Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
PSU: Largest consumer of KY Jelly
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register |
PSU Social
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #16 | ||
Staff Sergeant
|
I was speaking to a friend of mine who was in GOLD with me when pump actions came out for PS2. He said that the same thing is happening/happened in H1Z1? Or rather, he said it was worse because people can drive up to you, get out of their cars instantly, then OHK with a pump action?
Supposedly the same weapon dev who did the pump actions in PS2 did the same thing for H1Z1? Or at least, Smedley let it happen? At least in this instance, it seems the same things that happened in PS2 are repeating in H1Z1...that is what I'm getting at. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #17 | |||
Major
|
ex: I hear GTA V Online is 20 players at most per map. PS2 is 2000 per map, 6000 per server initially. MMO RvR PvP is fairly brutal too. One factor is the number of stackable players. It's not uncommon for 50-100+ players facing just 5 players. And those five will quit or switch. I remember an old MMO where I literally just picked up like 3-4 players before an event and we got railroaded by 50+ high geared, high lvl players. Our faction was decimated because after closed beta, players sniffed out that the strongest players will be on one of the sides, so most players switch. The next week, I scraped about 8-10. After several months, we had equal numbers with rest of the other factions. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #18 | |||
Contributor Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #19 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
I don't know about dying too fast but what I was getting at was the duration of a typical play session. I feel they are on the right track with this conquest mode but they need to be running it on BI style/sized "maps". The core issue is persistence. A typical console player will have no appreciation or patience for it. If there is no win or lose banner in less than 30 minute intervals PS2 will not attract much of a lasting audience.
Last edited by Calista; 2015-06-12 at 02:45 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #20 | ||
Captain
|
There you are hitting the core issue with this game and "professional" game development in general, Calista.
Due to several factors (Payment model, production costs, greed, idiocy) the vast majority of (non-indie) games are aimed at the "average joe", the lowest common denominator. That "attract the dudebro" mantra seems to have taken over every aspect, making games lose everything that made them unique in the process and turning companies and players alike into cynical adversaries. With less producion costs and maybe a different monetization method PS2 could have been a profit making unique shooter that would have not been for everyone. But for a dedicated niche audience. But nope, it has to be "all the money" from "everyone", sacrificing creativity and yet another ip in the name of a narrow business view. Gawd, i need to stop coming to here lol. I bet my post history makes me sound like a bitter twat by now. ![]() ALL SMEDS FAULT! ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #21 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
There was no need for this game to attempt 2000 players per continent at launch. If they felt they had that capability then great, put it in the back pocket for a later day. Start the game off smaller with say like 512 on smaller maps would still have dwarfed any other FPS. How much resources have been applied to optimization fixes? A ton, of which could have been allocated elsewhere to improving core gameplay. I lost count of how many "all hands on deck" code freezes happened due to performance issues. Also being free to play it needed to reach as large an audience as possible but in the process of trying to push this 2000 player agenda alienated all but those with high performance PC's. They eventually backed down that pop number to 1200 or so I think but it seems too little too late.
I just hope that the dream of MMOFPS doesn't die with this game. It isn't easy to do but SOE/DGC had a great shot at it and just blew it on so many fronts. I hope by some miracle it takes off on the consoles because at this point that is the only hope. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #22 | ||
Major
|
It's a matter of player retention.
PvE and small scale Multiplayer is designed like a race. The reward is at the end. Most of the time is all about killing. PvP MMO, as PS2 should have been, is designed like a dance. The reward is in the middle and all over. But as it is, PS2 is all about farming and killing. These new console players are used to PvE and Multiplayer shooter and they won't get their reward because they will just keep dying. As opposed to a true PvP where it's all about player interaction (the dance), and not necessarily about just about the result. ex: - Liberators swooping riskily and dangerously to tank bust a Sundy spawn. - Infiltrator sneaking out of spawn to kill 1 or 2 players to get to the capture point. As the point is flipping, get flanked by a heavy assault. or in my case - Rushing a Sunderer to the front amid the crossfiring to break a stalemate, to establish a forward spawn point for attacker (one of the reasons why I dislike the No Deploy Zone immensely; it's implemented by devs who don't even play the game. They don't understand this. Here I am, rushing and risking my Sundy with low probability of survival. If I succeed, there's this stupid circle blocking my deploy button. What's their 'official' reason? Equidistance between offense/defense. Inane reason. Impractical and concocted from graphs and ether imagination not actual gameplay and analysis.) As it is, at the current PS2 version, none of these examples matter because there's no rewards/consequences. It's all about the killing and farming for the Directives. Does it matter if that Sundy spawn dies to the Liberator? Does it matter if that Capture point flipped Does it matter if my Sundy sticks and I manage to spawn players close to the capture point? Atm, no. That's the gameplay they promote. One has to wait 'til September for the PS2 2.0 and that 3 months detached from the PS4 launch. A PvPer would enjoy the dance as is, but these console players conditioned to enjoy just the result, won't get it. Hence, they will be the first to leave. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #23 | ||
First Sergeant
|
Good post from Smed there, just hope he can make it happen.
if we could finally get some longer lasting effects on capturing/losing bases and get rid of the constant 3way randomness on every continent I'm gonna be happy. PS1 you got to fight 1vs1 on a continent in many cases where the battle moved in more predictable strategic/tactical patterns. Here it still is just one side getting the shortest stick randomly and the progress is random, there just isn't that epic feel when the map has only changed slightly or even not at all after coming back to play the next day. PS2 there is no major sense of victory since everything happens fast and easy, nobody is going to be excited capturing the same base for the third time during the same day. It's just a grind to get better gear so you can keep grinding. Last edited by Vashyo; 2015-06-13 at 06:52 PM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #24 | ||
Major
|
First, they have to postpone the erroneous new Gamemode. It will separate off 600 players away from the main game, making it even worse than the 2 WDS debacles
![]() Not to mention the gamemode itself is so lackluster in inspiration and enthusiasm. They could have at least release a vehicle-only gamemode/continent instead: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=58451 They can sell a lot of vehicle cosmetics and weapons and market it as a Mad Max-like fights. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #25 | ||
..... I'll believe it when I see it until then I'm betting on a PS-CU or PS-NGE
![]()
__________________
![]() ![]() "Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain't no going back. I mean shit, it's what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it! If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight. " Slim Charles aka Tallman - The Wire BRTD Mumble Server powered by Gamercomms |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #27 | |||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Battle rank and gear available matters more in PS2 than it does in PS1. Sad.
__________________
![]() ![]() Retired NC CR5, Cerberus Company. Not currently playing PS2. Anyone with a similar name is not me. My only characters are listed in my stats profile here on PSU. Last edited by p0intman; 2015-06-22 at 04:13 PM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #28 | ||
PS1 was an abomination of bad balance and worthless ideas. Many of the vehicles were useless, many weapons were essentially worthless, and everyone gravitated to cookie-cutter loadouts. Reavers/mossies in particular were hilariously imbalanced, being one-man murder machines in a game where tanks had a dedicated driver, plus they doubled as the ideal form of transport, and made galaxies next to worthless. As a game, PS2 is far better designed than PS1 ever was.
And the notion that skill mattered more in PS1 is similarly a laugh. The game didn't even have headshots, and weapons were amazingly primitive. It takes far more FPS skill to be successful in PS2 than in PS1. You do not know what you're talking about if you think BR and gear are what matters in PS2. As for the blops criticisms, there's nothing about allowing players to switch on a whim in the roadmap description. It says that if pop becomes "heavily skewed" you may be prompted to temporarily switch to the underdog side. It will likely be random, and it will be contingent upon population imbalance. People won't be able to simply hop around sides as it suits them. I also don't believe you're correct in assuming that people will somehow leave the game if they play more than one side. Plenty of people have characters on two or three factions. Many outfits do cross-faction ops, where they play another empire for a day or a weekend every so often. This doesn't break down some hypothetical tribal affiliation (I expect most people don't really give a shit about their empire as a coherent team, only their outfit) but rather keeps the game fresh for longer. Last edited by Warborn; 2015-07-06 at 02:21 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #29 | |||
Contributor General
|
There were quite a few people in ps1 that I could just not kill, not so in ps2. There are features in ps2 that flatten out the skill gradient put there purposely in order to encourage the greater number. base design, headshots, quick ttk all flatten out the gradient Base design - open with few chokepoints, easy to for vehicles to spam Headshots and ttk - run around like a blue arsed fly and sooner or later you'll come up behind someone, aim shoot and that's a kill, start running again. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Ignore Me] #30 | |||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
Pound for pound, setups in PS1 were far more situational and usually could be tailored to every specific fight if you wanted to go that far. PS2 relies far more on large numbers to accomplish anything than it does the personal skill and teamwork of any given unit. Again, if you knew what you were doing, armor was HIGHLY useful in PS1 even and especially with the dedicated driver and dedicated gunner. Organization - actual organization, not just hopping into a platoon - mattered infinitely more than it ever will in PS2. I should know that, given the company I've kept and the types of shit I've pulled off with others. Lastly, once more pound for pound in comparison, BR matters more in PS2 than it does in PS1. You take one newbie to PS2 and put them into a training squad and they might be fit for moving into more tactical gameplay after a month of grinding and getting familiar with the game. Minimum of a month, at best. Take that same newbie, put them into a squad in PS1 that wanted to train people and I could have them effectively contributing in a meaningful way to every single fight after a week on average. The barrier to being useful in PS2 is higher due to how weapon unlocks work and how BR grinds work. The barrier to being useful in PS1 was lower simply because there were more ways to meaningfully contribute to an empire's wider tactical work at a lower level, that would meaningfully help someone advance in BR and unlock more certs.
__________________
![]() ![]() Retired NC CR5, Cerberus Company. Not currently playing PS2. Anyone with a similar name is not me. My only characters are listed in my stats profile here on PSU. Last edited by p0intman; 2015-07-07 at 02:42 AM. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|