What are your thoughts on PlanetSide 2 now that you have played? - Page 6

Tialian · 2012-08-31, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Stamina is most certainly something that has no place; especially since every game that does use stamina makes it way too restrictive, BF2 is a case in point.(though I will grant that this doesn't mean stamina cannot be done correctly, just like people oppose prone over dolphin diving which has been fixed in BF3, I suppose stamina could be done right too). And realism should always come only after fun is satisfied, and for many people, some realism aspects hurt fun.

As for PS2 not sucking people into it, that's only going to be true for PS1 vets who have self-trained over time to be unwilling to accept anything but inventory and animations. Someday a hardcore realism MMOFPS that would make even ArmA 2 look arcade might get made, (which is basically what we would have if every realism request was granted), but it will not be something that anything more than a small audience will play. And make no mistake, if you're asking for stamina, which is something even PS1 did not have (because it doesn't have sprinting. I'm not talking about jump stamina), then you're essentially asking that the game be even more realistic than PS1(realistic to the extent it CAN be realistic with future tech, of course).

The question you should be asking is not why people jump from the previous year's BF/CoD, but instead, why they jump from the previous CoD/BF and still go to the next CoD/BF. Though as always it's necessary to remember that CoD and BF are only superficially the same, that is, they both have aim down sight gameplay, for example. Neither of them uses extraneous realism like inventory and vehicle animations, that's definitely true, but again CoD and BF aren't the same thing.

PS1 does have stamina and it was done right, as a resource. And PS1 did have sprinting, it was called surge. It was a great mechanic allowing people to run faster without weapons out for a limited amount of time and getting hit shortened this time.

People jump to new shooters because for one, the games are so bland and unimmersive that there is nothing to keep them playing (they've maxed out their carrot); and for two, there is an expectation that the sequel to a game will be like the current game but with notable improvements.

If Battlefield 4 turned out to be like WoW but with guns and tanks and 30 man gear grinding raids people would be scratching their heads, just like many people are scratching their heads right now that PS2 is going backwards going from a massive immersive tactical team based shooter to an arena style shallow bland arcade shooter with larger maps.

Stardouser · 2012-08-31, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

I don't think that is such a good idea honestly. It would breed encouragement for a flame war. It's happened often in PS1.

Their passive viewing is good enough, and will get them the results they want without encouraging screaming fits from people.

You're probably right...as I say they put DICE to shame and hell - Smedley has brainstormed about things 5 YEARS down the road(like space, and seamless intercontinental planets). What more could we ask than that?

Originally Posted by Tialian

PS1 does have stamina and it was done right, as a resource. And PS1 did have sprinting, it was called surge. It was a great mechanic allowing people to run faster without weapons out for a limited amount of time and getting hit shortened this time.

People jump to new shooters because for one, the games are so bland and unimmersive that there is nothing to keep them playing (they've maxed out their carrot); and for two, there is an expectation that the sequel to a game will be like the current game but with notable improvements.

If Battlefield 4 turned out to be like WoW but with guns and tanks and 30 man gear grinding raids people would be scratching their heads, just like many people are scratching their heads right now that PS2 is going backwards going from a massive immersive tactical team based shooter to an arena style shallow bland arcade shooter with larger maps.

That already happened with BF3. It didn't turn out to be like WoW, of course, but instead, like CoD with vehicles. Everything DICE does now, they talk about 'how will this affect the infantry combat', 'we have to think about the infantry'. I know a lot of people here don't believe there is a difference between pre-BC2 Battlefield games and CoD, but there is a huge difference to me. Pre-BC2 BF was about teamwork and larger maps, and post BC2-BF is about individual play, tunnel linearity and quickscoping montages on youtube.

Serpent · 2012-08-31, 06:10 PM

Well I must say... I'm really disappointed with how people have been talking about the beta. Some say it's just a beta and it's fine for what it is, but I"m seeing so many people just say how much like CoD combined with Battlefield is- I don't want that.

The more I see of video footage, the more I want it. The more people talk about it, the more worried I get...

fvdham · 2012-08-31, 06:17 PM

I get a little sad sometimes wheren I play PlanetSide 2.

In PlanetSide I used to make plans which base to attack next
and there were CR5's yelling wich base to attack next.
There was planning and coordination.

This does not happen in PlanetSide 2.
There is only zerg.

Problems in part due to:
- Bases not having names on the map.
- Chat window disappearing = Less yelling.
- Not yet a clear difference to me in tactical/strategic value of bases.
- No continental commander.

Serpent · 2012-08-31, 06:26 PM

^That's more about beta than anything else... you can't expect people to want to only win. Some people are going to be testing every single thing they can for bugs etc., just to improve the game. It's just not logical to say "aww mean PS1 is better damn this sucks im never playing this again

"

I know you're not saying that, but not everyone WANTS to win during the beta.

Notser · 2012-08-31, 06:40 PM

Generic

Positives

Art design is fantastic, really enjoying every aspect of the games art. Game looks fantastic and with the performance improvements it is definitely moving in the right direction.

Scale feels awesome, love seeing 10 galaxies with 20 aircraft all on my screen. I hope that gameplay/performance will allow for larger battles in the future. Currently we're really only fighting 50 v 50.

Ground Vehicles are great, enjoying the weight and look. Wish they weren't ants to air, but that is a balance issue right now. I'd challenge devs to take the strengths of the factional vehicles further to encourage different engagement strategies for each faction.

Negatives

Weapons have no identity, all feel very generic and have no depth to the recoil. I'd prefer weapons that are similar to CS or comparable to using a champion in a moba. Really need to have distinct handling.

Air is too powerful, too easy to play and do too much damage for the skill required to play. Either need to make them harder to use, cost more, and/or reduce the damage they do. I also disagree with the flight ceiling, currently there is really only ground to air engagements. Aircraft have to fly too low for anything else, I'd much rather have a higher ceiling to give players more variety in gameplay.

Map is TERRIBLE, I can't express how much I hate the entire structure of the bases, safezone warpgates, and spawn system. The map will always favor attack directions, you can't balance the map with the current warpgate setup. Much prefer having a sanc that allows for factions to attack out of all the warpgates rather than always fighting in a clusterfuck of 3 empires. Bases need real objectives rather than just running around a conquest map for 15 min until cap. Influence shouldn't change once a assault starts on a facility. Spawning should work better, squad spawn should be more effective but obviously easy to identify and take out. Need more information on spawning location in relationship to the map and control points rather than distance from players death.

Resources currently are insignificant to the gameplay. Players should earn the currency for weapons by participating in battles and having success through captures, kills, and support. Vehicles/loadouts have zero impact on the cost of a vehicle so baseline costs just as much as a vehicle that is supercharged with all the best weapons. I'd like to see certs that reduce the cost to compensate but obviously a player would have to spend their certs to reduce the cost rather than keep buffing the power of the vehicle.

Game is just too simplistic for a game that is expected to exist for a long time. You can't launch a fps that is this generic and succeed when there are 50 released each year.

Crator · 2012-08-31, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Serpent

^That's more about beta than anything else... you can't expect people to want to only win. Some people are going to be testing every single thing they can for bugs etc., just to improve the game. It's just not logical to say "aww mean PS1 is better damn this sucks im never playing this again

"

I know you're not saying that, but not everyone WANTS to win during the beta.

^^^ True, but we should not sit idle and say nothing. Giving our opinions right out the gate does matter. Especially since the devs are listening to what the community has to say.

Sirisian · 2012-08-31, 06:57 PM

I think some other people covered some of the major flaws in the current design regarding the class based system and resource models. I took a break after playing for 3 weeks and posting a lot of suggestions. Planning to jump in again this labor day maybe and check out the changes. (Was playing with a friend, but he stopped since he was getting bored I guess).

This is definitely a beta and feels like one. I love their quick iteration and content progression. If they could keep this content flowing into the game at this rate I think they'd have something with reworked systems. (I'm being vague since I posted everything on the beta forums). Overall though this game really had the engine behind it to be amazing if the designs (both gameplay and UI) can be worked out.

Also personally I feel whoever they have designing their weapons needs to open their mind to a pure CoF system to make the weapons distinct. The recoil system is totally destroying the weapon variety.

MaxDamage · 2012-08-31, 07:01 PM

It's very pretty.

It definitely seems more team oriented than its predecessor.

I like that.

Resource system is cool and makes sense.

I still can't think of a reason to play for more than 30minutes to an hour.

Extreme lack of vehicles.
I like long lists of things.
Lists impress me.
I remember looking at the range of vehicles + weapons including Empire specific variants in PS1 and being massively impressed; being able to access the enemy's equipment was also a thrill. Black and red vanguards and magriders etc.. marvellous.

When I talk about Planetside to my console playing pals they ask 'how many vehicle types' does it have.

I have to *cough* and say it's still in beta.

People like to be wow'd, but thankfully this is the age of YouTube (which really wasn't a presence when PS1 came out) and I can just link them to that video by TotalBiscuit which starts "Ladies and Gentlemen".

That may well be how he starts every video.

I like it, I can jump in it, but I'm not hooked.

I can't find my friends easily enough -
When they hit me up and say "join me/us in EU1" or "US 2" it'd be nice to have a location by a friends name.
I also don't understand why the social panel/friend thing isn't in a managable window on the screen instead of a fullscreen thing.

I can't find any setting to make the chat window stop disappearing which is really annoying..
There doesn't appear to be a chatwindow option to show a history of kills, like Planetside 1 and other games I'm accustomed to.

They stopped the minimap rotating which was a big help.. that was maddening. :P

This is relevant:

Originally Posted by fvdham

Problems in part due to:
- Bases not having names on the map.

Changes to the structure of capturing bases seem positive, it was far too chaotic before they introduced more robust frontlines.

No more insta-drop podding makes things .. trickier. :P
Not a complaint, now I have to spend more time thinking about where I want to go.
Less ridiculous.

Who do I have to kill to get a leopard print MAX unit?

Shinjorai · 2012-08-31, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Higby

Tell the world this. I think were doing something pretty unprescedented (and frankly a little of scary to a lot of people) with how open we've been and how closely we've worked with and integrated our community into this games development. Tell everyone it's what you want out of developers in the future and we (all of us gamers) may get it.

I couldnt agree more. Ive been a gamer a lot of years and what i dont get it why more companies dont understand what you guys are doing now is what EVERY gaming company should be doing. If companies got more involved like youre doing then the finished product would be so much better i believe. So thanks Higby and to your entire team for doing such a great job. Much appreciated!

Stanis · 2012-08-31, 07:21 PM

The devs talk about a plan and longevity of the game.
They then quote the depth of the cert tree.
We have certifications and weapon unlocks to supposedly sidegrade our characters.

I disagree.
They can call it longevity. Lots of people want to be level 100 if that is there. So the game will always have another cert to unlock.

I call this a grind.
It's a grind because it's not depth. It's a timesink.
Auraxium having a real world value and being acquired based on empire performance being the biggest of them all. Timesink.

The medic has a cert tree that increases the capabilities of their heal and revive. Rate, Range, Heal on Revive. There is something similar for the engineer.
Yay. Go class abilities. You're a gimped <insert class> until you invest those 500 cert points to get an acceptable minimum.

What do I mean by acceptable? For YOU to be effective in that class slot when your outfit calls for squads to assemble rather than the guy that has certed in it.

We're straitjacketed into classes rather than a compromise between the free form certs and inventory of PS1 and a bit of intelligent design with armour, weapon and equipment slots and options that allow variety and individuality while working to eliminate or reduce abuse combos.

The weapons are not sidegrades and upgrades.
The Ps1 magrider is probably closest to the VPC + Saron. Yet it will cost something like 18000 auraxium to purchase those two guns.
There will be a dozen different <pick one: carbine|rifle|lmg|snipe> for each class. End result is there is about a dozen different looks and feels that you then need to upgrade again.
Give us carbine, rifle, lmg, bolt as the base gun and let us modify that.
All classes seem to get the shotguns. Yay. Once we find out what the 'best' metagame shotgun is you can expect everybody to have that fairly soon after.

The classes and weapons don't give each empire a unique feel.
They come across to me as look and feel on generic solutions. Every HA is the same as every HA. You just won't know what snazzy gimmick it's got up it's sleeve but you can bet on an LMG and AV of some sort. Boring. PITA when you need AV and haven't got one.
It'll say it again. Really generic. No difference between any class or vehicle of each faction.
Yes stats are different. They supposed to be different.
But we could all use the same stats and just have different graphics.
There is no uniqueness to each empire as we all have the same things.

Unique would be - VS having no air power and relying on an impressive G2A arsenal and teleporters ..
Hard to balance. Impossible to balance gameplay. But that's unique.
Instead we all get a gal. a fighter. an aa max. an aa gun. woohoo.
(Think blizzard starcraft balance .. a damn tough job amazing when done well).

Had some awesome battles that have felt amazing because of the size of combat. The first couple weeks of new unfamiliar have worn off.
The essentials of PS style gameplay - platoons, squads, outfits are only just about working so it's too hard to criticise them other than say it needs work.
And the devs are clearly working hard!

However, I see some decisions made in development best emphasised when people then say "its like CoD and BF3 had a love child. It's not PS".
The spirit of PS1 and intent is there. The game just isn't PS1

I think a lot more people played CoD and BF3 than Planetside over the years. Making it friendly for the mass market is thus a good thing.

It's PS2 and it's going to rock.

dsi · 2012-08-31, 07:30 PM

The biggest problem seems to be that they've lifted entire parts of the gameplay out of BF3 and transposed it onto PS2.

This isn't going to end well when BF4 releases and attracts back the crowd they've attracted by doing this.

Blitzkri · 2012-08-31, 08:17 PM

Ignore the solo killwhore commando wannabes who cry for a better K/D and make good with the teambased players who want to fight as a team.

No more buffing single player vehicles to take out multimanned vehicles.

Emphasis on teamwork, and the need to have a team. We do not want the super skilled 12 year old from COD mopping up an entire squad. 5>1 unless those 5 really suck ultra bad. If that is the case then too bad for those 5 guys for sucking really bad.

Figment · 2012-08-31, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Blitzkri

No more buffing single player vehicles to take out multimanned vehicles.

Yet multicrew vehicle are encouraged to be manned solo because they die so fast and the driver can drive off and be "super-effective".

Ignore the solo killwhore commando wannabes who cry for a better K/D and make good with the teambased players who want to fight as a team.

Emphasis on teamwork, and the need to have a team. We do not want the super skilled 12 year old from COD mopping up an entire squad. 5>1 unless those 5 really suck ultra bad. If that is the case then too bad for those 5 guys for sucking really bad.

Don't really get what you're trying to say with this. If one guy is a solo killwhore, then five guys should still best him no matter what system. Making the solo guy a complete walkover removes any remaining challenge based on personal skill from the five guys though and that's also really, really bad.

Dependency is great. Teamwork is great. But you can overshoot your mark. There's such a thing as overdependency, that's what we got in PS2 because the devs overshot their mark by miles in their attempts to at all costs prevent one man suiss knive armies by reducing them to stock niches.

Then with vehicles, which are more powerful and therefore SHOULD be niches, they do the exact opposite... Madness.

Vladamyr · 2012-08-31, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Valcron

The game is very simple- If you Love Call of Duty and Battlefield series you will love this game. If you LOVE planetside, you won't love this game- because it's NOT Planetside at all. It's fun to log on for a few minutes but gets terribly boring after a while. PS1 where are you?

This. The game feels like a BF3 clone. I loved PS1 and just can't find any enjoyment in PS2. The graphics are really well done but other than that the game has no depth.