Our concerns made it to PCGamer.com - Page 7

Legolas · 2013-01-06, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Shenyen

CoD CoD BF3 CoD CoD

Is this what you are looking for?

Highstall · 2013-01-06, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by Legolas

...I don't like your out-of-touch and patronizing tone in this last paragraph either, by the way.

How interesting. I don't like your inability to respond to my comments with anything constructive - or even contrary - so there we have it.

My broad point is that the game works and is relatively balanced. From a short-term perspective (which you can only have so soon after release) that is a huge win.

All the comments here seem to focus around small balance adjustments somehow racing against some doomsday clock - and that's just not the case.

If you're reading this forum post, you will load the game back up every new major patch. You will probably give SOE some money. You will make posts on a fan-site forum and contribute to the overall "internet social awareness" of the game. If the PS2 devs are sharp and keep rolling out good quality work (like the stuff we've seen so far) the game will continue to keep people passionate about it.

Legolas · 2013-01-06, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Highstall

My broad point is that the game works

I disagree. Massive single faction zergs split by the three continents = a broken game. Lack of any real fighting on at least one map on a Medium population server = nonexistent game. Constant Spawn Camping = a highly flawed game.

and is relatively balanced.

I disagree. The vehicle balance is totally out of whack.

All the comments here seem to focus around small balance adjustments

I disagree. Base defense and the Meta-game aren't small. Neither is a proper new user introduction.

Replied.

Highstall · 2013-01-06, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Legolas

I would quote your words, but you make it harder than it has to be - so you just get my response:

Clearly you disagree with what I'm saying, but your opinion is based on faulty assumptions. All of those assumptions boil down to some sort of Jerry Maguire fantasy that - scorned by game developers that have ignored your cries for justice - will see everyone marching away in the first mass-exodus of protesting game nerds ever.

How many hours have you put into the game? I've put 125, so far. That already puts the game into the top 10% of all games I've ever played (time-wise.) I think most people here probably beat me out, too. If the game is so broken and "nonexistent," then how are so many people having so much fun? There's a bigger picture being missed here.

I know the game has problems, and it's good to point them out. There's tons of room for improvement. All signs point to the developers making changes and releasing more content that will see people continuing to subscribe and grow the community.

My posts here are an attempt to keep expectations reasonable, and judgments rational. The game can really show you some cool stuff - amazing stuff, that you just can't get in any other fps. Its better FPS war than anywhere else.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RPuY2hvYjnw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

GTGD · 2013-01-07, 12:18 AM

And we continue on our slow but sure march to replace everything they thought was a good idea with a better idea that actually works, from PS1.

RykerStruvian · 2013-01-07, 12:24 AM

I don't mean to be a debbie downer but I don't believe anything is going to change, at least nothing we're proposing. They have their own gameplan set out and we'll find out soon enough this month...but I'm not holding my breath as it is unrealistic to do so.

And I am not saying the world is ending and that the game is going to die, but what I am saying is that I don't believe our vision of what PS2 is really matches up with what SOE has in mind for PS2. They wouldn't come this way just to change everything after a couple of months. If they do change something, it will probably be something along the lines of an XP buff for burster MAXs, possible anti tank mine change, and some minor weapon adjustments. But anything major, like a new overhauled resource system or bases is really unrealistic.

SOE might try to find a middle ground between their vision and something PS1 vets would like (or PS2 players). But whatever they have set is what they're going to go with.

james · 2013-01-07, 12:34 AM

Originally Posted by RykerStruvian

I don't mean to be a debbie downer but I don't believe anything is going to change, at least nothing we're proposing. They have their own gameplan set out and we'll find out soon enough this month...but I'm not holding my breath as it is unrealistic to do so.
.

I really hope you aren't right. But when you look at the gameplay decisions it seems so. It seems they went for a cash grab to pull in COD and BF players, and based off the current player numbers they missed.

The current state of the game IMO is getting really close to be nothing more than Farmside 2.

When it comes down to it, if the devs aren't willing to make major changes, the future of the game is not promising. Some of the basic game play mechanics are heavily flawed. The huge changes that where made late beta, did nothing but hurt the game.

When you have people who have spent 100's of dollar in your game, leaving after one month. There is a major problem with your game, especially at the number of them.

infinite loop · 2013-01-07, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Highstall

If the game is so broken and "nonexistent," then how are so many people having so much fun? There's a bigger picture being missed here.

Who around here is actually having fun? I can't seem to find that thread.

Shenyen · 2013-01-07, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by infinite loop

Who around here is actually having fun? I can't seem to find that thread.

So, you put about a hundred hours into a game that is not fun?

Originally Posted by Legolas

Is this what you are looking for?

I would like to say stuff that would get me banned from this forum.

Well, that wouldn't be that bad, because this forum has become a meeting point for whiners...

I am not a fan of Call of Duty, i never was into Battlefield, before i played BFBC2 and BF3.

I loved Planetside 1.

BUT:

Planetside 1 is no more.

The servers are empty, they will never again attract enough players to make it worthwhile.

So focusing on PS1 is futile.

There have never been many people who have played PS1, I don't think there have been more than 200k combined.

What made PS1 great was the large scale of everything, a squad consisted of more players than in a game of Counter-Strike and a platoon consisted of more players than a Battlefield/Tribes-game.

But: The FPS-gameplay was never good.

The game had tons of lag and low fps (Planetside 2 runs great in comparison to PS1 2 months after release), the number of WHOAH EPIC-moments was imho much lower than in PS2.

PS2 has much better gunplay, performance is much better, it looks as good as regular games, firing a weapon feels like in BF3, CoD or CS - and not like in EverQuest^^.

To attract a crowd, the basics have to be in the game - firing a gun has to be fun.

And it is.

The metagame (Uuhh, whatever that is - and in PS1, i NEVER cared for continental lock-stuff) will be improved over time, but it is something that Battlefield never had, so the BF3-crowd won't miss that metagame they never had.

And to be a success, this game has to attract the BF3-crowd.

Because even if they attracted ALL Planetside 1 players (and i know of 1 that didn't enjoy PS1 at all, so they could get only 199.999 PS1 players^^) - that would be only 10% of the audience they want to attract.

This game is very young, only a bit more than a month.

1. Every MMORPG has a lack of endgame content a month after release - because most of the players will still be running around in the medium level range.
The 10% that have rushed through all the content will be bored - but they are a minority, it is unreasonable for a developer to spend the months before release developing mainly stuff for the 10% or even delaying the release of the game. The content for the 90% has to be finished!

And in Planetside 2 - that content is in - for 90% of the playerbase, this game is fun.

(Or they don't like it at all, but not because of a lacking metagame but because they expected something completely different - and that's okay, this game doesn't cost a thing, so many will try it out and many will leave after a short while - but enough will stay)

2. In Planetside 1 - there was a lack of more interesting stuff this short after release,too!

LLU? (Whaa whaa, the capture mechanics are boring, every capture is the same!)
Core Combat? (Whaa, whaaa, we want CQB!!!)
Skyguard
Loadstar (We have no way to transport larger vehicles!)

So if not being in the state that Planetside 1 was a year after releases dooms Planetside 2 a month after release - Planetside 1 would have never survived the first 3 months.
Because Planetside 1 a month after released was NOT the same as Planetside 1 a year after release.

artifice · 2013-01-07, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by infinite loop

Who around here is actually having fun? I can't seem to find that thread.

I am having fun, but I don't feel the need to make a thread on just how much fun I am having unlike all these people that insist on making threads on just how much they aren't having fun.

Gatekeeper · 2013-01-07, 08:16 AM

I really agree with Highstall, and various others here, who are saying that the game is fun and that its problems (which are very real, I agree) aren't the end of the world.

I loved PS1, and I was (and am) very disappointed at how many great ideas from PS1 were dropped for PS2 (first and foremost the fact that MBT drivers now also get the main gun).

But that said, PS2 gunplay is immediately satisfying in a way that PS1 never was, and it's more stable and graphically much more impressive than PS1 ever was.

PS2 may not be a deep game, but it is a fun game - and there's plenty of time yet to fix the flaws. Take a breath people, and give it a little time.

Crator · 2013-01-07, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by artifice

I am having fun, but I don't feel the need to make a thread on just how much fun I am having unlike all these people that insist on making threads on just how much they aren't having fun.

Yeah, we should just shut down the forums. No need for them.

Hamma · 2013-01-07, 09:43 AM

People who have fun are typically playing the game and not posting.

Legolas · 2013-01-07, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by Shenyen

I would like to say stuff that would get me banned from this forum.

Sorry. I take that all back. I was being a judgemental douche and I should know better.

*sadface* :/ *sadface*

I see what you said there and agree totally. Let me just leave this analogy here though:

SOE made a small red car, fueled by apples. It was highly ambitious and flawed, but it kinda worked for what it was. Until they broke it.
DICE made a large blue car, fueled by oranges. It was less ambitious and worked better. They made a series of them.

SOE wanted to be a big success like DICE, so they tried to repaint their red car to blue but it became purple instead. They also saw how the DICE car was larger and fueled by oranges, so they made their car much larger and fueled it with oranges. But now their engine is too small and still works much better when fueled by apples.

DICE now has another large blue car. People by it. It smells of orange.
SOE now has a large purple car that has too small an engine to drive it and is constantly coughing on oranges. It has a faint whiff of apple.

Long story short: there is nothing wrong with red, blue, purple, large, small, apples, oranges or engine size. It is just that the car has to work as an ensemble.

Originally Posted by Highstall

Clearly you disagree with what I'm saying...

My problem is not that old players are leaving. It is that new players are. These are examples of serious and well known flaws in the game. Can't you see how detrimental they are to the immediate experience and long term enjoyment of the game?

- The empty base captures problem.
- Highly unfriendly new player experience.
- The serious imbalance between vehicles and infantry. See farming.
- Lack of base defense.

Originally Posted by Highstall

If the game is so broken and "nonexistent," then how are so many people having so much fun?

Debatable. We will have to wait another few months to see whether the major problems are fixed and whether they have had a significant effect on the playerbase population.

I think the errors are severe enough to be potentially crippling if they are not dealt with sooner (within a month) rather than later.

Originally Posted by Highstall

All signs point to the developers making changes and releasing more content that will see people continuing to subscribe and grow the community.

All signs? SOE always rushes games then dumps and ruins them a short time later. Look at PS1, SWG and Everquest II. As for DCUO... yuck.

Originally Posted by Highstall

My posts here are an attempt to keep expectations reasonable, and judgments rational.

No one is expecting the moon to be delivered to their door. And I could deal with the lack of vehicle types, maps and even depth to the game if what we had actually worked right. It doesn't. This is what is causing the "whining" from many sectors of the population.

RodenyC · 2013-01-07, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Crator

Why is it being argued that what PS1 players think would make the game better is ONLY to attract PS1 players? That's an asinine line of thinking.

Can someone please answer this? Why do people assume this. Perhaps one of you guys who are suggesting that PS2 is such a great game already will explain.

Originally Posted by Shenyen

So, you put about a hundred hours into a game that is not fun?

I would like to say stuff that would get me banned from this forum.

Well, that wouldn't be that bad, because this forum has become a meeting point for whiners...

I am not a fan of Call of Duty, i never was into Battlefield, before i played BFBC2 and BF3.

I loved Planetside 1.

Doesn't seem like it but hey I'm not you so I can't say.

BUT:

Planetside 1 is no more.

The servers are empty, they will never again attract enough players to make it worthwhile.

Yes because who in this day and age plays a game that shows its age and you still have to pay for it? I(and know many others) don't pay for subscriptions games anymore.Hence why majority of games are heading that way.

So focusing on PS1 is futile.

Really?So ideas that made a game great is futile? I don't understand that logic.Most if not all games that have a sequel(s) brought back ideas from the previous game.But so far the only thing that has been brought back are names and the game being big.Names and the game being big? Is that all PS1 is worth? I don't think so.

There have never been many people who have played PS1, I don't think there have been more than 200k combined.

And you are stating a obvious fact.Is this suppose to be a insult to PS1? I keep hearing people say this but it's something that was bound to happen.
Let's look at it.
PS1 had very little market,had a smaller player cap,and you had to pay a subscription fee.Not everyone is willing to put out 15 bucks.PS2 has a much higher player cap,no subscription fee,and had pretty decent marketing.And yet people make this claim that PS2 is superior numbers wise?!?! Well no shit.It was setup to be bigger.

What made PS1 great was the large scale of everything, a squad consisted of more players than in a game of Counter-Strike and a platoon consisted of more players than a Battlefield/Tribes-game.

If that is all that made PS1 great for you then I feel sad for you.

But: The FPS-gameplay was never good.

I can agree on this easily.

The game had tons of lag and low fps (Planetside 2 runs great in comparison to PS1 2 months after release), the number of WHOAH EPIC-moments was imho much lower than in PS2.

That depends on who you ask.When I first started playing PS1 the only thing wrong was internet connection.On PS2 still getting some performance problems.But I'm on a semi decent computer.

PS2 has much better gunplay, performance is much better, it looks as good as regular games, firing a weapon feels like in BF3, CoD or CS - and not like in EverQuest^^.

To each his own.I personally cannot stand any of the games that you have mention.I regret purchasing in CoD and BF3.

To attract a crowd, the basics have to be in the game - firing a gun has to be fun.

To attract a crowd, firing the gun doesn't have to be fun,the game has to be fun.Firing the weapons in PS1 weren't the best,but as many will and can tell you the game was fun as hell.

And it is.

No it's not

The metagame (Uuhh, whatever that is - and in PS1, i NEVER cared for continental lock-stuff) will be improved over time, but it is something that Battlefield never had, so the BF3-crowd won't miss that metagame they never had.

How long have you actually played PS1? To not know what the metagame is and say you loved PS1? Idk about that.How do you know they won't miss it? How do you know that the BF3 crowd won't want something that actually doesn't feel like they are stupid kids just shooting stuff and saying "meh I'm done shooting" That metagame that is missing is that endgame the BF3 crowd will be missing.Idk about you but I have yet to get that feeling that after taking a base I've accomplished something.That was the "endgame" in PS1.Why won't they missed that endgame?

And to be a success, this game has to attract the BF3-crowd.

No.For this game to be a success it needs to be different.What is the point in copying another game? Why not stick with the original?

Because even if they attracted ALL Planetside 1 players (and i know of 1 that didn't enjoy PS1 at all, so they could get only 199.999 PS1 players^^) - that would be only 10% of the audience they want to attract.

Why wouldn't you want to attract players who know more about a game than those who don't? The players who know about the game know that the game needs this so this can be correct.Not players who say"why isn't such and such in?BF3 and CoD did it why isn't it in?" If I was a game developer I wouldn't want the crowd who wants my game to be a carbon copy of another.

This game is very young, only a bit more than a month.

No,this game isn't young.It was released about a month ago.But it is not young. This game must have been in development for about 5 years.They had 10 years to say go"hey this works let's keep this".10 years to make improvements.Not downgrades.

1. Every MMORPG has a lack of endgame content a month after release - because most of the players will still be running around in the medium level range.
The 10% that have rushed through all the content will be bored - but they are a minority, it is unreasonable for a developer to spend the months before release developing mainly stuff for the 10% or even delaying the release of the game. The content for the 90% has to be finished!

And in Planetside 2 - that content is in - for 90% of the playerbase, this game is fun.

You speak for all the players? I see more ingame and outgame chat saying they aren't having as much fun as PS1.I'm not speaking for all the players but I've seen more negative then positive(not including this or the official forums).

(Or they don't like it at all, but not because of a lacking metagame but because they expected something completely different - and that's okay, this game doesn't cost a thing, so many will try it out and many will leave after a short while - but enough will stay)

2. In Planetside 1 - there was a lack of more interesting stuff this short after release,too!

LLU? (Whaa whaa, the capture mechanics are boring, every capture is the same!)
Core Combat? (Whaa, whaaa, we want CQB!!!)
Skyguard
Loadstar (We have no way to transport larger vehicles!)

Planetside 1 wasn't a sequel.It didn't have the time to work and decide what should stay and go.PS2 had 10 years.10 YEARS!

So if not being in the state that Planetside 1 was a year after releases dooms Planetside 2 a month after release - Planetside 1 would have never survived the first 3 months.
Because Planetside 1 a month after released was NOT the same as Planetside 1 a year after release.

Again 10 years.