What is it going to take to push Planetside 2 over the top - Page 2

Qwan · 2013-03-29, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Bring back the BFR.

Somebody get a rope. There are things I want to see in this game but BFR's is not one of them.

I think things are coming around pretty good, they have the road map which gives gamers a sence of whats to come in an orderly fashion so lets just keep our fingers crossed and hope they can push a couple of things up. I saw the preview for BF4, so were going to loose a couple of BF fans to that, but I hope that PS2 has made some new fans and as well as kept some of the vets happy enough to stand behind there game.

P.S. if you talk about bringing BFR's back again, I will wash your mouth out with soap.

Nur · 2013-03-29, 07:30 AM

This game needs continent lock, needs multiple fronts and enemy on each front, needs an end on ghostcapping.

People like big fights, nobody like zergs.

Strategy of ghostcapping to avoid zerg is not funny. If we find a way to stop the zerg without ghostcapping we are on the right way.

Rothnang · 2013-03-29, 08:08 AM

In all honesty, the main thing that would take Planetside 2 further would be a more meaningful progression system. When it comes right down to it, most people play for certs, but right now you just can't honestly say that you can unlock anything that makes you really stand out.

I think people want that feeling of being a specialist, and being genuinely better at what they do than your average joe. Skills are an important aspect to building a reputation, but the reality is, the worlds best lightning driver is probably also really good with every other tank. The range of skills that make you good at any aspect of the game typically work just as well for the other aspects. People need a way to be unique and sought after though. In a social setting the greatest satisfaction you can have is being indispensable, and that's not something Planetside 2 currently provides. People need to have a sense that it mattered that they specifically were there in every endeavor. Throwing ammo packs is useful, but it gives you no satisfaction if yours is just one among ten and you just plopped it down for the XP. What makes you unique doesn't have to be as important as supplying ammo, but you should get a sense that you have something to offer that other people do not.

Getting that into the game gets people to commit to it more, because they will feel more important (and actually are more important).

Canaris · 2013-03-29, 08:38 AM

I think that what causes this game to suffer is having just 3 continents to play on which makes the progression/regression of the 3 factions over territory suffer greatly. There is no jeopardy like in the PS1.
I know they say hind sight is 20/20 but I can assure you if I'd been in charge I'd not have let this game ship without at least 5 continents to play on and a battle flow system. I played way to much of PS1 not to see how it works and what people like.

They need to commit more resources in bringing Hossin & Searhus to the live game quicker, June for Hossin & October for Searhus is going to cost SOE big time, trust me.
They also need to put a proper inter continental transit network for the WGs in at the same time instead of just three factions warpgates on every cont. Cont lock is one reward but the other should be access to the new continent through it so once you have taken Indar you now have access to Searhus, something to look forward to as an attacker an objective to progress, or an asset/reason to defend to the death for defenders. Give those continents benefits that will have all three sides foaming at the mouth to take.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-03-29, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Qwan

Somebody get a rope. There are things I want to see in this game but BFR's is not one of them.

I think things are coming around pretty good, they have the road map which gives gamers a sence of whats to come in an orderly fashion so lets just keep our fingers crossed and hope they can push a couple of things up. I saw the preview for BF4, so were going to loose a couple of BF fans to that, but I hope that PS2 has made some new fans and as well as kept some of the vets happy enough to stand behind there game.

P.S. if you talk about bringing BFR's back again, I will wash your mouth out with soap.

Lol. You know BFR came to mind because I want a three man vehicle that really stands out on the battlefield. Maybe the creation of an eight legged mbt hybrid. Mostly what I would like to see is for the trade off in manpower you gain a little bit more mobility instead of firepower. An eight legged crawler tank would be able to sidestrafe like a magrider but slower. This tank would also be able to basically go everywhere ground based infantry could go.

Pella · 2013-03-29, 09:07 AM

Miller population is healthy 24/7. Indar is pop locked at the moment and its mid day.

Prime time will be interesting.

Snydenthur · 2013-03-29, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Pella

Miller population is healthy 24/7. Indar is pop locked at the moment and its mid day.

Prime time will be interesting.

Well not by much. Around 2000 players online 1.5h ago. At the same time woodman had around 2700 players. As I said in the server forums, miller isn't the biggest server anymore, at least when you look at the amount of players online. I don't know what has caused people to quit on miller.

Even the psu server thing shows that woodman has medium amount of players earlier than miller.

Pella · 2013-03-29, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Snydenthur

Well not by much. Around 2000 players online 1.5h ago. At the same time woodman had around 2700 players. As I said in the server forums, miller isn't the biggest server anymore, at least when you look at the amount of players online. I don't know what has caused people to quit on miller.

Even the psu server thing shows that woodman has medium amount of players earlier than miller.

Russians.

HiroshiChugi · 2013-03-29, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Pella

Russians.

And also...

Canaris · 2013-03-29, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by HiroshiChugi

And also...

nice

there

Hamma · 2013-03-30, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by CrankyTRex

The three most frequent reasons I get from friends as to why they don't play PS2 are:
1. "What's the point if it's always on?" (Basically, since there's no victory condition of any significance, they don't see why they'd spend their time fighting over territory that will probably change hands moments later.)
2. "Sounds like pay to win."

If I get them over that and in the game, #3 comes up:
"Wow, you die a lot in this game."

Generally speaking that sums up the feeling of helplessness in the face of superior numbers and random death from all sides they don't feel like dealing with.

So basically, whatever can overcome those issues. :-)

Fail.

I don't know, that just feels like a bunch of reasons not to like the game rather than problems. Except maybe #3.

CrankyTRex · 2013-03-30, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Fail.

I don't know, that just feels like a bunch of reasons not to like the game rather than problems. Except maybe #3.

Well, we all spend a lot of time talking about "meta game" and the lack of meaning there seems to be in doing many activities in this game, which goes right to the victory condition issue.

PS2 inhabits this weird zone where you don't have rounds to dictate winning, but your XP also isn't really supposed to matter enough to treat it like an RPG/MMO (nor do I think the speed at which that XP/certs comes in is sufficiently paced to work that way.) Nor is there a story with an ending to see your way to.

That leaves the experience of a fight itself as the reason to play, and that's not that strong of a sell unless you've actually experienced how epic PS2 can be.

Then if you get people to play, you have to ensure they have one of those experiences, and that's not always easy for reasons we talk about all the time. The numbers can grind computers to a halt. The Zerg may just roll people over so it quickly becomes camp/be camped, which is boring despite the numbers. They can get suck standing around ghost capping. Etc.

The pay to win issue comes up from previous experience with other games. That one I have difficulty countering because it's one of my biggest gripes with the game. It's not straight up P2W, but there are definitely things that I don't consider sidegrades that require unlocking and cost a lot of certs.

#3 we have probably all commented on at one time or another and it ties right back into the first two things. A new player dying over and over again to something like rocket pods that they can't unlock yet without paying money over a base they either can't defend due to the Zerg, or that gets ghost capped as soon as they leave and which has almost no bearing on the game as a whole short of flipping a hex a different color? Can be a tough sell to tell people it gets better.

Rolfski · 2013-03-30, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Snydenthur

I don't know what has caused people to quit on miller.

If anything that would be TR dominance as of lately, causing people to give up. TR has even a triple lock atm, something not seen in months on Miller.

As for marketing blitz to push this game. I would wait with that until there's a decent new player experience and meta game.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-03-30, 09:08 PM

I really am starting to see our own roadmap for the ongoing success of PS2.

Neutral Calypso · 2013-03-30, 09:41 PM

With respect to the people referring to the lack of apparent victory conditions, one thing I posted in the ideas forum was to have a more OBVIOUS "You conquered the continent!" type message.

Preferably something with a hell of a lot of victory fanfare (or a defeat dirge) that would instantly alert everyone on the continent that it had just changed hands (or been neutralized) and perhaps give a more passive message to the players on other continents that a cont. just changed hands.

It just seems rather odd to me that we have to check the map to make sure we conquered the continent when that happens, y'know?