Simplicity vs Depth

[Knightwyvern]

Originally Posted by Hamma

1.) I am skeptical on this one also and I thought this was a great piece of PlanetSide 1. Also remember you can span on squad leaders with appropriate skills.

2.) I always thought the ANT mechanic was cool as well. But with the entire resource system now there could easily be another mechanic to replace it - I'd say it will still have depth but we don't know.

3.) I would argue that the class/skill system in this game is in fact depth and not simplicity. The skill system is similar to EVE and you can likely customize your character in any way you want to. Sure you can only play one "class" at a time but the customization options both in terms of visual and skill based customization options will be huge. In that way I'd argue the skills system in PS2 will likely have even more depth than PS1.

4.) Agreed

5.) Jury is out on this one for me I am not sure how I feel on it yet.

SOE needs to strike a balance between casual folks who will just be looking for a COD/BF experience (it has to be fun for them also to pay the bills) and PlanetSide players who are looking for a much deeper game.

It's a tightrope we have yet to see how SOE can walk on

I agree with basically everything here, though I would say on point 2 that I was never happy having to drive an ANT, but having said that, Higby has said before that he has "plans" for the ANT in the future which I'm quite interested in seeing play out. I'm liking the idea of a mobile engineering vehicle myself.

I'm a little worried about the squad spawning and lack of AMS, though when I hear that the squad spawn would require a leader with the appropriate skills I was pretty relieved in that regard. It seems that this focus on more instant action and no down time in PS2, while good from a "kill kill kill" standpoint, does detract a little from the whole feel of logistical, supply line driven gameplay that could be found in PS1. I quite enjoyed that about the original.

I'm really hoping for a cool implementation of field artillery. The flail never really cut it IMO. artillery shouldn't be spammable so much as a support weapon, requiring others to spot for you or some similar mechanic. I feel this would help add a lot of depth without necessarily forcing anyone into something to complex, as I think it is a pretty niche weapon as far as the desire to operate them goes.

Finally I'd say that considering what the Devs have said about kind of working in reverse in comparison to CCP, in there creation of the big sandbox EVE followed by the more focused FPS (Dust 514,) my hunch is PS2 will be more simplistic at launch, and then gain a lot of depth and "sand..boxi..ness" as their post release development moves forward. I'm really excited to see what will happen.

[Marth Koopa]

Originally Posted by Bittermen

I think EVE is pretty damn deep.

Perhaps in the market aspect, certainly not the combat.

But who wants to play Accounting in Space? You could do that in real life, though not in space, for real and worthwhile money. You could then spend a tiny fraction of that real money to buy PLEX and make billions in game in a matter of seconds.

[Bittermen]

Originally Posted by Marth Koopa

Perhaps in the market aspect, certainly not the combat.

But who wants to play Accounting in Space? You could do that in real life, though not in space, for real and worthwhile money. You could then spend a tiny fraction of that real money to buy PLEX and make billions in game in a matter of seconds.

Some EVE players probably do that.

[Hamma]

I think EVE has a ton of depth - but it's a type of depth that I do not prefer.

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by IDukeNukeml

I think Planetside 2 should have optional depth.

If you want to get hardcore into it and really tweak things, then you can.

If you just want to click "cert light assault" it should have a prebuilt option for those who don't want to analyze it. Most of the COD guys probably have ADHD and would prefer a one click "specialize in this" kinda option.

that´s what i am hoping!
easy mode to attract noobs and casuals, and deep deep depth for those who like to adjust everything to their playstyle.

just don´t take out depth totally just to get more players in. that will only generate shorttime players and do more damage than good.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by LongBow

first up, simplicity does not make a game easy, tic tac toe(noughts and crosses) is simple but its a bitch to win!

what I think you are getting at is a sliding scale of complexity ... but please do not mistake that for ease.


1) AMS's were set and forget ... the logistical effort of keeping a giant multicoloured aircraft alive is much deeper ...

Not true at all. In fact, any decent AMS driver would never leave his AMS just lying around. There are a lot of dangers associated in doing so. It could get hacked, OSed, or blown up by enemy vehicles if its location was discovered. If an AMS location was discovered, it was always best for the driver to relocate it to prevent the enemy from camping the general direction of the people spawning from the AMS. These were all things I did as an AMS driver, and I might tell you that it was extremely difficult to be efficient at it. That's a lot of depth if you ask me.

2) Ants themselves were terrible, I hope there is a new siege mechanic; but ants were terrible and none should mourn their passing!

Indifferent here

3) - we know so little about classes to pretend we understand the full complexity of them is foolish. (not being able to cherry pick adds depth not removes it)

True, except that they have told us there will be "thousands" of certs, whatever that means

4) yes, additional mechanics do add depth.

5) this does make things less complicated yes, but it is a choice that will have been made based primarily on faction definition.


in all truth I had to re-write this post because I was just openly insulting ... yes elements from current generation FPS games will make it into this FPS title. Higby and his team have shown an understanding of how they must alter the implementation of every "current" mechanic they have discussed with a great deal of competence.

oh and on a note I think is quite ironic ... all this worry about doing things CoD did ... despite the fact that modern warfare was so successful because it implemented features we first saw in an FPS, in none other than planetside!

I hope to god the game is not too similar to CoD and Battlefield. They are kidding themselves if they think the majority of those types of players will stick around unless the game is EXACTLY the same and as dumbed down as those games are. I personally know COD players who openly and blatantly bash the BF series and have never tried it, their reasoning (and I quote): "I don't want to feel like General Patton running around doing strategy, I just want to shoot sh*t". Why are we trying to appeal to this crowd again? Money? There are enough people out there dying for a deep FPS right now that the game would be fine IMO, but I rest my case.

[Knightwyvern]

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

I hope to god the game is not too similar to CoD and Battlefield. They are kidding themselves if they think the majority of those types of players will stick around unless the game is EXACTLY the same and as dumbed down as those games are. I personally know COD players who openly and blatantly bash the BF series and have never tried it, their reasoning (and I quote): "I don't want to feel like General Patton running around doing strategy, I just want to shoot sh*t". Why are we trying to appeal to this crowd again? Money? There are enough people out there dying for a deep FPS right now that the game would be fine IMO, but I rest my case.

I pretty much agree. Whether or not the COD and BF players (I do enjoy BF) want to bother with PS2s strategy and MMO elements or not seems to me to be a secondary issue; there may now be headshots and more lethal weapons now, but as Higby has said, PS2 will never be as fast paced as COD or BF simply due to technology restraints. Now, most of us here like this I think. We enjoy the more tactical, deliberate pacing of PS. However your average BF or COD player who thinks of themselves as "slayers" or whatever, will not only be impatient with all the "strategy," "tactics," and "MMO-ness" of PS2 but will most likely leave in disgust when they figure out that running around with a scoped shotgun and twitch-killing everything that moves is not really viable.

They won't want to load into a galaxy and do a coordinated hot drop to take out the gen. They want to own noobz and then teabag them afterwards. The open world, sandboxy nature of PS2 won't be a good match I think.

Having said that, am I overgeneralizing? Probably. Also, who knows maybe it will be a good thing. Cannon Fodder anyone?

[CuddlyChud]

I don't understand this distinction between "Planetside players" and "COD and BF players." I'm pretty sure the majority of Planetside players just wanted to shoot people in a large setting, which was precisely why you had the zerg. People wanted "The Good Fight," and its the reason why gen dropping a contested base was so unpopular, despite the fact that usually it would have been the easiest way to "win".

I feel like the most vocal part of the PSU community is really a very unique subsection of the Planetside player-base. Its mainly comprised of the outfit leaders and officers of large, organized outfits. You'd kind of have to have had that experience to be so enthusiastic about the franchise after all these years. But coming from someone who was part of the zerg for many years, I hope they do simplify the game somewhat. This isn't an issue of whether Planetside was too complex or not. It's an issue of too much downtime between the "Good Fight."

[Quovatis]

I'm a bit worried about the spawn system too. Of course it's too early to make any conclusions until beta, but seems like we'll be playing a lot of whack-a-mole at facilities. You could kill off 99% of the players attacking, but then you have one squad leader left hiding in the trees, and then have 30+ squadmates HART in on his location. One that respawned runs off into another group of trees and the cycles repeats. At least with an AMS, you could defend much easier, and sending tanks to cut the AMS resupply routes were effective.

Again, too early to really complain, but I certainly have concerns over the system as I understand it now.

I wouldn't worry about the lack of ANTs. I think the new resource system will add far far more depth than the silly ANTs of PS1.

[Knightwyvern]

I'm not a huge fan of the spawn system as we know it either. Higby said somewhere that there is a cool down so it's "not the primary spawning method" or some such, which has me hopeful. Maybe if it's a once every 10 minutes type of thing, I could get behind that.

I'm wondering if we will see the Galaxy replace the AMS as the primary form of field spawning (along with the Sunderer as someone previously speculated perhaps) which IMO would be pretty cool. It's a big ol' target so it would require a lot of defense on the part of the spawning army, but might also be pretty hardy.

[EASyEightyEight]

I prefer once every hour at least. Sometimes I swear just logging in takes 10 minutes, and that's not feeling 10 minutes, that's 10 minutes going by in an instant.

Time flies...

[HELLFISH88]

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I don't understand this distinction between "Planetside players" and "COD and BF players." I'm pretty sure the majority of Planetside players just wanted to shoot people in a large setting, which was precisely why you had the zerg. People wanted "The Good Fight," and its the reason why gen dropping a contested base was so unpopular, despite the fact that usually it would have been the easiest way to "win".

I feel like the most vocal part of the PSU community is really a very unique subsection of the Planetside player-base. Its mainly comprised of the outfit leaders and officers of large, organized outfits. You'd kind of have to have had that experience to be so enthusiastic about the franchise after all these years. But coming from someone who was part of the zerg for many years, I hope they do simplify the game somewhat. This isn't an issue of whether Planetside was too complex or not. It's an issue of too much downtime between the "Good Fight."

I assume by "planetside players" people mean those who favor a more complex shooter such as tribes or quake as opposed to a fast paced reflex shooter like unreal tournament.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by HELLFISH88

I assume by "planetside players" people mean those who favor a more complex shooter such as tribes or quake as opposed to a fast paced reflex shooter like unreal tournament.

Id hope PS2 will have more of a halo feel to it without the bunny hoping rather than a tactical shooter or unreal feel.

[EASyEightyEight]

Trying to figure out how Quake has any more depth than Unreal, but it has been a long ass time. Tribes was more complex in that aiming worth a damn and remaining mobile and airborne a majority of the time required a lot of practice.

I'm with Sky though. Planetside 2 sounds like it's going to play a bit like Halo: Combat Evolved, only built for today's tech, and with a crap ton of weapon and vehicle modifications, essentially what "skill trees" seem to boil down to.

I even remember making jokes about the VS being the Covenant way back in the day.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

Trying to figure out how Quake has any more depth than Unreal, but it has been a long ass time. Tribes was more complex in that aiming worth a damn and remaining mobile and airborne a majority of the time required a lot of practice.

I'm with Sky though. Planetside 2 sounds like it's going to play a bit like Halo: Combat Evolved, only built for today's tech, and with a crap ton of weapon and vehicle modifications, essentially what "skill trees" seem to boil down to.

I even remember making jokes about the VS being the Covenant way back in the day.

Oh noes! Don't compare Planetside to Halo! Nevermind the fact that the VS have purple vehicles and energy weapons.

The games have always shared similarities, but considering when they were both under development, it's certainly more coincidence than any kind of ripoff.

I've always felt like Halo:CE was a little more polished and Planetside was a little more deep (MMO factor aside).

Now that PS2 will have a lot of the polish, both graphically and for things like vehicle physics, I feel like Planetsides star will shine a lot brighter than ever before. Bring em in with the pretty eye candy, keep em playing for years with the depth of gameplay.

Comparing Planetside to anything, aside from general FPS similarities, is kind of hard to do with any accuracy. About the most you can compare are individual elements, like pacing, or style.

Even with the inclusion of jump packs, I don't see Planetside 2 attracting a lot of Tribes die hards who wouldn't have played it anyways. Even back in the days of surgile, Planetside has never been a fast paced twitch game. Things like Battlefield and Halo (gameplay and style wise) are probably going to be some of the biggest potential sources of new players, aside from the general random players we get from it being F2P.

I think you can have depth and simplicity in ****** if you do it right. Make sure that some of the core gameplay mechanics are simple and straightforward to pick up. Having similarities to other popular shooters will go a long way towards helping. Then also include huge layers of depth that you can pick up that give you personally a bit of an edge, but more importantly, give your empire a huge edge.

Simplistic games are easy to pick up casually, but never go anywhere, so they get boring fast and people move on, leaving the game to wither away.

Deep games can really immerse you, but take forever to become any good and can leave new players with a skill gap that is almost impossible to close with the veterans, which destroys any chances of having new blood join a community, causing the game to stagnate and die.

A really well balanced game should include elements of both, where the insanely high skill ceiling never prevents new players from being valuable, while enticing them to play as much as possible to get the most out of their experience. You shouldn't punish new players for not having put in 4000 hours, just give them enough reward to keep it interesting.

Focus too much on either simplicity or depth alone, and the game will die fast. There is no reason that you can't put a lot of effort into both at once though, and I think that's the only way that we can hope to maintain interest in the game, although F2P will go along ways towards alleviating population problems as well.