Becoming Disappointed. - Page 7

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-06, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Dude, srsly, wait till beta. Stop guessing stuff, you have as much information as we do. We simply dont know jack shit till beta.

I'm not sure how to take this.

Are you upset that I am expressing my views or that they do not align with your own? Waite till beta is no excuse. The forums are here to discuss things. That's what I am doing.

I fully plan on participating in beta and giving my feedback as well. Why do you, as a mod, feel we need to shut down discussion?

Its not that hard to notice that may War game aspects are being removed or side-steped due to the current mantra of "Speed it up". The topic is about how far its going, and what impact this has.

Where am I going wrong here in expressing, and discussing that. How close are you to giving me an infraction for participating? You and another mod have been becoming extremely threatening with people who express negative views on some things.

Should I be worried?

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-06, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Things are being changed up, but I think the E3 footage (bad players aside) proves that there is still a heavy role for team play and the large scale war aspects.

Doubtless a lot of things will need to be tweaked, but I strongly believe that the framework is still there.

There really isn't a lot to compare the game to other than the first Planetside, so I can understand how changes are going to be seen as diminishing the game, but I think a lot of these things can be handled equally well in different ways.

I think you are going to be pleasantly surprised once you and some friends/outfit mates get into beta and have a chance to put it to practice. It will be a new learning experience, but I think it will hold true to the core spirit of the first game.

I agree, the framework is still here, but there are many items going on where they are more session based, and removing aspects of that larger war Planetside was built for.

I'm currently very please about a number of things, but I like to discuss points where I am not. I look forward to beta, but I think part of what I bring up is about the larger philosophy of design, something not really able to be changed in beta.

GreatMazinkaise · 2012-06-06, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Mackenz

I have never considered this to be a 'war game'. Not even close, no way, no how. No publicly available (computer) based game out there is as a 'war game'.

I came from the Squad Leader/Advanced Squad Leader board game series, and the rules are a pretty hefty volume. You don't want that here.

Planetside 2 is a MMOFPS, not a 'war game'.

On the positive side, you make make some good points. But never confuse this with a 'war game'.

War game no, but it should continue to be a strategic arcade shooter, like its predecessor. If there's no grand strategic considerations, then it's just a massive multiplayer meat grinder.

Landtank · 2012-06-06, 02:31 PM

While I agree with you on very few points, this game was never intended to be a War game.

There are fronts, and soldiers, and tanks yes, but this is an FPS, one that requires teamwork and strategy. What allows the strategy is the size of these maps. If you shrink down the maps, then you get what we see in the livestreams, COD and BF3 and every other mainstream fps out there.

However, if you make the map 64km^2, then you have a whole new ballgame. You can actually arranged for tank battles, CAS, etc. So I'm not worried at all about how this will pan out, because once people can start implementing their own individual strategies, the game truly shines.

That's the beauty of Planetside: the players make the game what it is. The developers make a game that enables the player, instead of confining them like every other shooter.

basti · 2012-06-06, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I'm not sure how to take this.

Are you upset that I am expressing my views or that they do not align with your own? Waite till beta is no excuse. The forums are here to discuss things. That's what I am doing.

I fully plan on participating in beta and giving my feedback as well. Why do you, as a mod, feel we need to shut down discussion?

Its not that hard to notice that may War game aspects are being removed or side-steped due to the current mantra of "Speed it up". The topic is about how far its going, and what impact this has.

Where am I going wrong here in expressing, and discussing that. How close are you to giving me an infraction for participating? You and another mod have been becoming extremely threatening with people who express negative views on some things.

Should I be worried?

BAN!

Sorry bout that, ment it different.

What i actually mean: We really dont know yet what exactly is part of the special E3 build and what not. In any way, we gotta wait till beta and see ourself, and then direct the feedback for most of the stuff.

Right now, theres just almost nothing left that makes sense to be changed without having it seen ingame ourself first.

Haro · 2012-06-06, 02:36 PM

A few points:

1. As people have said in tons of threads, lot's of features were deliberately messed up because logistics isn't very good for 10-15 minute demos. Rules were changed, context was warped, etc. The invisible walls will be gone, as will the easy resources (they actually said they wanted to put in a surplus so everyone could get a feel for vehicles.)

2. Second, are you sure it was auto-regen you saw, and not some dropped ammo packs, health packs, armor repair, etc? I saw plenty of people run out of ammo, and I don't think I saw any health regen. I saw armor/shield regen, but I don't see how that actually makes this any less of a "war" game. There will still be plenty of logistics, you have several classes dedicated to the roles. If anything, with resources, upgrades, and no more medkits, I think the full game actually has more logistics than the old.

Frankly, I can understand if maybe you're upset because the game is not what you expected, but I feel a lot of your concerns are a bit overblown or not really adding up fully. I'm not trying to chastise or put you down, but I sincerely ask that you keep an open mind to the changes, at least until beta.

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-06, 02:38 PM

Thank you for the clarification basti.

The point you make is true, and one I am already aware of. This post was also started before E3 stuff came out, but much of what I had seen in the E3 Stuff did not really change my views of the 10,000 foot view.

Xyntech · 2012-06-06, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I agree, the framework is still here, but there are many items going on where they are more session based, and removing aspects of that larger war Planetside was built for.

I'm currently very please about a number of things, but I like to discuss points where I am not. I look forward to beta, but I think part of what I bring up is about the larger philosophy of design, something not really able to be changed in beta.

Just a heads up, politics suck but can be a very important tool. If you make threads like this that just seem to be generally more negative, it makes threads about rebinding B to V as the default binding seem that much more aggressive.

I think a lot of what they are doing is placating session based shooter fans, not catering to them. Planetside had a lot of shit that was obscenely underpowered such as the health regeneration implant. I think they are leveling the playing field on things like that, so that new players will feel more at home, so that they can be eased into the broader team based warfare.

So while the core element is that they are giving options to these transplanted players from session based shooters, the real issue is the details. Whether the nitty gritty balance makes them want to continue playing it as a solo session based shooter forever, or if it at least encourages them to have that much more fun by immersing themselves in the deeper elements.

There are very few core elements that I have seen that I have a problem with, because most of them have enough room that they could be balanced to fit into the game in multiple ways. The devs have been pretty open to taking suggestions from the fans and seem committed to working on balance in earnest once beta starts, so combining those two factors, I'm positive that we will be able to hammer out the details in a way that's best for the Planetside experience, while still having it be inviting to new players.

CutterJohn · 2012-06-06, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by basti

7. Those footholds wont stay for long, trust me. Devs just didnt have a chance yet to see what they really do to the territory system. But beta will show.

They are absolutely no different than the broadcast warpgates.

The only thing you would do by making them simple gates and adding a sanc is add a loading screen between reinforcements. You can't get rid of the gates, so you can't stop people from spawning into the map and going for a base.

Mackenz · 2012-06-06, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

War game no, but it should continue to be a strategic arcade shooter, like its predecessor. If there's no grand strategic considerations, then it's just a massive multiplayer meat grinder.

Philosophically, there are no 'grand strategic considerations' since there is no end game.

I know what you are trying to say. I am really looking forward to the strategic aspects (what I consider the MMO part) of the game along with the FPS aspects. That synthesis of the two is what has a lot of folks excited.

But what I am saying is don't confuse this for some kind of war game or a 'grand strategic' simulator, and don't label stuff as necessary to support that kind of game when it is not that kind of game in the first place.

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-06, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

They are absolutely no different than the broadcast warpgates.

They are in terms of scope, that's why I brought them up. Not every content in PS1 had links to sanctuary, also Broadcast only worked if the content was already opened, IE: you made a foothold.

Broadcast warpgate

Considered an upgrade from a normal warpgate, broadcast warpgates help Empires shorten the length of travel to the battlefront by allowing forces to teleport from one warpgate to another along the Galactic Lattice and Continental Lattice.

These gates are actived by a locked continent or an Empire's Sanctuary. Any warpgate physically linked to this continent becomes broadcast-capable.

If no broadcast link is available, entering the warpgate beam will simply transport you to the continent that gate is hard-linked to.

If Plantside is about global scale war, this foothold system turns contents into server selections in practice.

To quote myself from a thread that got closed for no reason:

Not seeing how the GLOBAL war will progress across the WORLD. IE: The Planet.....Side.

As it stands, with an impenetrable foothold on each continent, picking a Continent is more like simply picking a server to play on. This may also explain why they have mixed temperate zones per content, instead of each having its own like the original.

Am I missing the WAR game elements here? How can you have a Global front(s) if everyone has an impenetrable base on each continent? Isn't this more like a Session based shooter system? IE: Pick a map.

If I am misunderstanding something, let me know. Thoughts?

The Difference is simple, and huge. Empire movement will not be ACROSS the world, but only across each content in parallel. We won't see an empire move forces across three contents.

basti · 2012-06-06, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

They are absolutely no different than the broadcast warpgates.

The only thing you would do by making them simple gates and adding a sanc is add a loading screen between reinforcements. You can't get rid of the gates, so you can't stop people from spawning into the map and going for a base.

Thats the thing, you can.

John, just trust me there, i got expirience. Few years of being a CR5 that actually cares did teach me some stuff about how large group of players behave. But we will see during beta.

raidyr · 2012-06-06, 03:05 PM

My concerns as a Planetside 1 player and general MMOFPS/teamwork based FPS fan:

Does it look fun?
Yep, it looks fun.

Sturmhardt · 2012-06-06, 03:15 PM

For many points it is too early for me to tell if its good or bad, but one thing is really important about the OPs post: You have to be able to fail. You should have PROBLEMS. Problems like "omg, im nearly dead, I need someone to heal me" or "my vehicle is nearly broken, plz someone fix it" or something like that. If you can do everything on your own its not really teambased anymore and I rally loved that about PS1. I hope a lot of these teamplay-supporting mechanics return.

The Janitor · 2012-06-06, 04:27 PM

I don't care if we can't kick people off the continents; I kinda want to play Europa Universalis: Planetside Edition. Let's spread the pretty colors across the map while killing people!