I LOVE vehicle spam, it's NOT the problem of this game - Page 9

Baneblade · 2013-02-20, 11:58 PM

HEAT and HE Weapons and ESF Rockets are the problem infantry have.

Enemy infantry that engage my tank actually have a fairly good chance of killing it, simply because I don't use anything other than AP (which imo should be what every tank uses).

Tanks should be using machine guns to engage infantry, not the main cannon.

Sturmhardt · 2013-02-21, 01:03 AM

Agreed. I still think HE ammo for tanks was one of the worst moves they made. It's just frustrating for infantry.

.sent via phone.

Ironside · 2013-02-21, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Sturmhardt

Agreed. I still think HE ammo for tanks was one of the worst moves they made. It's just frustrating for infantry.

.sent via phone.

Agreed

Figment · 2013-02-21, 05:20 AM

Rolfski, the BF3 crowd doesn't want solo-mbts spammed en mass. If anything, they want more infantry.

When I did a survey (203 respondents, 73 from PS1, 41 from BF3) on tank gunners and asked people what game they came from and analysed by game of origin, only A THIRD of both the PS1 and BF3 crowd wanted soloable MBTs.

2/3s wanted crewed tanks with dedicated drivers. Of that two thirds for PS1, 60% wanted two crew tanks and 40% wanted three crew tanks. Of that two thirds for BF3, 60% wanted three crew tanks and 40% two crew tanks. In fact, of the people that wanted four crew tanks, not one came from PS1, all came from BF3. For players from all games combined, the same distinction in results emerged: 67% wanted dedicated drivers.

Sorry Rolfski, but you're making up assumptions about what the "BF3 audience" wants and then connect this to current design.

Yet you should admit right here and now that you have no way to support those assumptions. You never asked any of them, you just parrot the devs' assumption.

Hell, you don't even know if BF3 players like the way tanks are done in BF3. Because you never asked. In fact, the reason you say BF3 players want this, is because BF3 devs did that. But do you know if that was an extremely informed decision?

And do you realise that there's a slight amount difference between the amount of tanks in BF3 and PS2? Have you ever considered the context difference?

From the sounds of it, you haven't. You base everything on conjecture that's entirely based on assumptions. :/ Sorry if that will never win you an argument.

Badjuju · 2013-02-21, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Not sure why this 1,5 month old topic got digged up again (infantry play has in the meanwhile changed for the better) but I kinda lost interest in your argument right after "They want the game to be more like PS1".

As is said a trillion times, this is a different Planetside: different times, different market, different audience, different business model, different development process, different mechanics, different engine, different dev team, different everything.

If you do not want to deal with this reality and keep asking for a PS 1.5 than I suggest you uninstall this game and check back in maybe a year or so. Although chances are you will never like this game so maybe don't bother installing it ever again.

The point was not to state the that I wanted a carbon copy of PS1. It was to point out differences in vehicle balance using PS1 as an example because it is the only game that we can hold in comparison.

Some one had stated that people complaining about vehicle spam wanted a small scale shooter. I was simply making the point that that was not the case, and that they simply wanted a battle field that consisted of more than vehicle zergs 90% of the time.

So because I felt PS1 did a good job with creating a balanced battle field which made sense, I surely must hate PS2 and want it changed to "PS1.5." I guess it is wrong of me to use any examples from PS1, a game similar in principal and goals, to discuss anything that I may think is not working or needs adjustments in PS2.

I am happy with allot of what they have done with PS2. I simply think balance of the battlefield is off. You may have gotten that if you actually took the time to read and comprehend my post instead of acting like a douche bag while completely missing my point all together.

Rolfski · 2013-02-21, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Sorry Rolfski, but you're making up assumptions about what the "BF3 audience" wants and then connect this to current design.

Yet you should admit right here and now that you have no way to support those assumptions. You never asked any of them, you just parrot the devs' assumption.

Your survey is not that representative either but maybe I should have changed BF3 audience with more casual gamer to get my point across.

Btw I personally come from BF3 and I would hate being limited to either driving or gunning which was the point of this topic in the first place. All these solutions I'm reading (many of them from PS1) are all about limiting players vs empowering them, which I think is totally the wrong direction of this game.

Originally Posted by Badjuju

You may have gotten that if you actually took the time to read and comprehend my post instead of acting like a douche bag while completely missing my point all together.

Fair enough, I might have missed your point. I didn't say I didn't read your post though (I did), so no need to call people douche bags.

It's just that too often, I see people blindly throwing in "magical" PS1 solutions while completely forgetting to judge this game on it's own merits.

Figment · 2013-02-21, 06:08 PM

It may not be as representative as I would like it. But at least I don't make things up and base my argument on a single even unproven assumption. You have no such sources for casual gamers either. You assume. Why havn't they tried both in beta and asked?

So far, I don't think there is any better source than my survey. Unfortunately. Perhaps we should setup a large community effort on developing a large survey? Perhaps set some up for multitudes of issues and ask for dev endorsement in promoting it? Of course, if they can't do something, that is different.

Limiting the players brings out the best of them and makes them specialists that can make a name for themselves. We know the gameplay under restrictions and we know the gameplay without (in PS1), PS2 is closer to the latter.

PS1 turned into spam of heaviest of heaviest weapons after BR40. PS2 sees the same trend where players always use the heaviest tools first and foremost. And in such quantities that pop imbalances are felt much worse, since heavy weapons are force multipliers.

Badjuju · 2013-02-22, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Fair enough, I might have missed your point. I didn't say I didn't read your post though (I did), so no need to call people douche bags.

It's just that too often, I see people blindly throwing in "magical" PS1 solutions while completely forgetting to judge this game on it's own merits.

My apologies as well. I just thought your response came off a little dickish. In response to that and aided by my lovely hang over I ended up giving a dickish response in return.

I think we can both agree at this point that it is quite easy to jump to conclusions or on to other people's cases after all the nonsense that crops up on the forums these days. Anyways back to more constructive arguments.

Btw I still disagree with you

Figment · 2013-02-22, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

It's just that too often, I see people blindly throwing in "magical" PS1 solutions while completely forgetting to judge this game on it's own merits.

And it happens even more that we see people who did not play this particular game (PlanetSide) come in and make ignorant dismissals on such PS1 solutions immediately and irrationally just because PS1 never recovered from the introduction of a short period of time (timespan of half a year) of Core Combat, Bending, OP BFRs, bad management, Everquest II launch and marketing and WoW launch all happening at almost the exact same time. Yet survived despite all of that for a decade.

And it seems this is usualy just out of annoyance with the frequency of referencing a game they did not play rather than the arguments used. Perhaps it is frustration you can't really join in the discussion of its merits and therefore cling to irrational prejudices like "obsoletion in all its facets because it's older". You simply don't know if it's actually "magical" or actually simply a good, effective idea.

Both games are in fact judged on their own merits and shortcomings by the PS1 crowd because they can compare, whereas the people who did not play PS1 often don't dare judge PS2 on its shortcomings (if they even see them as they can't and thus don't compare). And since they can't judge PS1 on its merits, they will pretend it only had shortcomings...

I'm sorry, but I at least am really fed up with that attitude, because those people tend to read very selectively, don't understand the opposition, while they are in tunnelvision of status quo design. Meanwhile usualy insulting the opposition with strawmen and using over-generalising, denigrating remarks like "you just want PS1 / PS1.5" and making it sound as if they're eating barf. Not to mention the rose teinted goggles of "this is a new game, thus it's different and therefore better" and "there's a new audience that's completely different". That's completely irrational, unproven conjecture. The only truth in it is that it's new and different.

Rolfski · 2013-02-22, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Both games are in fact judged on their own merits and shortcomings by the PS1 crowd because they can compare, whereas the people who did not play PS1 often don't dare judge PS2 on its shortcomings (if they even see them as they can't and thus don't compare). And since they can't judge PS1 on its merits, they will pretend it only had shortcomings...

This is nonsense and you know it. There are PS1 vets that give constructive criticism (you are one of them btw) and there are PS1 vets that are just frustrated and rant all the time (some got even banned for it). And guess what: The same goes for new players as well. There's really no difference here besides that this forum has relatively a lot of PS1 players, therefore many of these ranters have a PS1 back ground.

A lot of people see PS1 as the only viable comparison for PS2 because there is no other reference for them. I just strongly disagree with that because the devs clearly said from the beginning that this was going to be a whole different game. You can compare this game as much with any shooter as you can compare it with PS1.

So back on topic: Solutions on the perceived "vehicle spam" could/should come from any game. And if that vehicle solution works in the other game, it doesn't necessarily means it will work in this game, being it PS1 or not.

Crator · 2013-02-22, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

A lot of people see PS1 as the only viable comparison for PS2 because there is no other reference for them. I just strongly disagree with that because the devs clearly said from the beginning that this was going to be a whole different game. You can compare this game as much with any shooter as you can compare it with PS1..

Just curious, what other FPS game allows the amount of people to be on the same map and in the same area of the map, with all of them having the potential to have vehicles? Only other one besides PS1 that I can think of was America's Army. And I don't know much about that one and the mechanics used to restrict/control the issue (didn't really play it).

How does the statement "the devs clearly said from the beginning that this was going to be a whole different game" relate to underlying issues that both PS1 and PS2 clearly have. Since both have high amounts of players on the same map/same area of the map...

Figment · 2013-02-22, 05:00 PM

Crator, he simply doesn't realise that is propaganda for cutting some slack with a grumpy, neglected playerbase to create room for creative freedom and on the other hand, the reality that both games face the exact same design challenges. :/

Design challenges that all the other games Rolfski played never faced. Siege warfare in BF3? Free, unlimited vehicle choice? Constant combined arms? Hundreds of players having to defend and attack? Yes, let's see what valuable lessons we can learn from the entire line of Call of Duty games. What did they do last time they faced that design challenge again, Rolfski?

Rolfski · 2013-02-22, 05:02 PM

Nobody knows exactly what SOE was thinking when they announced this game. I haven't seen the business case for it. Also what they exactly had in mind with this game being completely different from PS1 is also still not 100% clear.

I have an educated guess though, you can read it in my signature.

Figment · 2013-02-22, 05:22 PM

That is all great Rolfski, but you should expect and accept constant comparisons. And a lot of people are using the new game argument to simply defend a status quo.

Whichever status quo is the current is "defended" with that.

Crator · 2013-02-22, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Nobody knows exactly what SOE was thinking when they announced this game.

A lot of PS1 vets think SOE wiped the slate clean. Didn't take too many design decision from PS1 that could've helped a lot of these issues. They were too fast in developing to concern themselves with that sort of stuff. Hence PS1 vet frustrations and suggestions that come right out of the PS1 playbook.