Complexity of the Game - Page 4

TeaLeaf · 2012-06-25, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

Aye, seems to be a running gag. A completely pointless one at that.

CoD/BF3 Kiddies have basically become an urban legend in every FPS community outside of those two games. They are apparently gremlins that infiltrate every game and use magic powers to turn it into CoD. Their powers are not limited to FPS games, apparently RTS and RPG games are frequently dumbed down for CoD kiddies.

Did that sound ridiculous? It should have.

Anyyyyway. I didn't play PS1, so I may just be ignorant but the only place I see complexity being reduced is in the large scale map. There doesn't seem to be that many strategies you can try on a continent scale because all bases are just resource points for a different kind of resource. Beyond "We need some more of X, so lets attack Base Y" there doesn't seem to be much to consider for the major strategies.

PredatorFour · 2012-06-25, 09:56 AM

Dont get us started on what strategies are being dumbed down/ or viable now. That will be a new thread in the near future!

Gandhi · 2012-06-25, 10:02 AM

I don't think it was complex at all, but it was hard to get into. I think it was mostly the high TTK that made it hard for new players. I mean, you can suck pretty bad in BF3 but still manage to kill people fairly regularly. If you sucked in PS1 you were more likely to get steamrolled constantly, and that was mostly due to the sheer number of times you had to hit someone to kill him. If his aim was better than yours he'd probably win the fight, even if you had surprise on your side. Generally the higher the TTK the more influence a player's skill has on the outcome.

And I'm not saying this to hate on BF3. Lower TTK makes your game more accessible to people, and it can be fun too because it generally makes the game more hectic. I'm glad it's being lowered a bit this time around, but I'm still an advocate for slightly higher than normal.

Littleman · 2012-06-25, 10:13 AM

I don't think anyone here has called for CoD quick kills, heh. 1-2 shot kills are best kept to that game. I like that PS2 seems to look and feel more like Halo on legendary or 50% health and shield modifiers in multiplayer, only ADS is part of the gun play mechanics in this iteration. A few shots into the regenerative shield, then a few more into the target's actual health pool to drop them.

wasdie · 2012-06-25, 10:25 AM

The complexities of Planetside were actually due to the players way of using the relatively simple gameplay mechanics. There is nothing overly "complex" about Planetside, it's just a bit confusing because the tutorial is paper thin and the people all play the game in totally different ways than you interpret everything when you first start.

Once you learn the basic mechanics of how base captures work, the game becomes a very simple game to understand. Complexities come from how players using the mechanics together and in unique ways. It's only as complicated as a game of Battlefield, it's just that Battlefield is a lot easier to understand right out of the gate.

I'm thinking the same thing will happen with Planetside 2. Yes they have iron sights and a lower TTK, but these are modern conventions that gamers today expect in their FPSs. Planetside 2 is going to have a whole different set of strategies because of this. These strategies are what is going to make the game complex, just like in Planetside 1. They'll come together in unique ways and will change all of the time depending on how players counter the new strategies. It makes for very dynamic gameplay.

Xyntech · 2012-06-25, 10:34 AM

Yes, Planetside 1 was actually relatively simple, but still hard to get into. I think that PS2 will be easier to get into, but similarly simple, with the complexity again coming from the community.

I think PS2 will actually foster more complexity in a lot of areas this time around, and let's not forget that a lot of PS1's most important strategic features were added after launch, so PS2 if properly supported could grow into a rather ridiculously deep game.

I hope that they are able to end a lot of layers of depth time PS2, while keeping it easy to get into. I think that the mission system, quicker pacing and fun fluid gun play will keep it very inviting to new players, with F2P being the final barrier removed.

wasdie · 2012-06-25, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Yes, Planetside 1 was actually relatively simple, but still hard to get into. I think that PS2 will be easier to get into, but similarly simple, with the complexity again coming from the community.

I think PS2 will actually foster more complexity in a lot of areas this time around, and let's not forget that a lot of PS1's most important strategic features were added after launch, so PS2 if properly supported could grow into a rather ridiculously deep game.

I hope that they are able to end a lot of layers of depth time PS2, while keeping it easy to get into. I think that the mission system, quicker pacing and fun fluid gun play will keep it very inviting to new players, with F2P being the final barrier removed.

I think the worst part of PS1 from a learning curve perspective was the disparity of weaponry between BR1 players and vets. You seem so pathetically useless at a low battle rank. Since the squad/outfit mechanics aren't explained, it's very difficult for a new player to understand how to capture bases and gain BEP.

It's also very frustrating to get killed almost instantly by a guy rocking the Heavy Assault and a REX suit even though you got the clear jump on them. This pisses off a lot of players causing them to rage quit and I think diminishes the importance of positioning in favor of heavy weapons.

So once a new player got to BR 10 or whatnot, there was still a lot of decisions to make as to how to spec your character. Often players would pair up certs that didn't work together well. This would then put them at a major disadvantage as they couldn't easily respec. Now in PS2 that *should* not be a factor.

I think people, especially the hardcore fans, misinterpret a very frustrating set of features as "complex". As other posters said, you can't just tell people to keep playing the game and eventually it will get fun. That's not the point of why we played games. That was acceptable 10 years ago when technology and design was so limited that poor gameplay mechanics were all we had and a new game didn't come out every week. Our standards are much higher and we have way to much variety now.

A F2P game that isn't easy to get into will die. Similarly, a F2P game that is to simple and doesn't have robust enough gameplay to keep you coming back is also going to die. Gotta find that mix.

Smokingrabbit · 2012-06-25, 10:43 AM

ps1 started out stratigic and simple. as they added expansions and patches it became less stratigic and more complicated. This is the reason i stopped playing after core combat came out like so many others.

JPalmer · 2012-06-25, 10:51 AM

Oh PC gamers how I wish I didn't know thee.

This thread is a fucking cesspool of people on high horses giving each other dutch runners.

Gandhi · 2012-06-25, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by JPalmer

Oh PC gamers how I wish I didn't know thee.

This thread is a fucking cesspool of people on high horses giving each other dutch runners.

It has nothing to do with horses, it's just the way it is. You wouldn't say EVE is as easy to get into as Tribes because it just isn't.

ThermalReaper · 2012-06-25, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

It has nothing to do with horses, it's just the way it is. You wouldn't say EVE is as easy to get into as Tribes because it just isn't.

That's like saying The original Top gear is much better than the American version. I have no idea why, but it's just is.

The Degenatron · 2012-06-25, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Littleman

I'd say the complexity is actually deeper this time around...

First game, cert points paid for base equipment you couldn't do anything with but grab and use. The "complexity" came from setting up your inventory efficiently, and being properly equipped for the situations you weren't planning to find yourself in. EI, infantry bringing along a rocket launcher or a sniper rifle or both and a mid-range handgun (the AMP is pretty beast with proper tap-fire, actually) was generally a good idea if the fight was outdoors.

This game, we get all that right out the gate, but it's sectioned between classes, however now you get to modify it all with side grades.

I think complexity was the wrong word for PS1, it was more of a gap due to old, archaic systems, such as the network coding. Vets abused the code with ADAD. Newbs didn't quite understand that, especially as time went on and broadband became widely available, so the idea that the game is compensating for 56k was completely alien to them. Couple that with slow TTK's with anything but a heavy assault weapon, and not having the certifications to afford everything plus implants one needs to be prepared for a multitude of situations like most of the longer term players could, and it was just discouraging.

New people don't like dieing when they feel they should have won. This isn't a "get over it" scenario: a game NEEDS new blood to survive, especially one that relies on people for there to be a game. No one can force anyone to keep playing when they're not having fun. The words "it'll get better if you just commit" are empty and hollow: the game needs to be great the moment they hit "enter game."

As one noteworthy example, getting the jump on someone must equal a kill if one's aim is true, or it's bull$#!% worth quitting over. I almost did and I was coming back as a vet. I've spoken with real newbs and they did quit over that scenario. Their MA rifle should be able to KILL in less than half a magazine of well placed shots. Essentially, before the bastard they're shooting has time to turn around kill them MUCH faster with their better gun.

Part of what caused PS1's decline was the thick wall that was going from cannon fodder to someone who can perform half-way decently. NO ONE likes to die over and over and over and over and over again with few kills to show for it.

First impressions are everything. I was lucky enough to get to play Planetside when it first started, dazed and confused after a HART drop, only to solo down two NC as my Vanu despite how $#!%%& the pulsar was at the time, using a rock for cover (I was playing tactical before CoD 1 was even released.) I felt awesome, and proceeded to climb the hill and taking that tower right after that. Everyone was a newb back then.

8 years later, you have long time vets that have seen it all, know what strategies work, how the netcode operates, etc, smashing newbs to bits. There's no way to ease them in nicely, because vets don't know to nor how to hold back. They're prepared for anything and everything. The new guy is not.

So to reiterate, I think PS2 will actually be the more complex game this time around, but SOE knows they have to make the newb experience actually enjoyable for more than 10% - if that many - of the new players joining in some years down the road. So if the game feels "dumbed-down" to you, I can't convince you otherwise, but I can tell you it's so you'll always have a lot of people to shoot at, instead of the same few familiar faces you see in PS1 now, and not because they're doing anything to stand out from the crowd.

+1

Game complexity should come from advanced squad based tactics, not from the basics of shooting a gun and using your soldiers equipment.

The game MUST be accessible at the granular level and increasingly complex the deeper it is investigated.

"A moment to learn, a lifetime to master."

Smokingrabbit · 2012-06-25, 11:35 AM

aand +1 for u degenatron well said

proxy · 2012-06-25, 12:13 PM

The hyperbole and strawman tactics in this thread are complex.

If you played Everquest, you'll remember feign death pulling, which allowed you to split groups of monsters. This was not a design feature. This was a discovery. An exploit that added depth to classes that could do it.

PS1 wasn't anymore complex than it was obtuse. The learning curve was steep because is was hard for a newb to understand as a result of obscurity. Tactics weren't baked in to the game, players had discover them. And if you didn't have a support system as a new player, well that was a big curve indeed.

Most of the other arguments mean nothing until we play. You might as well be Fox News or demand PS2's long form birth certificate.

QuantumMechanic · 2012-06-25, 01:10 PM

I think SOE's idea is to let the game be as complex as you want it to be. Point being the mission system.

As Higby has said, for the players who just want to log in and shoot people - you just grab a mission that orders you to take or defend a base. Have a blast!

For players who enjoy more strategy, you'll probably have certed leadership to a good degree and you can be creating said missions for players to take.

I do hope we see more options in this area though. Most likely more will be added over time post-launch.