A few things that Matt Higby needs to realize - Page 4

Top Sgt · 2012-05-29, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Homefront is actually a very good example of the statement that just putting 'modern' FPS elements into your game does not lead to success and can actually have the opposite effect; it makes the player realize that they are NOT playing the better, original version, and may make them yearn for it.

Since you brought up homefront.. homefront was actually gameplay wise design a very good model and worked well.

THQ failed with homefront for different reasons from PC to console.

It failed on Console because: Terrible release with not enough servers online for everyone to play.. 2nd part.. Ded Servers were so spread out.. Players like me in the US were constantly put on servers in japan and further with in game pings of more than 300ms.. Which mean't lag fest city.

it failed on PC because of : Anti cheat or lack there off... hackers controlled and ran Homefront from day 1 of release.. Within 3 weeks the game was a ghost town because nothing was done at all about it. Every match had a speed hacker who was 101-0 and just clearing rooms. thus the game was dead within a month.

it's gonna be most important for these devs to control the hacker issue.

Gandhi · 2012-05-29, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ieyasu

Devs arent making Planetside 2 to give old Planetside Vets a trip down memory lane. Theyre making the game for SOE in an effort to turn a profit. Part of that plan is to put out a top quality product that has already been sat down and thought out by a team of people who know what it takes to make a large scale game. By their own admission they are drawing heavily from modern day fps games that have mechanics within that have proven to be quite popular already as evidenced by the tens of millions of copies said franchises have sold over the past few years. I hate to be the bearer of news to some people, but the dev team isnt about to change their already plotted course to accomidate some unknown posters wild and often times unfounded speculation on the game they havent even played for 1 minutes time.

That's a gross oversimplification of people's concerns. Hardly anyone is against sprinting, iron sights, the new territory system, resources, sidegrades, customization, skill trees or the new capture mechanics, just to name a few. Most of the rest of the changes are being met with a "wait and see" attitude, things like the removal of sanctuaries, squad spawning, lower TTK, cloaking snipers, class system and so on.

It's only a handful of things that has a lot of the vets worried. So don't equate resistance to those few changes with resistance to all change, or the belief that PS2 needs to be exactly like PS1 to be fun. All we want is for SOE to embrace the good parts of modern shooters and leave out the bad, because they undoubtedly do have some bad parts. Likewise take the good things from PS1 and leave out the bad. And while we may disagree sometimes about what's good and what's bad we all have that same desire, vet or no.

capiqu · 2012-05-29, 11:35 AM

Planetside has turned 9 years old. I would believe that SOE micht have a pretty good idea about number of players and continental size ratios. In planetside you had almost 400 population on a 6x6 cont Soe has gather so much info on this. That would include how many people would be in action and how many would be re spawning at any given time. Like T-Ray says, We got this.

Ieyasu · 2012-05-29, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

That's a gross oversimplification of people's concerns. Hardly anyone is against sprinting, iron sights, the new territory system, resources, sidegrades, customization, skill trees or the new capture mechanics, just to name a few. Most of the rest of the changes are being met with a "wait and see" attitude, things like the removal of sanctuaries, squad spawning, lower TTK, cloaking snipers, class system and so on.

It's only a handful of things that has a lot of the vets worried. So don't equate resistance to those few changes with resistance to all change, or the belief that PS2 needs to be exactly like PS1 to be fun. All we want is for SOE to embrace the good parts of modern shooters and leave out the bad, because they undoubtedly do have some bad parts. Likewise take the good things from PS1 and leave out the bad. And while we may disagree sometimes about what's good and what's bad we all have that same desire, vet or no.

yeah and thats cool and all, but like I already mentioned in my previous post, the Devs have already sat down and had the pow wows about what they wanted to do in the game and with it. anyone who was not invited to sit down with them and discuss was not invited for a reason. that reason is they dont care what you have to say about it on the large because they know what they want to do already and that is to copy what they have seen work for other fps games based on sales numbers.

im not much of a fan of the guy, but a Robert Downey Jr Quote seems to fit the situation pretty well imho with regards to what the dev team does with peoples advice given here on PSU Forums.

"Listen, smile, agree, and then do whatever the F$#K you were going to do anyway."

Cleggs recent twitter post asking what kind of cover people prefered then going on to let everyone know both kinds are going to be in the game (aka theyve already made a design decision regarding it) comes to mind. Asking peoples preference for something thats already been done... Must admit it gives the illusion of a desire for community input, at least for people not able to see through the smoke and mirrors.

ringring · 2012-05-29, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Because that Galaxy shouldn't be sitting 10 feet outside the base as happened with PS1. Or, since I only played recently, can you assure me that in the highly populated days of PS1, that attackers were actually forced to deploy AMS farther away? But then, that makes it boring. That is why what I described is a balance of spawning into the combat and getting repulsed completely back to your Galaxy.

In the highly populated days of PS (and excluding gal drops) the initial object would be to advance your amses into the courtyard.
You generally couldn't do that straightaway so instead you advanced your amses upto the line of battle and as your tanks and reavers advanced so you could advance your amses.

You really couldn't do a proper assault to take the base unless your amses were actually inside the courtyard as the travel times would be too long.

Sure amses could and would be OS'd (I'd often call for at least 3 to be deplayed inside a courtyard we were attacking) but how more open to attack are galaxies, I'd say much more.

To the general point about spawning: I really don't get the idea of spawning at a gal. To me the gal is too obvious and will or should be the main target of defenders. Because of this it will have to be parked some distance away from the main fight.

Squad spawning: I don't like the idea that a squad can spawn on a squad leader inside the courtyard of a base simply because he has manged to stay alive. It doesn't sound right. If squad spawning is a replacement for the Hart (which I think is the devs intention) then I am happy with it.

All in all, I don't know how respawns will work in practise, it will be interesting to see in beta.

Kipper · 2012-05-29, 11:38 AM

If squad spawning takes place a'la BF2142 where you had to spec(cert) it and then deploy a spawning beacon, then for me - it wins.

You counter it because you can see drop pods raining down around it and that squad has to protect their spawn beacon if they want to keep using it... its just another target in a game about eliminating targets.

Once you've cleared the squad spawns out the way, you organise an assault to take down the beast that I believe the deployed galaxy will be....

Mechzz · 2012-05-29, 11:39 AM

Couple of comments on spawning:

Originally Posted by Baron

on Squad Spawning:
From the bits of game play we've recently seen (thanks TB and Hamma) you can see a drop-pod as a means of spawning into battle. I'd say that THIS is how squad spawning will work and if that is the case, it is very fair...reasons:

1) only works outdoors
2) very visible (Gee, look at all those drop-pods falling from the sky and landing behind that building, I wonder what's over there)

Yes, this needs to be emphasised. Higby had already said that squad spawning will be (rightly) limited in this way and has been shown to be true to his word.

Originally Posted by Pozidriv

Personally id say we need more hardpoints for spawning (outposts and inside bases), this would be a good solution imo because they are known places. If they are held by the enemy you know where they are coming from and can adjust accordingly.

It has been said that there will be multiple spawn rooms in the new bases (at least in the big ones). So when attacking a base:
1. Deploy a Gal (but it can't be too close or it'll be a goner)
2. Make a spawn a primary target for the assault, maybe feinting on a capture point to draw away defenders.

This mix seems fine to me, never having played the game (PS2, I played plenty of PS1). I have suspicion an AMS-alike might be needed, but I'm not going to whine for it now, I'll wait for beta and see how it plays.

Ieyasu · 2012-05-29, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Why are you still here? Leave please. Oops sorry Hamma, forgot about the ignore.

yeah ignore away. I wont lose any sleep over it. Heaven forbid someone like myself comes and supports the devs vision of the game and is willing to trust in their expertise until at least having had a chance to play it for a minute or two.

by all means continue to QQ and ask the devs to change this thing or that as you seem to be so fond of posting in threads which carry that theme. I am happy with the direction they have taken with the game and from what I have seen so far of Planetside 2 it looks like its on its way to be a great game as is sans any help from forum unknowns.

roguy · 2012-05-29, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

There is one pretty huge and obvious reason why: THEY NEVER PLAYED IT.

I can visualize all sorts of ways in which it can open up possibilities in PS2, but you need to know how it does so before you can judge it properly. I actually used the word "how" in the previous post too; it was there for a reason.

Then show me how PS2 could possibly differ from BF2142 in terms of spawning?

Squad spawning in BF2142 made combat all about squad v squad combat by keeping people together, instead of having people spawn all over the map and get singled out all the time trying to regroup. There were still very viable reasons to use flag spawns (for vehicles, kinda like bases in PS) and squad beacons (AMSes for all intents and purposes).

So far I've heard of nothing that will make the PS2 mechanics different in any fundamental way.

CuddlyChud · 2012-05-29, 11:50 AM

I feel like video games are the only industry where the consumer feels like he knows more than the producer. I'm not saying people shouldn't post ideas, but this thread is just feels so full of condescension.

roguy · 2012-05-29, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I feel like video games are the only industry where the consumer feels like he knows more than the producer. I'm not saying people shouldn't post ideas, but this thread is just feels so full of condescension.

Yeah I'm trying to imagine how the Mona Lisa would have turned out if Leonardo DaVinci had a blog...

"Omg, obvious rip-off of the Madonna!! It's for casuals!!!"

"Wtf you promised us a blonde!! Leo, why do you hate your painting! This is a slap in the FACE!!"

The Kush · 2012-05-29, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

Hire this man.

Agreed. Modern FPS suck for the strategic, team oriented, and skill driven players.

Why?

Because they are dumbing the game down and making it so dumbasses stand a chance.

Results?

Incredibly boring

Cam · 2012-05-29, 11:57 AM

i hope they bring some version of the ANT back in. like having to bring up resources to your other base's. this would add a other element to the game. For example if you notice the enemy front line base is low on resources you can have some air boys fly behind enemy lines and take out the supply troops. now that front line base can't spawn any more vehicles . now you can roll over them with heavy tanks

basti · 2012-05-29, 12:01 PM

15 years of FPS?

Well, then you are like me. My first FPS was Wolfenstein 3D. Played Doom, Duke3D, Quake, Tribes, Unreal and UT (awww, good ol UT :/ ) all that stuff. Pretty much all of them.

And i tell you: They had some very enjoyable elements, but also a crapload of shit in them. The thing is: Humans tend to forget the crap over time, and just keep the good memorys. Its actually a sanity thing, because otherwise we would go insane at about age 20. :>

Now, over time, FPS games had less crap in them, and the fun elements got even better. But then, something happend (Counter-Strike maybe?) and slowly everyone was like "Modern day FPS" and people started to copy elements and just add a little each time, playing it save rather than trying something.

Thats what bugs me the most, no innovation, nothing fresh, nothing new.
And with Planetside 2, the innovation returns.

They do take "Cod style" gunplay, and its a good idea to not go away from that, because its damn hard to figure out how gunplay should be (see Counter-Strike GO, minor things like how the screen reacts when you fire a gun have drastic effects).
But, we got tons of innovation!
Vehicles? BF tried that, but they always took a minor role, because you cant really have a tank collum with 5 tanks.
more than 64 players? Only a few games got that, and i cant actually name any for PC, because its that goddamn uncommon.

And loads of more stuff that i dont really need to write down because all of u know about it already!

Dont fear mate. Whorst case: we see during beta and tell them stuff is crap. And then, they change it, or not.

wekabear · 2012-05-29, 12:02 PM

I hope that you all realise that the developers have an idea of a team based game in their minds and all planned out somewhere. If something happens that they were not expecting, or they discover that something takes away from the team based element, they can change that, it's what the beta is for.