Do planetside players have legit concerns or do they just hate to evolve?

[Kurtz]

Its a forum, jumping to conclusions is SOP.

Check out the Colts.com forums.

2 months ago they wanted to burn the stadium down for cutting peyton manning.

Now all they can talk about is Andrew Luck.

People for the most part do not like change.

[Hamma]

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

[Mastachief]

Hamma makes an excellent point.

My thoughts are that veteran players of planetside want planetside2 not callofbattleside2. Hence any change toward enabling the facebook generation to dumb down "Our" game will of course bring a strong reaction, quite rightly in most cases.

To snipe at your classes thing; classes to me is just more crap made to force a set amount of play styles so as to not confuse the console kiddies and BF/COD people. The current planetside system was fine and provided you had half a brain you configured your own "classes" these were/are known as favorites. The "Classes are there to speed up the time to fight" is a crap excuse that holds less water than a sieve.

Part of this thread maybe in response to the jumppads seen in TB footage, personally i like them and i welcome their edition. To me these pads bring a little quake/UT to the party...... you know proper FPS games.

[Atheosim]

Originally Posted by Hamma

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

Much agreed. For instance, I thought that having to spend 30 seconds to run from base wall to to the air pad at a tech plant was highly immersive.

[Neurotoxin]

I'm a veteran, I loved PS1 for what it was, and if they made "PlanetSide Next" on this engine as a side project I'd likely play the hell out of it.

But I understood then that PS1 was done the way it was done because of the technological limitations of the time. A few non-modifiable bases and towers that could be plopped down anywhere, no hitboxes, limited air physics and physics in general, and the lattice system to funnel players towards bases.

Bases are now designed with modular components, and are build to fit logically with the terrain in the area, as well as being much larger than PS1 bases. Hitboxes on players and vehicles puts a higher emphasis on good aim and strategy. Air and ground vehicles have full physics. With 2000 players per server, funneling everyone down to a few base SOI bubbles isn't necessary, and instead we have the more open hex system.

I understand that some things will be streamlined and simplified, but I'm fine with that. The inventory will be replaced with class tools / restrictions, however they actually open the doors for things we never had before (like sniper infiltators and C4 for all). But if I was asked whether I want an inventory or sidegrades, I'd go with sidegrades any day, even 9 years ago.

[Sifer2]

I don't think people would complain about class based gameplay so much if inventory management an customization was better. Right now it seems too copy/pasta from Battlefield. Your got your preset loadout of gun and its attachments an whatever item your class is supposed to have like smoke grenade for light assault, and that's it. That's way too dumbed down to me.

So yeah i'm fine with only Medics being able to heal. But I want lots of customization on my damn loadout. Let me decide how much ammo I want. Or if I want to carry a medpack instead of a grenade. Throw me a bone here.


Anyway you can't knock on fans for wanting the game to stay the way they enjoyed it. That's why they are fans. They like it as it is. When you change stuff your always risking annoying them. SOE is just walking the fine line here of how much they can get away with changing to try to draw in Battlefield/CoD players without upsetting the fans so much they lose interest.

[kaffis]

It's very simple. My concerns are legit. Others' aren't.

[Figment]

Being a major critic, some things:

Dreamcast, you're acting like a fanboy yourself while accusing others with a strawman. Before you protest, let me explain.



Does every PS vet complain about all changes? No.
Does every change mean a change for the better? No.
Does everyone perceive the same things as flaws? No.
Does something that works (to some at least) have to be changed? No.


Is someone that thinks changes are by default an evolution and improvement on "flaws" a fanboy? Yes.

Why? Because the definition of fanboy is clinging on to something as perfect. You Dreamcast, think of PS2 as perfect.


I like some of what I see, I dislike some other stuff. I'm weary of some more stuff and in many cases hope my concerns are unfounded and that my critique helps to make sure it is unfounded.


By assuming some things for fact (in some cases, they may be off), you can paint for instance a scenario that you don't want to occur. A dev team working in alpha can check the scenario, check the assumptions, see if it's true or not and then choose to do something about it, or leave it as intended or leave it for further testing.

You can also not critique anything, but an artist who never receives critique will never create something approaching perfection unless incredibly lucky.

If PS2 is an artpiece, then I'm an art critic trying to help the artist to improve. That is not fanboyism. Fanboyism would not allow any changes to be made, fanboyism is not pointing out that certain features or balances or gameplay mechanics in the previous game were better. Fanboyism would be saying that pretty much everything was better.

Especially "revolutionary" stuff (overhauls) and stuff that has the potential for major impact on gameplay should fall under major scrutiny and put up for critique since they have not been tested in a PS MMOFPS situation.


For instance, things I like? Cover over base walls. Excellent improvement. THAT is also an example of an actual evolution.

The class system feels like it diminishes the sandbox freedom, even if you get 'more' choices within a class. The point is you're being restricted from combinations. In itself not a big change, as suits were already "classes", but they had different, less outspoken restrictions: volume.

What I like less is the diminished driver-gunner relation and potential oversights regarding large numbers of people.

What I saw from the base capture stuff TotalBiscuit showed for instance, is that it (at this point) suggests approximately 20 people can 'instantly' capture a base if it's unoccupied, by accessing all the capture points at the same time. You would think there'd be some sort of response time starting AFTER the hack has become known, not before the hack.

Of course, we don't know if this mechanic is true for every control point, or just a certain amount of them.

What I also don't like, is that PS seems to become a little bit more generic in gameplay by loaning features from other games. Often features that aren't the most well liked features from those games. Things like killcams showing who killed you (even if that's still subject to change). It's good that we get to discuss those things.

Personally, I'd be more concerned if everything people would say would be "Oh that's nice/awesome/great/glorious!" or "let's wait with critique till they've refined it and worked on it so long, that it cost shitloads of money to create and to the extend a change would influence everything else so they'd be hesitant to change or spend more resources on it".

[JPalmer]

Sometimes it's like people who get mad when the band they like that has ten fans puts their music on a commercial and thousands of new people now like that bands music.
I literally want a bullet for all those people.

[Xyntech]

I think the fan base tends to be cautious of new things, and I think in general that's a good thing.

Jumping to conclusions or blowing things out of proportion is occasionally a problem, but for the most part I think it's pretty balanced. Planetside was special, and the fans just want to make sure the sequel is also special.

Some players will never be happy with anything other than an exact remake of the first game, but I think they are the vast minority. The rest of the fans I expect will be pleased with the new game, even if some players are annoyed by a lot of the changes.

I only get concerned when players show an apparent disinterest in even giving some of the changes a chance. Obviously we don't want to just sit around and say "wait for beta" for everything, but there is a difference between a player who thinks something will be bad yet is willing to give it a try, and a player who claims to know it will be bad any thinks less of anyone who disagrees with them.

We just can't know some of this shit for sure, but there is still value in discussing what we do know of it. There is value in the fact that some good ideas often spring up during these discussions. There is value in using these topics to help us prepare ourselves, to figure out what will be most important to test during beta. There is value in just passing the time, building comradery while we wait to get our hands on the game.

I believe the devs generally have reasonable justifications for the changes they make. They have seemed pretty competent in my opinion, so I give them quite a bit of the benefit of the doubt until I have reason to believe otherwise. That being said, they will undoubtedly make some mistakes, and we will have to make sure those get fixed during beta.

In the meanwhile, I think the community is fine. As long as we all keep some perspective that we don't know as much as the devs do. We just have to have a little caveat in the back of our minds, that while debating about what we currently know is good, most of the really important debates will come when we have legitimate beta experience under our belts.

[Baneblade]

PlanetSide, the game where you can run your team mate over with a tank because they said something retarded in range of you.

[Dreamcast]

Originally Posted by Hamma

It's probably because games have been becoming more and more like the world today. Dumbed down and made easy so anyone can do it. And if they can't do it make it so they can use methods outside of gameplay (microtransactions) to let them do it. We live in an instant gratification world and many FPS veterans don't want to see every game have the same features.

You can sit around and call it over-reaction if you want but I see them as very valid concerns.

But Planetside 1 was never complicated in the first place...It was quite simple to be honest.

I do agree that some ideas like kill cams which actually been around since Planetside came out but r used alot today could be annoying....But I disagree with the whole dumb down angle you are saying.


Planetside 1 was never complicated....I think this is a misconception Planetside Vets need to stop spreading around

[Dreamcast]

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Hamma makes an excellent point.

My thoughts are that veteran players of planetside want planetside2 not callofbattleside2. Hence any change toward enabling the facebook generation to dumb down "Our" game will of course bring a strong reaction, quite rightly in most cases.

To snipe at your classes thing; classes to me is just more crap made to force a set amount of play styles so as to not confuse the console kiddies and BF/COD people. The current planetside system was fine and provided you had half a brain you configured your own "classes" these were/are known as favorites. The "Classes are there to speed up the time to fight" is a crap excuse that holds less water than a sieve.

Part of this thread maybe in response to the jumppads seen in TB footage, personally i like them and i welcome their edition. To me these pads bring a little quake/UT to the party...... you know proper FPS games.

I hate the elitistism in this board that doesn't make sense at all.

First of all Planetside was simple...It was never complicated...Any "facebook generation" person could play it.

BTW WTF are u talking about? the "facebook" generation was alive when Planetside was out and played games.


2nd of all the no classes leads to no balance..It has nothing to do with confusing people...I played Planetside at 12 years old, shit was simple as hell to play.

The reason they put classes is to make the game balance...So a Sniper wouldn't be also a medic like in PS1 and heal himself each time he got shot so he wouldn't die....Smart reason IMO, people will just use Over powered combos like that and specialized medics wouldn't be needed.


BTW Quake and Unreal tournament were simple as hell...You could say dumbdown which is why they require lots of fast twitch skill...So make it up ur mind, what do u want complicated shit or dumbdown FPS like quake and unreal?

[Dreamcast]

Originally Posted by Figment

Being a major critic, some things:

Dreamcast, you're acting like a fanboy yourself while accusing others with a strawman. Before you protest, let me explain.



Does every PS vet complain about all changes? No.
Does every change mean a change for the better? No.
Does everyone perceive the same things as flaws? No.
Does something that works (to some at least) have to be changed? No.


Is someone that thinks changes are by default an evolution and improvement on "flaws" a fanboy? Yes.

Why? Because the definition of fanboy is clinging on to something as perfect. You Dreamcast, think of PS2 as perfect.


I like some of what I see, I dislike some other stuff. I'm weary of some more stuff and in many cases hope my concerns are unfounded and that my critique helps to make sure it is unfounded.


By assuming some things for fact (in some cases, they may be off), you can paint for instance a scenario that you don't want to occur. A dev team working in alpha can check the scenario, check the assumptions, see if it's true or not and then choose to do something about it, or leave it as intended or leave it for further testing.

You can also not critique anything, but an artist who never receives critique will never create something approaching perfection unless incredibly lucky.

If PS2 is an artpiece, then I'm an art critic trying to help the artist to improve. That is not fanboyism. Fanboyism would not allow any changes to be made, fanboyism is not pointing out that certain features or balances or gameplay mechanics in the previous game were better. Fanboyism would be saying that pretty much everything was better.

Especially "revolutionary" stuff (overhauls) and stuff that has the potential for major impact on gameplay should fall under major scrutiny and put up for critique since they have not been tested in a PS MMOFPS situation.


For instance, things I like? Cover over base walls. Excellent improvement. THAT is also an example of an actual evolution.

The class system feels like it diminishes the sandbox freedom, even if you get 'more' choices within a class. The point is you're being restricted from combinations. In itself not a big change, as suits were already "classes", but they had different, less outspoken restrictions: volume.

What I like less is the diminished driver-gunner relation and potential oversights regarding large numbers of people.

What I saw from the base capture stuff TotalBiscuit showed for instance, is that it (at this point) suggests approximately 20 people can 'instantly' capture a base if it's unoccupied, by accessing all the capture points at the same time. You would think there'd be some sort of response time starting AFTER the hack has become known, not before the hack.

Of course, we don't know if this mechanic is true for every control point, or just a certain amount of them.

What I also don't like, is that PS seems to become a little bit more generic in gameplay by loaning features from other games. Often features that aren't the most well liked features from those games. Things like killcams showing who killed you (even if that's still subject to change). It's good that we get to discuss those things.

Personally, I'd be more concerned if everything people would say would be "Oh that's nice/awesome/great/glorious!" or "let's wait with critique till they've refined it and worked on it so long, that it cost shitloads of money to create and to the extend a change would influence everything else so they'd be hesitant to change or spend more resources on it".

I never said the game was perfect or every change they did was an improvement.

I do think the changes could be considered evolving the game for the best or worst.

As for the flaws...I do think classes are an improvement...That I do agree.


The class system was broken...It allow people to be OP like I said..It made Sniper battles boring since somebody could just heal themselves when somebody shot them... As for the freedom, well like I said I like the inventory system is still in place that gaves u freedom.....but OP and ruin the game because of "freedom" of choosing whatever OP setups people want is wrong.


and I never called people fanboys Im just saying they overexagerate and some people want Planetside 1 with all is flaws but with better graphics.

[Brusi]

I think that the PS forum community is still large enough for there to never be a unanimous agreement on anything. I think labelling the entire community as backward or contrary is pretty stupid.