Wow. This place really died, eh? - Page 6

Calista · 2014-12-19, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

Interesting, I'd picked up that H1Z1 was kind of an accidental project.

I wonder what they have in mind withe WW2 game.

Won't it trample on PS2 server smash?
And doesn't Server Smash and all those kind of scheduled matches prove that matches in themselves aren't enough and need to be backed by a game that is interesting in it's own right?

Could be for MLG purposes. I don't know what kind of agreement they had with SOE but PS2 flopped pretty hard for MLG. Who knows? All I know is what I said prior and this was actually from Smed in an early H1Z1 stream

His PR people probably wish he hadn't said all that but hey that was the best part of the stream!

Figment · 2014-12-20, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

If you understood the importance of CE/AMS for defense you would have asked for the CUD EMP blast and CUD Orbital Strike to be removed from the game 10 years ago.

You brats got exactly what you wanted so enjoy your rolling balls of zergs going from spawn camp to spawn camp with little to no resistance.

If you understood the importance of being able to counter zergs with swarms of CE you would have understood the importance of the existance of OSes and EMP blasts... Besides, an OS in the hands of a zerg is pretty useless since it only hastens what they will destroy anyway. A well placed OS in the hands of a handful of defenders can be absolutely crippling to zergs.

If you understood the importance of removing AMSes that are controlled by zergs engaging a handful of defenders, you would have understood the importance of OSes and EMPs.

You really don't see how you need a counter to zergs.

Shortsighted brats like you didn't get what you wanted in PS1, namely steamrolling zergs from base to base using CE and nigh invincible AMS positions.

If you gave PS2 classes far less limited CE, you would have created a complete monster Buggsy. Without an inventory system and certification system, massive CE, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT EMP BLASTS would simply be the ultimate steamroll zerg gift.

Figment · 2014-12-20, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Calista

You guys know why Jimmy left the PS2 team? It wasn't for H1Z1 initially. They are/were working on a 256 player WW2 round based game. Think of BF1942 only much bigger.

Wonder why they never make a WWI shooter instead. Trench warfare, tunnel warfare and if you want an "exp grind game" like everyone makes these days... just throw in the battle at Verdun...

[/rude sarcasm]

That aside, it's probably easier to design this than a continuous large scale multiplayer. Only two sides and probably more linearity. And of course, no jumpjets. Surely they'll be able to make some reasonable maps. Most important thing at that population scale is to make the capture points and spawning system reasonable and create proper lines of defense.

Enough of Zombie games already!

Enough of the WWII and Vietnam games too, tbh. There were other wars that could be far more interesting...

At least if you made a game about the invasion of Zanzibar, you could actually have a 30 minute round and cover the entire war on a minute by minute basis.

Course... Nobody would pick the Zanzibar team... >.>

Calista · 2014-12-21, 09:30 AM

You must have been playing World of Tanks lately lol. I never really got into it.

Smed called the game Sturm und drang and said something about it being a first person moba. Interesting because I believe Project Bluestreak from Bosskey (where TRay went) is also an fps moba. I wonder how SOE will monetize a WWII game? When you make a period specific game like that the crazy cosmetics just won't work.

Figment · 2014-12-21, 06:27 PM

More a general remark, PlanetSide 2, BR40 in PS1, pretty much EVERY SINGLE RPG, War Thunder, World of Tanks, Warplanes and Battleships, all exp grind games. The gameplay itself... Yeah well... leveling first, gameplay second. Cause grind can be monetized.

Originally Posted by Calista

When you make a period specific game like that the crazy cosmetics just won't work.

Battlefield Heroes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xchFVeorjHo

p0intman · 2014-12-22, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

But to players hope to have it developed in a very specific direction isn't why you would want to play a game you don't quite enjoy for years.

In fact, it kinda pains you to see the potential and not getting the obvious. When I played it with another PS1 vet, we would get constantly annoyed by the detail designs that were impacting in some way as a rather annoying side-effect that you either could or couldn't do, but were forced to camp or give up or not be able to use attrition as a weapon in fighting a group of people too large to kill all medics at once for instance (we could tackle such a group in PS1 by taking their supplies (destroying terms and AMS) and then removing the med juice from the medics over time). We would constantly rant "why didn't they do this this way? Oh wait that would be like some other game we once played, what was it called again?"

It is a constant source of minor aggravations to play the game and all taken together it just isn't fun anymore. And no, can't switch that off. Tried for half a year.

I look at this game, and all I manage to see are so many obvious fuckups that I'm left wondering why they chose what they did, and what they had hoped would come of it. I see base design and overall level design that just... is so obviously wrong that it hurts my head any time I see someone try to defend it.

I see people wanting to love this game as I once did, and I admire that, but its frustrating to see them say that the game is -fun- because... to someone like me, or figment... its not. Its ... just... not. I can explain, in detail, how it worked and why it worked if someone has PLAYED the game... but I'm left wordless to someone that hasn't. I'd have to draw diagrams or show screenshots of it to explain it. Shrug. I kinda gave up on explaining it. Its one of those games that you'll never understand unless you go, load it up and actually look around, and look at the mechanics pretty close.

The cynic in me says to say 'fuck them' and that if they want their game to not suck, they can pay one of us that gets it for the privilege of overhauling it. But then they had that chance, and he left to go elsewhere, which is totally understandable.

Originally Posted by Buggsy

If you understood the importance of CE/AMS for defense you would have asked for the CUD EMP blast and CUD Orbital Strike to be removed from the game 10 years ago.

You brats got exactly what you wanted so enjoy your rolling balls of zergs going from spawn camp to spawn camp with little to no resistance.

Fun fact: three or four times in my PS1 history, I petitioned SOE to demote me to CR4 because I got sick and tired of the bullshit that CR5s put up with. I didn't care about my OS and only rarely needed my EMP. It was a fucking burdensome mantle to carry at times, and was more like herding feral retarded cats than actual fun sometimes.

I think... you're mistakening us, because I and others most certainly did petition for orbitals to be removed many years ago, and I petitioned SOE to not put orbitals into PS2... ever.

As far as the WW2 game, I won't bother with it... they'll just fuck it up like PS1, PS2 and SWG.

MLG failed because SOE used it as forced marketing first.

Figment · 2014-12-22, 08:34 PM

The problem with anything powerful is not that it's powerful, but frequency and volume of use.

I was a major Sunderer user, but I thought the EMP blast, though a good addition in itself, was overpowered due to being available every 30s. I made a point of it driving around an enemy CY honking and blasting without gunners on board. Best was 9 laps in a full CY.

See, having a discussion about such features is easy. We could have had say longer OS timers related to the amount of CR5s online per day. But in PS2, we're talking of a potential of 2000 CR5s. But PS1 Devs were pretty much non-existent for most the period of its existence. We would be happy if we got one. Unless it was Brewko. Tbh. I know he meant well and I respect him for that, but he did more harm than good with his ideas. Especially things like giving aircraft more hitpoints late in the game, throwing away all other balance instead of simply adjusting the Wasp's gun/missiles as that was the reason to change, BR40 and Black Ops...

You could tell that completely different devs than the original set worked on it for most the time, cause the later devs (except for Beady) lacked vision and understanding. Beady came in late, was INCREDIBLY eager to learn and cooperate, had very creative ideas and realised you couldn't just put any idea in.

I think it's also important to realise that the original devs did have the option to put jetpacks on troops, but chose not to put jetpacks on any unit that could open doors, thereby evading basic defenses without help from others. In fact, the concept of doors already weighs heavily on what happened in PS2. We got shields now, but shields have a completely different dynamic. But as P0intman says, explaining the implications of one choice or a combination of choices over another requires so much explaining...

p0intman · 2014-12-22, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

The problem with anything powerful is not that it's powerful, but frequency and volume of use.

I was a major Sunderer user, but I thought the EMP blast, though a good addition in itself, was overpowered due to being available every 30s. I made a point of it driving around an enemy CY honking and blasting without gunners on board. Best was 9 laps in a full CY.

See, having a discussion about such features is easy. We could have had say longer OS timers related to the amount of CR5s online per day. But in PS2, we're talking of a potential of 2000 CR5s. But PS1 Devs were pretty much non-existent for most the period of its existence. We would be happy if we got one. Unless it was Brewko. Tbh. I know he meant well and I respect him for that, but he did more harm than good with his ideas. Especially things like giving aircraft more hitpoints late in the game, throwing away all other balance instead of simply adjusting the Wasp's gun/missiles as that was the reason to change, BR40 and Black Ops...

You could tell that completely different devs than the original set worked on it for most the time, cause the later devs (except for Beady) lacked vision and understanding. Beady came in late, was INCREDIBLY eager to learn and cooperate, had very creative ideas and realised you couldn't just put any idea in.

I think it's also important to realise that the original devs did have the option to put jetpacks on troops, but chose not to put jetpacks on any unit that could open doors, thereby evading basic defenses without help from others. In fact, the concept of doors already weighs heavily on what happened in PS2. We got shields now, but shields have a completely different dynamic. But as P0intman says, explaining the implications of one choice or a combination of choices over another requires so much explaining...

I and some others devised a lol worthy tactic late in PS1 where we'd load up in a sunderer of choice, in shock trooper gear, load the sunderer into a lodestar and then drop on a biolab on the roof so that we'd land the sunderer outside of the gen room door. The EMP would go off, we'd dismount and run in while the sunderer took hits, and we didn't.

It made quite a few people rage at us. I think I might indirectly be liable for there not being a lodestar in PS2. However, That could just be my ego mixing with cynicism and the fact I think most of the PS2 devs hate the creativity we had in PS1.

Figment · 2014-12-23, 06:51 AM

Pfft. Try old school Sundies. Three of them on the top of a 100% TR pop Seth including four outfits I got together.

Followed by a backdoor Hapi raid by water with five full Deliverers that ruined their entire hold.

First time that was done.

Brunitto · 2015-01-06, 02:20 PM

iim alive

EVILoHOMER · 2015-01-07, 07:58 AM

PSU was for fans of the first PS, when PS2 came out and it turned out to be shit... everyone left. They should have made Planetside 2, instead they made Genericside Battlefield wannabe.

Even if they did that, they could have made a good game, but they didn't.

Like when they brought out the MCG, we could have had a different play style, instead they just made a rifle with spin up time. The reasoning from the devs was because you couldn't take cover with it.... that is the whole point of a MCG, you run and gun and shoot the hell out of everything! The HA should have been unique, but the Lasher feels like a rifle and even the Shotguns sounded and felt like rifles.

Why couldn't we have the unique weapons of Planetside which were more like UT or Quake? Instead we just got Battlefield weapons... fucking sucks.

Then you had the no meta game thanx to many things like not being able to lock conts due to only having three islands.

What about the terrible base designs? They were massive on the outside, yet they had no indoor floor plan what so ever. The game had no infantry combat, just vehicles camping doors and impossible to defend bases.

It was also P2W or grind for 20 years... which Planetside never was.

Now look at the shit show EQN and Landmark are, nothing even like EverQuest, they're just using the name to milk money out of people. What makes no sense about that though is EverQuest is a name that carries to weight but to a small group of hardcore players from 10+ years ago. They should have called it something else, but instead they want to piss all us fans off... though to be fair they done that a long time ago.

I say this time and timer again, Smedley needs to go, he has ran SOE into the ground and tbh when H1Z1 (the poor Dayz clone) fails and then EQN does too... he will be fired and I will feel like I have justice finally for all the money he has thrown down the drain of mine.

Remember SWG? Spent two years and a lot of money on that and then I was told by SOE and Lucas Arts to fuck off. They actually said that, they wanted a new player base and all us fans were meaningless to them.

That is exactly what they did with Planetside 2, all you fans of Planetside... you can go to hell because we're trying to get Battlefield fans now.

p0intman · 2015-01-07, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

Remember SWG? Spent two years and a lot of money on that and then I was told by SOE and Lucas Arts to fuck off. They actually said that, they wanted a new player base and all us fans were meaningless to them.

That is exactly what they did with Planetside 2, all you fans of Planetside... you can go to hell because we're trying to get Battlefield fans now.

Emphasis mine. That's EXACTLY how I feel with this. At least with SWG, people are trying to fix what SomeOne Else broke.

Figment · 2015-01-07, 07:59 PM

Tbh, I'm not sure if that was the intention or the effect.

I feel they had the will to make something grand, but lacked the experience to make it the way it'd been "perfect" in our minds, or even close to an upgrade because PlanetSide is not a type of game you learn to understand in a few short years, let alone in a couple months. Let alone in a period where the game was practically dead and you couldn't get experience of how it plays out of it.

This though, is the time they started working on it. So they kinda HAD to look at other games more than PS1, because basically, PS1 wasn't REALLY played anymore. Had they been there with the team in 2006? It'd been easy to see what would need to be done.

Had they been there with the team in 2008? It'd been possible. Hard, but possible. In 2010? Frankly, I had a hard time recognising the game at that point given the way it was being fought and given the BR40 destruction of cert balance. Let's not even think of the bugs.

By the time they moved it to the new server in San Diego, neither the game nor the company had much hope to do much with it. Let's face it, they put up a version with some of the units either missing or bugged, but ultimately one without players to show even a single campaign.

Yet PS2 started being developed well after its prime. The concept of planetary warfare did not exist anymore at that time. It was just threeways. If you were lucky. Otherwise it was ghosting.

PS2 developers should have seen command chat. ACTIVE command chat in 2005. They should have asked questions: "why do you chose that target, why not go there?" "Why do they respond?" "Why do they refuse to help?" "If you could fix this base layout, what would you do?"

etc. etc.

But they couldn't. SOE had given up on the concept in late 2004, after Aftershock failed.

p0intman · 2015-01-08, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Tbh, I'm not sure if that was the intention or the effect.

I feel they had the will to make something grand, but lacked the experience to make it the way it'd been "perfect" in our minds, or even close to an upgrade because PlanetSide is not a type of game you learn to understand in a few short years, let alone in a couple months. Let alone in a period where the game was practically dead and you couldn't get experience of how it plays out of it.

This though, is the time they started working on it. So they kinda HAD to look at other games more than PS1, because basically, PS1 wasn't REALLY played anymore. Had they been there with the team in 2006? It'd been easy to see what would need to be done.

Had they been there with the team in 2008? It'd been possible. Hard, but possible. In 2010? Frankly, I had a hard time recognising the game at that point given the way it was being fought and given the BR40 destruction of cert balance. Let's not even think of the bugs.

By the time they moved it to the new server in San Diego, neither the game nor the company had much hope to do much with it. Let's face it, they put up a version with some of the units either missing or bugged, but ultimately one without players to show even a single campaign.

Yet PS2 started being developed well after its prime. The concept of planetary warfare did not exist anymore at that time. It was just threeways. If you were lucky. Otherwise it was ghosting.

PS2 developers should have seen command chat. ACTIVE command chat in 2005. They should have asked questions: "why do you chose that target, why not go there?" "Why do they respond?" "Why do they refuse to help?" "If you could fix this base layout, what would you do?"

etc. etc.

But they couldn't. SOE had given up on the concept in late 2004, after Aftershock failed.

the cynic in me says its a bit of both.
the optimist in me says its just the effect of ignorant design.

Calista · 2015-01-09, 09:41 AM

Funny they deemed PS1 as not being a financial success so with PS2 they opted for more of a pure shooter experience than the RPG-ish original. Both share a high barrier of entry with elevated system requirements and also now it appears both are not financially successful. If the sub model was still viable (and perhaps it is but with lower monthly cost) they could have focused their entire staffing budget on gameplay assets rather than silly hats and what not.