remains such a source of ideas.

As for elements missing, it's more than that. Why? Because we're talking about the presence of substitute systems. Some can't be helped due to graphical demands, but some are simply a choice for a different gameplay flow.

A central building with a clear perimeter, or a group of buildings with no clear perimeter are the different design philosophies for bases. Things like that are conscious design choices and were based on wanting to do away with epic choke point holds, which is to a point quite understandable as it could get really messy with all the "300" last stands.

However, they went too far and that's a design comparison that isn't a simple 1-2 fix.

Fair enough. To me, having to prove something infers that it is either true or false, might not be the proper definition though so I won't press the point further.

Well I do agree that just because a concept is percieved as being old doesn't meant that it's antiquated or out of date. Most gameplay mechanics/features etc. are old, weathered and worn. I don't think that they choose the new direction just because PS1 was old but because they wanted to do something different, for whatever reason... Be it because they percieved the new generation as not wanting the old system or something else, well we can only speculate.

You can question his opinion all you want, that's part of what makes it an discussion after all The evidence that you desire is his view on the matter. There are after all people who view letters as being antiquated and those who still swear by them. Probably not a very good analogy. How about... Most people would probably view the old FPS RPGs as being antiquated, like the old Might and Magic games, when compared to RPG's like Skyrim. But there were many who loved Legend of Grimrock. I most certainly don't believe that gamers suddenly become unable to appreciate a system just because it's "old" or it's more complicated, for example the inventory system didn't hurt Deus Ex Human Revolution at all.
There are probably many today who would view the old school inventory system as being outdated and those like me who positivity loves fiddling with inventory tetris.
You can certainly make a case as to what benefits different systems provide, but prove? I don't see that happening, except in some very obvious cases where something just doesn't fit into the gameplay.
Anyway I do agree that, for the most part, game mechanics don't become outdated. Out of style perhaps, but not outdated.
(In this regard I define out of style as meaning something that isn't popular and outdated as meaning something that is obsolete.)

If you define conversative in terms of doing with what is the most popular/"safe" option then yes I would agree. Of course it's harder to make that claim with MMOFPS' since that's a niche market, unless you also count FPS' with a focus on multiplayer.

Well that's certainly one view on the matter. While I most certainly agree that PS2 is far from complete. I agree that there are certainly features of PS1 that could have been expanded upon instead of replaced, like MBT crew requirements. I do also believe that there are things that are better left where they are, like the class system. Of course that's just based on my own preferences.
Obviously it's the most obvious choice considering it's the only precedent to be found. What I would generally speaking think they need more of is ambition when it comes to designing things like the resource system, base capture mechanics, as examples.

Again I would certainly agree that I've seen a lack of ambition when it comes design choices. I would be lying if I didn't agree that PS2 does feel unrefined and it doesn't give anywhere near the same sense of planetary warfare that PS1 did.

Indeed it does. It is afterall the only precedent to be found.

Aye indeed they are, which also serves as part of the problem when it comes to wanting certain changes made. While it can certainly be frustating to see, there are certain changes that the devs are adamant about keeping, for various reasons such as not wanting scare away players with sweeping changes to systems already in place. Like for example I don't like how every vehicle and aircraft in the game are able to fill so many different roles, I however don't expect them to change it because of how much time players have already spent using them. Won't stop me from wanting the change though and who knows perhaps the devs will open up to such a change at some point.

I agree about base their choice in base designs, there are only so many smaller changes that one can make to a preexisting design before having to remake it more thoroughly. In that respect I do like the design ideas that you, and others, have put forth in various threads. I am also looking forward to seeing the new interlink facility. Hopefully good feedback from that might spur them into making larger changes.

But yeah, this is hugely offtopic

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Figment

Kerrec, 6+ days is a drop of water on a hot plate for a game with a learning curve as big as PS's. It's really, really, very little. You know how many people got on the highests command chat in PS1 after years of grinding CEP and were just making the shittiest calls ever just because they thought they got it, but in reality were just going to ruin the entire campaign?

Loads more than you can imagine...



We get it, you don't like being called an inexperienced newbee just because you're an older gamer. BUT YOU ARE. SORRY. Accept it and move on.

The problem is rather than doing that, you regularly make extremely presumptious argumentations and often maintain a position that has been proven wrong a decade before you even tried to make the assertion. You just don't know that and you can't know that. And why? Because you use assumptions instead of experience.

I personally lose respect for people who can't admit that they're not knowledgeable of everything if they're new to something. I mean, if I told an electrician "you can't know things better than me, I've got a few hours of wiring experience", he'd look at me funny too and I'd look like an utter tool.


I mean, take your current stance:



1. Wrong.

Account restrictions can be circumvented, but account character progress cannot. There is no reason to switch account, instead, there's more reason to stay on your account's characters and NOT switch accounts because it has significantly more progression.

2. Wrong again.

World of Tanks is entirely microtransaction related as well and removal and replacement of products and readjustments of costs have been extremely regular occurances. If you give significant warning beforehand and compensate players plenty, they'll easily accept any changes. In fact, items to be replaced were extremely popular to get BECAUSE they were being replaced. Why? Because the compensation was very lucrative for players.

We're talking about gold purchased tanks like the Type-59, the T-34 tier reduction (nerf) and turning into a gold tank while being replaced by another tank, the KV-2 being split from the KV-1, the Pershing being lowered a tier to make room for the M46 Patton, the KV-3 and IS-4 moving a tier up, a dozen or so French tanks having all their stats changed entirely (for the worse) and the list goes on. Players simply got their money back, an extra tank, or some other digital commodity and SOE can easily do the same by resetting cert points and station cash on a weapon that's adjusted or replaced.

How does the game do? It is currently one of, if not the most successful and moneymaking f2p game in the world.

3. Which doesn't preclude the notion that they need to be guided. They need more options than in PS1, certainly, but not per se "this" many options. Especially not when you consider that the continent count will increase over time and more two-ways will start to occur.

Case in point.

AND as much as I'd like to argue your opinions, it would be derailing this thread. I went out of my way to not single out anyone and touch the issues I felt needed commenting that were relevant to the topic.

Quote what I wrote in a new thread and I'll discuss. But I'm not going to be baited into derailing this one.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Case in point.

Eh we all know I've called you out on that the most. But even if you don't like it, doesn't mean it can't be true. We're simply not all equals in this world on every subject and dismissing something out of hand even though one knows it to be fact can be equally aggravating.

AND as much as I'd like to argue your opinions, it would be derailing this thread. I went out of my way to not single out anyone and touch the issues I felt needed commenting that were relevant to the topic.

Quote what I wrote in a new thread and I'll discuss. But I'm not going to be baited into derailing this one.

Fair enough and quite right, getting to the point of derailment. Focus a new thread on your assertions? I guess the experience thing is an agree to disagree thing anyway.