NO to the following in PS2.

[Elude]

Without specific classes you in turn end up with a game that requires very little team work at all. Team work comes out instead as individual skill of each player player rather than the overall team being better, if you don't like to rely on team mates I might be inclined to say you have the wrong game.

As horrible as Call of duty is to me it is a perfect example of the jack of all trades being a horrible implementation for a team oriented game. Teams win in this game based on who has the better players rather than who has the right gear for it, this usually ends up with having stacked teams, and no other way to compensate for it except to change up the teams.

The reason I hate Cod is because it involves individual skill in a team based game. If you want to pressure your game into being focused around individual skill then make it a 1v1 oriented game like UT or Quake, not to say that these games don't have team modes, 1v1's are just the most prominent in them.

[Eurotrash]

Also - what also concerns me about a class based sytem, there will be one assault class (which everyone will want to play). Then 4-5 support classes, most of which will be chores "in the name of teamwork". And the medic who dies to a Lasher saying "if i wasnt a medic/engineer/hacker/pilot/AMS driver I would have won that", and the detracted satisfaction the assault class player will get from taking out fodder which is not equipped to deal with him. At least when you lost to a one man army, your failing was your own, he was better that time, sharper, more perceptive, more accurate etc...

You will not see me go near these support classes if they are gimped for the sake of performing chores.

[Eurotrash]

lol in the example I game, I snuck behind the army, as one man. But I had multiple skirmishes, sometimes 2-3 on one, and i won that. 3 on 1... and they lost. They- as a team, could not beat me. All those certs and skills at their desposal.

A team should win because they have better players, teamwork/strategy becomes more important when you are faced an equally skilled opponent.

I am all for teamwork, just don't force it by gimping abilities. Also I hope the weapons actually require skill to aim, as opposed to having HUGE COF's for retards to actually get a sense of achievement and contribution to the "team effort!"

They are just trying to strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong. It doesn't work like that I am afraid. A game with a high fps skill threshold is what is needed.

[Elude]

Vehicles have no place in a game that focus's entirely on a players skill rather than his role, because after all, vehicles are a class which is fit for a specific task just as infantry should be.

Just because there are classes does not mean you cannot take out something you were not meant to though, you can knock a reaver out of the air with a tank designed to handle other tanks.

[Timmy]

Eurotrash, this might shed some light on your concerns rather than debating with speculation you can debate based on what's currently known:

Originally Posted by Matt Higby

Revamped the certification tree. Classes in planetside 2 are completely freeform, you can switch seamlessly. You’re not creating a character as a medic and locked into it forever. Depending on how you unlock certs, you can specialize your medic, for example. Day one you can play medic, engineer, drive a tank, but later on you can either deeply specialize in any of those trees, or be sort of a generalist and pick and choose from various trees. Certification tree uses a fairly novel approach, those of you who have played Eve online may be familiar with. That’s the idea of time based, offline unlocking. You go into the cert tree and select what certs you want, and over time points are automatically placed into those certs. If you are online actively playing (kills, captures, etc) this process will be accelerated. Players with less time due to jobs, etc, will still be able to progress. This works towards bridging the gap between the most hardcore players and the more laid back players.

[Huma]

My only concern is that with the removal of the jack-of-all trades in the game it effectively puts cloakers back a notch. I really wanna see these trees their going to use so I can se what they intend a cloaker to actually do in PS2.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Huma

My only concern is that with the removal of the jack-of-all trades in the game it effectively puts cloakers back a notch. I really wanna see these trees their going to use so I can se what they intend a cloaker to actually do in PS2.

Yup, should be able to see that when beta comes out. Till then we in dark Unless they post a picture of the skill trees....

[Hamma]

Planetside 2 should essentially be the first game with better graphics, don't re-invent the wheel, it was spinning perfectly before.

Not going to happen. The game must evolve to include more modern FPS gaming aspects or it will fail regardless if it has massive battles or not.

[HawkEye]

PS1 is broken as hell dude. We have virtually no info on PS2. Chill out.

[Zulthus]

My version:

NO to the following: Generators

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

My version:

NO to the following: Generators

But without Generators to blow, what will the VS do with themselves?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Raymac

But without Generators to blow, what will the CN do with themselves?

/fixed

[Raymac]

LOL perhaps, but without the CN players, Planetside probably would have been shut down years ago, and who knows if PS2 would even be made, so I don't like to be too hard on them. Plus as an American, I for one welcome our new Chinese overlords.

[Zulthus]

I don't

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

I don't

The more people on the battlefield the better the game plays. When PS2 comes out I'd imagine it would have massive numbers from each localized area on the globe. So each of the localized areas would be playing against other people from the same area. I'd guess us in the US wouldn't see much of the CN anymore. Just guessing though.