Don't dumb down PS2

[Buggsy]

Plastic KMA I ain't coming back till there's a properly modeled logistics system, so I can blow the shit out of people with the big artillery.

Originally Posted by Klockan

Now, that frontline is roughly 8km wide.

That's not a frontline. It's a fancy version of capture the flag where a point in space is the flag, and places of interest is a circle which centers on the point.

In PS1 a frontline is between 2 capture points, where 2 circles meet, like between a tower and a base. Players gradually extend the frontline to the left and to the right. Someone can drive an AMS all the way around a base and setup behind enemy lines, but the probability of being intercepted and destroyed is high.

With the flying AMS in PS2, this risk of the flying AMS galaxy being intercepted reduced to almost zero, it's risk of being destroyed setting up anywhere around the target is equal on all sides, so the frontline turns into a series tiny circles (infantry spawning infantry) and larger circles (flying AMS galaxy). It's kind of goofy.




As inferior as this classic CTF system is....



It's much better than COD random spawning where enemies appear out of the blue.

N is your spawn point, S is enemy spawn point. The magnetic lines is where the cat herding takes place, where most players just go in a straight line towards a target, less numbers of payers play flank-man, and even less numbers of players go all the way round to the rear of the enemy.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

You make it sound like disabling is one small change compared to a ton of empowering changes you list but you underestimate the effect disabling actually has.

Then explain to me how getting disabled after 3 (or even more thanks to reactive armor) AT shots to the front (and 2 more to kill it) makes tanks worse than simply getting 1 or 2 shot in BF2 from the FRONT.



And link me a video where a tank is doing this good against infantry in BF2.



Enough with the bullshitting. Tanks are wayyyy stronger in BF3.

[The Loverator]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

Signed, A very angry person who just bought the dumbed down Diablo 3.

Sorry, but...

1.) You got what you deserve for bying a Crap-Hybrid between "Console" (*pukes*) and the PC.


2.) You got WHAT you deserve for not being patient and observe instead of blind buying something in Hype-Mood.


3.) You got what YOU deserve for NOT being careful about a UNSOCIAL Firm,
who is known for SPITTING on the Player's/Fan's Wishes, their Love for Games like Warcraft, Starcraft - and Diablo.



Seriously, some Gamers should just learn not to trust other People blindly. And it's almost Divine Wisdom by now,
that some Game Developers and Producers are greedy as Hell, give a Sh** about the Community/Player's,
AND often make use of a Successor of one or several, successful Game's which where Forerunner's.


Examples:

Gothic 1 and 2 - were pretty epic. What was with Gothic 3?? It was "dirty".
Big, beautiful World - but "no Gothic". The same Crap with Gothic 4, Arcania - "a Gothic Fail"


AvP 1 and 2 - nice Games. What was AvP 3/2010?? Interesting Singleplayer-Mode,
but the Multiplayer was simply said Trash. Poor, loveless Console-Sport.


F.E.A.R.3. - "worse" Version of AvP3 in a slightly other Setting and Genre.
The Singleplayer was h~aaaaaard whipped to a Game which was at least a bit worthy of a Player's Time,

and the Multiplayer - "unbelievable" - was even M.O.R.E of an Epic Fail as AvP3!!
Not even a Server-List/Dedicated Servers - and the smallest Crap-Playercounts ever.



Do i need to count up more Failures of Games from the greedy Game Industry nowadays?

No, i don't have to. And i know that at least Planetside 2 will be a Milestone of Epicness,
compared to the Trash the Game-Market is overflooded with in the actual Days.

And while Guildwars 2 will be a Heaven for Fantasy-Fan's, Planetside 2 will be a Heaven for Shooter-Fan's.
O~hhh J~eeeaaah, Ladies and Gentlemen.




greetings, LV.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

The actual purpose of it in BF3 was to nerf vehicles relative to infantry to cater to CoD infantry focus players, though, remember. That won't work in PS2.

Frustration from constant and persistent disabling isn't dynamic. It's routine. There's nothing dynamic about constantly being hit and forced to repair to move. Especially since in larger battles it's deadly, your engineer gets out to repair and he's dead due to the scale(there's always someone there to shoot him).

Doubling the health of a tank and then making them get disabled at 50% is making the tanks weaker how? When you get disabled in bf3 you would usually be dead in bf2. There is nothing fun with getting hit and being forced to die and respawn either. In bf2142 which was the first battlefield with directional armor you actually did one hit tanks from behind, in bf3 that is barely a disable. In bf2 you were almost dead after 2 shots to the front, in bf3 you are almost disabled after 2 shots to the front. Disabling vehicles is catering to the noobs, yes, but not the infantry noobs but the tank noobs since it allows them to survive even when the tank goes down.

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Landtank

I was actually just talking to a friend about how awesome it would be if it had a similar system to World of Tanks, where you can get hit in various spots and it would damage that module, ie the treads, turret rotation, ammo rack etc.

That would be such a fantastic addition to Planetside 2, but it's a hell of a long shot :P

That would be pretty cool. Armor plate thickness in WWIIONLINE added some tactical complexity in that game.

Complex=good
Simple=bad

Originally Posted by The Loverator

Sorry, but...

1.) You got what you deserve for bying a Crap-Hybrid between "Console" (*pukes*) and the PC.

Hey man, I'm usually careful about this stuff. I always read the user reviews before buying, this time I screwed up. MY BAD!

2.) You got WHAT you deserve for not being patient and observe instead of blind buying something in Hype-Mood.

I haven't bought a game in 3 years, I figured, "Hey how can Blizzard possibly screw up Diablo?"

3.) You got what YOU deserve for NOT being careful about a UNSOCIAL Firm,
who is known for SPITTING on the Player's/Fan's Wishes, their Love for Games like Warcraft, Starcraft - and Diablo.

I don't need you to beat me up on this, I've already done my flagellant time.

Originally Posted by Landtank

Stop ignoring people who disagree with you, this is the second time you've done this.

I think I got like 8 people on the ignore list now.

Electrofreak always has constructive posts, including the one addressed to you, and you just ignore it.

The game will be better off without people who can't comprehend the fact that the game isn't finished, it's an extremely easy to understand concept.

@Stardouser: I agree with many of your points, but if the devs want a successful game then they have to cater to multiple crowds, including those who don't already play PS1. Some of those casualizations are a good thing, especially the vehicle disable. It allows for more dynamic gameplay instead of simple rock-paper-scissors gameplay, agree?

COD/BF3 crowd haven't been exposed to MMOFPS games like WWIIONLINE or PS1, they don't know what they like.

Yeah I know it sounds presumptuous of me, but allow me to expand on that: the COD/BF3 crowd are like toddlers, they will be spoon fed anything with good graphics and enjoy it.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by roguy

Then explain to me how getting disabled after 3 (or even more thanks to reactive armor) AT shots to the front (and 2 more to kill it) makes tanks worse than simply getting 1 or 2 shot in BF2 from the FRONT.

And link me a video where a tank is doing this good against infantry in BF2.

Enough with the bullshitting. Tanks are wayyyy stronger in BF3.

I'm not playing the video linking game. Think what you wish of that. As far as the videos you linked, you expect to be taken seriously showing a controlled noncombat situation set up just to prove 1 hit kills, that are rare in actual combat?

That said, you're trying to prove that just because a BF3 tank can take an extra hit or two that that makes them more powerful. I never said that BF2 tanks could take more hits or that disabling meant BF3 tanks could take less hits. I said BF3 tanks are nerfed relative to infantry. That does not mean that the discussion is reduced to comparing which game has tanks that can take more hits.

If it makes you happy then sure, I'll say that BF3 tanks can take more hits.

[Buggsy]

The reason tanks are so weak in Battlefield games is because the map is so small, map is easily memorized, and there is no AMS.

Both MMOFPS (wwiionline and PS1) have large maps, hard to memorize, and there are infantry spawn points; so having more powerful tanks is not a big deal.

It would be a mistake to create BF3/BF2 type of weak tanks.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

That would be pretty cool. Armor plate thickness in WWIIONLINE added some tactical complexity in that game.

Complex=good
Simple=bad

Word, but I don't like complexity for complexity's sake. If something can be made streamlined simply because it makes more sense, then do it. I'm all for hardcore games, but I want this to cater to multiple groups of people so that it is successful and can have large populations for a very long time. However I do want depth, absolutely, it just has to be implemented right, and I won't be able to judge anything until I play it in beta!

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Landtank

Word, but I don't like complexity for complexity's sake.]

Me neither, I know what that means: MOO3

If something can be made streamlined simply because it makes more sense, then do it. I'm all for hardcore games, but I want this to cater to multiple groups of people so that it is successful and can have large populations for a very long time. However I do want depth, absolutely, it just has to be implemented right, and I won't be able to judge anything until I play it in beta!

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Buggsy

The reason tanks are so weak in Battlefield games is because the map is so small, map is easily memorized, and there is no AMS.

Both MMOFPS (wwiionline and PS1) have large maps, hard to memorize, and there are infantry spawn points; so having more powerful tanks is not a big deal.

It would be a mistake to create BF3/BF2 type of weak tanks.

Not to mention how quickly a tank dies when there are 6+ people shooting it with AV guns, which will rarely be a big problem in even a BF scale game, but is a common problem in a Planetside sized game.

I'm guessing the tank armor we've currently seen has been low due to the low number of players they've had, and them wanting to test all of the tank death stuff. But one way or another, they will have to have more armor added by launch, even if it's still less armor than they had in the first game.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by whymad

Excuses excuse look your simply trying not to feel disappointed in the game when its obvious these are the decisions there going to do in the full game.

I make no excuses, because there is no doubt that tanks are going to be death traps if they keep their current hitpoints once a dozen people start laying into them. Either the developers are aware of this and just had them tweaked lower for testing purposes, or the devs are oblivious in this regard and will have to be made to realize there is a problem in beta.

That, or tanks will never get used because they are barely viable in 90% of the situations players would want to use them for. I somehow doubt that useless tanks will make it into release though.

[Traingye]

Buggsy I don't know how you played the game but I can tell you I rarely experienced a 'front line' type situation in PS1. How the game was set up everyone just went from base to base. The only time I can think of were lines would be set up would at bridges, and only because of the bottleneck they caused. The vast majority of battles were more of sieges where one empire would surround a base, eventually take over the court yard and then take unnecessarily long to push to the control console because the poorly designed interiors of the bases.

In PS2 there are more capture points so I believe the fights will be more spread out and creating a more 'front line' type feel to the game. Also I think you are over estimating the capabilities of a Galaxy. Those things are very large and are not meant for sneaking. If someone tries to go fly into enemy territory then most likely they will be noticed and shot down. Even if they do deploy, they can't cloak (currently at least) so they can be spotted easily and destroyed.

I know this has been said but you are talking like you know exactly how the game will unfold. Me, you, and everyone else, not even SOE knows how all this will exactly unfold. We haven't played the game and they haven't played it at scale. All we can do is speculate on what will happen, which is what I did above. You very well might be right in saying that there will be no real front lines, but to say you know that for sure is just factually incorrect. Beta exists so the developers can test the game at something closer to full scale better tune the game mechanics from there. There will be changes, and lots of them.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

As far as the videos you linked, you expect to be taken seriously showing a controlled noncombat situation set up just to prove 1 hit kills, that are rare in actual combat?

That said, you're trying to prove that just because a BF3 tank...

... Can take 3 times the amount of hits and still stay alive?
... has a pocket engineer in the MG seat because he isn't exposed and is more likely to get repaired in battle?
... is less likely to get shot in the rear or to have his repair crew killed because the maps are linear?
... spots infantry easier with IR vision or radar?
... has health regen?
... does more damage?
... can destroy cover and collapse buildings?

Should anyone take you seriously now?

[Buggsy]

Originally Posted by Traingye

Buggsy I don't know how you played the game but I can tell you I rarely experienced a 'front line' type situation in PS1. How the game was set up everyone just went from base to base. The only time I can think of were lines would be set up would at bridges, and only because of the bottleneck they caused. The vast majority of battles were more of sieges where one empire would surround a base, eventually take over the court yard and then take unnecessarily long to push to the control console because the poorly designed interiors of the bases.

In PS2 there are more capture points so I believe the fights will be more spread out and creating a more 'front line' type feel to the game. Also I think you are over estimating the capabilities of a Galaxy. Those things are very large and are not meant for sneaking. If someone tries to go fly into enemy territory then most likely they will be noticed and shot down. Even if they do deploy, they can't cloak (currently at least) so they can be spotted easily and destroyed.

I know this has been said but you are talking like you know exactly how the game will unfold. Me, you, and everyone else, not even SOE knows how all this will exactly unfold. We haven't played the game and they haven't played it at scale. All we can do is speculate on what will happen, which is what I did above. You very well might be right in saying that there will be no real front lines, but to say you know that for sure is just factually incorrect. Beta exists so the developers can test the game at something closer to full scale better tune the game mechanics from there. There will be changes, and lots of them.

It's easy to guess what will happen. People will fly over enemy territory and deploy them everywhere. In front, in back, to the left, to the right of an enemy base. And each flight will have an equal probability of success unlike the AMS system where it was actually harder to deploy on the flanks or the rear of an enemy base. There will be no flank, there will be no rear, there will be no forward area, there will just be a random collection of skirmishes here and there radiating out in a circle from the target base.

In PS1 the front line was between the tower and the enemy town.

[Klockan]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I make no excuses, because there is no doubt that tanks are going to be death traps if they keep their current hitpoints once a dozen people start laying into them. Either the developers are aware of this and just had them tweaked lower for testing purposes, or the devs are oblivious in this regard and will have to be made to realize there is a problem in beta.

That, or tanks will never get used because they are barely viable in 90% of the situations players would want to use them for. I somehow doubt that useless tanks will make it into release though.

All HP is reduced, not just on tanks. And the tanks are not useless, they will just not be used in the same way as in PS1 since they still have longer range and more firepower than infantry. It is like how you could say that infantry is now useless that they die in 0.5 seconds at long ranges from anything.

Originally Posted by Buggsy

In PS1 the front line was between the tower and the enemy town.

Read my post, here the frontline will be over the entire map instead between each hex. You wont fly around that, visual range is really long and it is enough that a few fighters sees you and the galaxy goes down which is a huge amount of credits down the drain.