Planetside 2 is a major disappointment - Page 7 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: If it sells, it's art
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-10-17, 03:17 PM   [Ignore Me] #91
Hamma
PSU Admin
 
Hamma's Avatar
 


Originally Posted by Baneblade View Post
Well, pardon if I want some examples of actual players who quit PS1 because it was too hard before I believe it.
It was a major issue.
__________________

PlanetSide Universe - Administrator / Site Owner - Contact @ PSU
Hamma Time - Evil Ranting Admin - DragonWolves - Commanding Officer
Hamma is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 03:19 PM   [Ignore Me] #92
Hamma
PSU Admin
 
Hamma's Avatar
 


Just so you guys know bickering about how the game is a disappointment is in no way helpful for anyone especially SOE. Bring up valid points with evidence as to why and I promise they will listen.
__________________

PlanetSide Universe - Administrator / Site Owner - Contact @ PSU
Hamma Time - Evil Ranting Admin - DragonWolves - Commanding Officer
Hamma is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 03:39 PM   [Ignore Me] #93
texico
Master Sergeant
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
You make it sound as a bad thing. PS1's flexibility (BEFORE BR40) was one of dependence in independency, but not overdependence. PS2 took the dependency thing way too far. This is not about actual balance, this is about rock-paper-scissors balance, where you're not allowed to compete at all. If you rely on a single HA in a group of three, then you can just /suicide if you see more than one tank or your HA dies, or your engi dies while the HA runs out of rockets after the first volley. That's not teamwork, that's slaughter. If you can even beat the one tank with your group: if the HA misses (which with dumbfire is absolutely more than common, particularly against Magriders) then no, teamplay fails.

In PS1, your TEAM, note the word TEAM, could help each other take out those bigger threats in a large variety of ways: they could all grab AV [IF CERTED], someone could disable the approaching tanks with EMP, giving the others more time, someone could have placed a minefield [IF CERTED] to provide an alternative means of killing, all could at least damage with machine gun fire even if ineffective, someone could use a Rocklet instead [IF CERTED], someone could use a Falcon instead [IF CERTED], someone could grab (you) a vehicle to fight back [IF CERTED], someone could try and jack the vehicle once stationary [IF CERTED]. But at least you could always do something! Currently, EVERYONE can grab you a vehicle, but nobody wants to get in as they'll just get their own: the internal vehicle teamwork element is all but gone. Everyone is looking at others to do a job, while everyone knows that if you want to have something done right, you do it yourself. You can't expect others to always step in where you can't. Knowing you have no means of doing anything in a game once alone makes a player feel helpless. That is a horrendous thing to do to a player.

What's so stupid about PS2 is that they inflict severe role restrictions on the weakest and least mobile of units (infantry), while providing utter independence to the strongest and most mobile of units (vehicles, MBTs in particular). It's the world turned upside down. The advantage of infantry has always been flexibility. That advantage is gone and shifted to MBTs. That's why you currently see people mass solo supposed multicrew tanks everywhere. With it, inter-vehicle balance is gone.


THAT is teamwork as well. It's just not sitting back and waiting for the other guy to beat them because you can't do anything to help. THAT is NOT team play. That is called boring and overdependence, since if your one buddy fails, your entire TEAM fails.

Hooray? Not really. What does this mean? You can't play the game in small groups at all. Even groups of 5, which were very common in PlanetSide are basically told to join a bigger group or get screwed if they encounter a bigger team. I'm sorry, but I don't think this game can be succesful if lone and small group players are being outed. Why?


Because every NEW player is a LONE player. You can't keep them in without forcing them into random squads? They'll leave if they get ganked time and again by numbers without being able to hold their own or play smart to outsmart the larger group.


Sure, PlanetSide is intended to be played primarily as a group effort: squad - platoon - outfit - empire. But before squad comes loner. In PS1 groups of 1-3 players could make a difference, making you feel like the Hero of the Conglomerate. And we're not even per definition talking about a 100/1 K/D. I don't give a rats arse about K/D and happily went with negative K/Ds in order to make that damn difference. I'm talking about having a fighting chance. I'm talking about being able to turn the tide by doing something that disables the enemy or enables your side to turn a fight around. Currently, a single player is a drop in the bucket, sure you might be the one that makes it spill over, but you and others won't actually know that was you. That reduces the satisfaction the game provides tremendously.


Don't come to me with the argument "you should join a good outfit". I LEAD a good outfit. Each of us as individuals can hold their own in their own expertise. As a group, we work well together. However, since we're not a zergfit, we're not able to mass the numbers that make the real difference in PlanetSide 2. Sheer numbers of armour and troops overwhelms you with ease, since everything can get bypassed from 6 directions. You need huge numbers to even hold a single building in PS2 and tbh, that's utter shite.

I'm not asking for PS1, with just 3 entrances to a base. But I am asking for positions where you can multiply smaller numbers by focusing fire and covering fire. That's inexistent right now due to base design and you continuously get shot in the rear. Since the TTK is so low, there's nothing you can do about that either by proper positioning and by the second respawn, you're already spawncamped by a large tank group with no way to hit them first because of the outside angle and explosion radius and TTK being far superior to yours after a respawn.

That makes the game simply boring, because there IS no contest. This game is designed to make zergfits win without breaking a sweat. If that's how you want to play great.


But let me tell you now that more and more of my outfit members can't be bothered to login because there's just no point.



Base design as is, is very poor. Nobody here is asking for carbon copies of PS1, I certainly am not asking for the return of Interlinks in particular. However, I do expect these things:
  1. Force multipliers (more select amount of choke points, more entrances than PS1, less than PS2)
  2. Solid defense perimeter (walls without gaps everywhere if you can already jump over them everywhere)
  3. Lines of defense, meaning you have an outer defense and inner defense and then another inner defense ring (or two) for bigger bases. The removal of Galaxy spawn made the outer defense ring an option.
  4. Defenders being able to deny attackers access to control points, generators and spawn control units, rather than attackers denying defenders even to get out of the spawnroom. That means that your spawn should be connected directly to these things and not separated by the frontline and lines of fire constantly. Outpost design is particularly bad and I'd easily take any camped PS1 tower over camped PS2 outposts, despite of the already meh-design of the PS1 tower (too chokey). Why? Because the PS2 outpost cannot be defended at all unless you outnumber the enemy.
  5. Passive defenses where you can use area denial tools to create your own funnels and cover at least some of your flanks: valid minefields

You can say all you want that PS2 is a different game, that doesn't mean it doesn't need these things or can't have room for these things. Everyone knows they can. Everyone also knows that a class system is NOT a selling point on which they decided to try a game or keep playing it. However, what it can be, is a put-off. Class systems, especially stringent ones, really put me off games. Especially multiplayer games. To make sure people can play, there should be some overlap possible at all times.


To make a class system work for me, classes should have enhanced abilities in a field, probably some exclusive abilities, but not only exclusive abilities in a field and then no abilities outside of that field. Of course specific classes have restrictions for balance sake and role suitability. A cloaker should not carry AV launchers, but they should have access to mines, even if they can't carry as many as others could.

There's never been anything wrong with being able to lay minefields, suddenly instead of say halving the amount of mines you can place due to there being more people in game, the amount is decimated and it is made completely impossible to use mines because minefields only work in quantity (a bullet, being aimed, is based on quantity and quality, a mine is passive and cannot relocate, thus relies solely on quantity).

Those are random and arbitrary, baseless changes. If you want to claim PS2 is a better game than PS1, you can do that, but only on individual elements. In many respects, PS1 still outbalances and outthinks and outplays PS2. Why? Because PS1 is a refined game. PS2 is riddled with child deceases.

The problem is, the patient (and part of its bloodcells) often doesn't know its sick and is ignorant of existing cures and just blames any issues on "novelty". Sorry, but novelty is not an excuse to ignore past lessons.

+1. Fig has a fantastic understanding of the intricacies that hold a fight together, and teamwork vs lonework. The notion that "classes is all about teamwork" and "inventory is just about one man supersoldiers" is rubbish, and if it ever did get like that in PS1 it could easily be fixed by reducing cert points. But what the invent system in PS1 allowed for was teamwork with flexibility. In a platoon of 15-20 people working together to cap a deserted base, there was a continuum of specialisation vs generalisataion. A well-organised team would have the people specialized in roles fulfilling that role as often as possible; the guy with Adv.Medic would spend most of his time Medding, the guys with AV were on the walls waiting for Maxes charging the BD... But I wasn't utterly dependent on their roles, rather, it was just tactically advantageous to utilize them; having a Medic heal me means I can keep firing. But if the Adv Med dies and I'm injured, I still have the capability to heal myself if certed. At that point, when the teamwork breaks down, if I'm stuck in a class and can't defend myself then it's game-over, it's frustrating and it KILLS that smaller scale teamwork too much.

As figgy said, the key of being a soldier is supposed to be that flexibility. Being able to have and use machine guns, handguns, picking up and using a rocket launcher, medical supplies, grenades, dropping explosives, manning things, interacting, hacking, crudely repairing, actively decided what you should and should not carry on your persona and making trade-offs, and being able to be self dependent when you really need too (as long as you can't do everything at the same time). It's the metagame that then dictates that teamwork > one-man army.

And it did. When you actually look at a battlefield in PS1 as a whole, people organized themselves into "classes" naturally. You'd have a hill full of Snipers, you'd have Infantry attacking more directly through forest cover, you'd have cloakers behind enemy lines, you'd have guys laying CE on all the roads, you'd have somebody setting up AMS and Aegis, you'd have guys at the back of the fight with parked Lodestars... it goes on, and it's far more diverse than any set of "classes" could make it.

For the above reason I thought the whole customisation idea would be awesome, more flexibility! Adding scopes, laser pointers, increasing/decreasing clip size, fluffy stuff, it sounded great. But there's not much point in superficial flexibility if at the core of things you're stuck in a stiff, dependable and predictable class.

And what gets me, too, is that for a player there's nothing to be gained from the class system, just things being withdrawn. If people wanted to play these "classes", they could just organise their inventory that way! If PS2 went inventory tomorrow and you liked Light Assault, just fill your inventory with all the things you liked about it. The only supposed pro to is is its apparent affects on promoting teamwork and helping the metagame which, for the above reasons, I don't believe in, and its supposed to be more simple then filling an inventory, even though backpacks are common in, like, tons of massively-populated MMORPG's; it can't be that difficult to figure out the concept that placing stuff in your inventory and holster means that that's what you're carrying on yourself, and I'm sure they could come up with a way to clearly explain that certificates = access to certain stuff.
texico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 03:45 PM   [Ignore Me] #94
Valcron
Master Sergeant
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by Hamma View Post
Just so you guys know bickering about how the game is a disappointment is in no way helpful for anyone especially SOE. Bring up valid points with evidence as to why and I promise they will listen.
There is a very big difference between listening, and actually doing something about it. I could sit there and tell you how sanctuaries are a great thing for Planetside, as well as an open class system.

But the reality is, smed, and his team don't have a single bit of interest in actually making this happen. He said it himself, as well as Higby and the rest of the team.

Therefore it's a waste of time to even bother trying.
Valcron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 03:48 PM   [Ignore Me] #95
VaderShake
First Lieutenant
 
VaderShake's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Everyone please don't miss the forrest through the trees, PS2 will be a benchmark FPS MMO for years to come, don't miss out because you gave up in beta.

Then again some people will always find something to bitch about....
VaderShake is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 04:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #96
OnexBigxHebrew
Sergeant Major
 
OnexBigxHebrew's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by maradine View Post
That was a pretty quick walk through the stages of grief.
Calling me out with quotes won't make PS2 not terrible .

They add substance, I come back, I checked, they didn't. qq fanboy.
OnexBigxHebrew is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 04:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #97
texico
Master Sergeant
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by Valcron View Post
There is a very big difference between listening, and actually doing something about it. I could sit there and tell you how sanctuaries are a great thing for Planetside, as well as an open class system.

But the reality is, smed, and his team don't have a single bit of interest in actually making this happen. He said it himself, as well as Higby and the rest of the team.

Therefore it's a waste of time to even bother trying.
I think I remember, it was one of the very first proper posts by Smed after "PS next, you will like". He mentioned the fact that it was "clear" to him what PS1's problems were, and how Sanctuaries were crap etc.

It's subtle, but I've often wondered that from day 1 Smed has had his mind made up about certain aspects of PS2 and the devs have to stick to that. Seems clear from what he said then was that he just doesn't like some things about PS1. He doesn't want Sanctuaries in PS2 despite the complaints, and I have a feeling they won't happen for this reason.

Just have this bad feeling Smed is going to lean on things like that.
texico is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 06:19 PM   [Ignore Me] #98
maradine
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel
 
maradine's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by OnexBigxHebrew View Post
Calling me out with quotes won't make PS2 not terrible .

They add substance, I come back, I checked, they didn't. qq fanboy.
Indeed it won't. I am not, however, inclined to believe it's terrible, and I'm not sure I have any particular burden of action to prove otherwise. I would prefer a more constructive, suggestion-driven approach to improving the game, which I hope my longer posts on topics that are dear to me would illustrate. Calling you out on being functionally worthless to this conversation is, therefore, not only amusing to me, but in what I perceive as the game's best interest.

If that's the qualification for "fanboy" these days, sign me up.
maradine is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 07:27 PM   [Ignore Me] #99
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by FortySe7en View Post
Then you don't lead a good outfit.
OMGZ I ARZ NOT SPAMINVIET PEOPZLES, MY OUTFORZIT IZ BAD!?



EDIT: Note, we field groups under 12 right now, because our people can't be bothered to log in and play "Generic FPS Zergfest X". :/ Don't know about you, but we get bored playing "zerg left, right, up, down & repeat". We're a tactical oriented outfit, we want more from a conquest game: we want satisfaction in strategic conquest and defense. There's only intuitive defense right now and we roll around from side to side where the empire needs us, which is currently all over the place and usualy we're among the first to try to hold a defense because of that.

And what happens, we get completely zerged and spawncamped because of THAT, simply because we can't cover all or even half the entrances and find ourselves surrounded constantly. We can kill some tanks, but seeing as they bring more, it's impossible to keep that up. Especially not if you try to hold an outpost in a remote location without vehicles nearby. IF you try to fall back, you end up too late to save an area, because capture rate and logistics aren't matching. And even if you do come back in time, your 5 tanks or two libs can't do anything against 18 tanks including some AA Lightnings.

In PS1, we raped those types of zergs by making good use of terrain and tools available to support one another, pick off enemy tanks (which held larger percentages of their troops) force them through funnels and make better use of our manpower than them. I can recall periods where 3 of us held of 30 by making them come in one by one and being flexible with our weaponry (at Chuku, VS attacking from Ekera. We were quick switching between turret, fury, MA, infil, stole their AMSes and Galaxy and used it against them, funneled them with minefields, used EMPs, etc and were better one on one. Iincredibly tough fight, but I went from 8/7 to 58/9. Note, I never certed Heavy Assault in PS1, I beat people with Sweepers and Mag Scat pistols).

Not because we were OP, they still had more tools and things available, but we could simply support one another due to having smart role overlap and picking them off one by one. We played smarter, we were more creative with our tools and we prepared and thus made good use of force multipliers. In PS2, that's simply not possible because they have so many units and we have so little overlap, that the law of leverage weighs almost exponentially in their favour:

They have more medics, more AV, more engineers (that outrepair our few HA), more jetpacks, more tanks, more low TTK weapons, dozens of alternative routes to get to our backs, more ease of cutting us of from our and their objective... It's just way too much to deal with for small groups.

You can call us sucky and state that you pwn, but you probably have to realise that your type of pwnage occurs under very select circumstances and that you probably are forced to avoid dozens of situations altogether. That you can accept that is IMO very sad. Because not being able to partake in those situations actually means it's not properly designed. You just don't (want to?) realise that.

Last edited by Figment; 2012-10-17 at 07:52 PM.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 07:30 PM   [Ignore Me] #100
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
Says one who survived the curve. Those that didnt arent here to tell us about it.
PS1 at first lacked a proper tutorial as the first offline tutorial did not keep up with the game (and I mean, it had you try and kill a Harasser with a Punisher gold ammo, deploy an AMS Mk2 while the tutorial was made for the Mk1, etc...). When they created an in game one (finally), it was completely bugged. It took them months to get it working properly from when they first implemented the new one. Which was what, in 2005? 2006? Can't remember. Either way, it was years late and incomplete even though pretty decent at what it did.

Speaking of learning curve... PS2 has no tutorial at all. You have to make due with mouse cursor hovering.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 07:33 PM   [Ignore Me] #101
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by DjEclipse View Post
What you talking about Willis? This infantry rape of armor just happened last night:

<object bgcolor='#000000' data='http://www.twitch.tv/widgets/archive_embed_player.swf' height='378' id='clip_embed_player_flash' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='620'><param name='movie' value='http://www.twitch.tv/widgets/archive_embed_player.swf'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='always'><param name='allowNetworking' value='all'><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'><param name='flashvars' value='title=The+Enclave+wipes+out+the+666th.&host name=www.twitch.tv&archive_id=335841550&auto_play= false&start_volume=25&channel=buzzcutpsycho'></object><br><a href="http://www.twitch.tv/buzzcutpsycho" class="trk" style="padding:2px 0px 4px; display:block; width: 320px; font-weight:normal; font-size:10px; text-decoration:underline; text-align:center;">Watch live video from buzzcutpsycho on TwitchTV</a>
If only that was the only spot you encounter large amounts of tanks as infantry...
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 07:36 PM   [Ignore Me] #102
maradine
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel
 
maradine's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Speaking of learning curve... PS2 has no tutorial at all. You have to make due with mouse cursor hovering.
That, at least, is being covered shortly.
maradine is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 08:45 PM   [Ignore Me] #103
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by maradine View Post
That, at least, is being covered shortly.
Are you refering to the "mini-tutorial"?

Given that PS2 has more complex and convoluted systems than PS1, I doubt 'mini' will do... Learning curve for PS type games is months for the basis, years to get good.

They best need to teach them they start from scratch but should use their RTS and fps experience in new and creative ways.

Provided the class system lets them.
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 10:26 PM   [Ignore Me] #104
maradine
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel
 
maradine's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


As an outfit leader, maybe. As a grunt, 30 minutes and a quick brief on which end of the plastic thing goes boom is probably sufficient. After that, you don't really need to learn anything faster than your cert gain allows for.

SOE needs to teach the facts - the "years to get good" stuff is on us.
maradine is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 04:34 AM   [Ignore Me] #105
Figment
Lieutenant General
 
Re: Planetside 2 is a major disappointment


Originally Posted by maradine View Post
As an outfit leader, maybe. As a grunt, 30 minutes and a quick brief on which end of the plastic thing goes boom is probably sufficient. After that, you don't really need to learn anything faster than your cert gain allows for.

SOE needs to teach the facts - the "years to get good" stuff is on us.
Inclined to disagree. The fundamental gameplay supporting systems such as hacking as an infil (awareness that you can even hack enemy turrets), where you can change gear at an AMS, what different types of grenade do, etc. Those are far more important than explaining what goes boom: you need to know what something is, before you consider saving up for specialisations or specific certs.

Strategy is something that in principle needs to be learned through experience, but it is definitely important to inform new players on how to read a map, where to go and where to expect enemies. A strategy tutorial on map reading wouldn't be a bad thing: they should learn what the influence indicators are, what the different map status mean, what flashing hex groups mean, that you can click on them for more info, etc. How to set waypoints (and what are the cert demands for that etc), how to use voice chat, voice macros and different chat options. All of those are far more important to tutor than how to throw a rock or pull a trigger. It is however important to teach players how to use special abilities and change firemodes and of course how certification can change these things.

There's a lot of things that should have easy to reach tutorials for new players. "Mini" sounds to me like "Go to the map, use instant action, go git 'm soldier!".

The shop, cert info, etc even the menus should have their own explanatory tutorial(s).
Figment is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.