Responses to some fears people mentioned.

ShowNoMercy · 2011-07-17, 08:10 PM

I cut down some of the quotes and used ellipses to show that. While I did remove some parts, I tried to preserve the overall message conveyed.

Originally Posted by Vancha

Headshots side, I fear the TTK will be too low. Headshots included, I fear the TTK will be way too low.

I fear they're going to make vehicle boarding instantaneous.

I fear the resource system could easily be made un-fun.

I am almost certain that TTK will be reduced, as the devs have made several mentions during interviews about speeding up game play. They are for sure removing vehicle entrance animations, but as for if the boarding is instantaneous or not remains to be seen. The resource system will most certainly add another dynamic to PS, the extent of which the dynamic affects gameplay is unknown. Resource limitations on certain vehicles and weapon attachments may make for less opportunities to use that vehicle/weapon, much the same that getting enemy vehicles in PS1 is. The increase in rarity may lead to more excitation when the vehicle/attachments are available, there by extending player enjoyment.

Originally Posted by Tool

I fear Empire imbalances making a return and having an effect on respective populations.

I fear the fading of enthusiasm of the PS2 team when beta comes and the tidal wave of complaints from the vocal minority constantly hounding them on they think the game should be.

Empire imbalances are almost guaranteed during beta, however they will have much more in-game data available to analyze, so hopefully imbalance issues will be corrected sooner than in PS1.

On enthusiasm - In a way i agree and it does worry me, however this should be expected by them as they are not first time game devs.

Originally Posted by Spectre

...Jetpacks could make walls obsolete(like they are Today), the class system could be nothing I like the certification system I loved, the game could be buggy when released, SOE could not support it again...

...I would really like to see if hotdropping a few platoons of soldiers from galaxies is still the greatest experience in the world.

Walls are only obsolete if the courtyard makes a return and if multi-story towers are prevalent. To my knowledge there has been no release of information regarding base layouts. In the base layouts of PS1, the VS max had a huge advantage during the critical point of courtyard capture, but once indoors their ability was somewhat hindered in its applications. That created balance to degree, but did reduce the time courtyard battles lasted.

The class system is a big wild card still in my opinion. The complexity and options presented for each class with determine how effective is to an extent. Mainstream FPS players will be more accustomed to it, which is a big goal for the dev team.

Gal drops will be just as awesome.

Originally Posted by Clyras

Actually the only stuff that particularly bothers me at the moment is what might be done about command. It doesn't take long to notice that the majority of command rank 5's in Planetside at the moment are just spamming immature pointless drivel or are just having a power trip and demanding people to leave continents to attack the one they want...

...its saddening that only a few of the commanders are likely to have any real idea as to what is a wise decision. I'm more interested rather than concerned about what they are going to do in this regard, and hope that it is sufficient. CRM's did the job back in the day, but of course we no longer have any to keep people in order.

The mission system is being implemented to try and counter the pointless drivel. By having the capability to specifically outline a mission to other players, the mindless banter will hopefully be reduced and the messages conveyed from command to grunt will be more poignant. Additionally, now that command takes time to skill up, the hope is that 12 yr old shit heads won't get into command because they will be too busy unlocking other things like heelys for their boots or an atv that has flames on it (because speed perception is far more important than actual speed when you're 12).

Originally Posted by Headrattle

I fear that the are going to make it to much like Battlefield 2 or other FPS games they keep referencing. So that means that I fear that they will make the Spawning more like those FPS or that they will make the class system unbalanced for newer players.

I also fear some of the direction that they are going. "More sandbox gameplay" and especially "possible PVE." I actually yelled "NO!" when they said that in the interview.

They are indeed going to make it more like FPS's out on the market. The REAL question however is if they leave the options to step back, regroup, and reengage. A modern FPS player playing PS1 would likely just mash instant action repeatedly until he got into a base battle. Even though it was instant action there was not always action in the immediate vicinity of where you spawned since it spawned you as close as possible to a hot spot. By pushing forward spawn locations they are able to engage one another more quickly. That said, as long as the option to spawn towards the back and attack an area on your own terms is there the spirit of PS1 will be alive and strong. Let the zerglings keep zerging, we can get around them while they are running around like chickens with their head cut off pretending that they are playing a CoD size map with 16 players.

The class system will be balanced, it has to be since there are no ways for new players to only fight people their own level. If the system is found to be imbalanced it will be changed to encourage new players to stick around instead of rage quitting.

The idea of a PVE faction that attacks everyone sounds pretty dumb, but alas it will attract a whole other group of individuals to play PS2 (the ones that suck at pvp). SOE wants to make money on this, they need to make money on this, and we should try and let them make as much money on this as possible as long as this PVE isn't forced on us (i.e. i run around the corner chasing a MAX and an alien is there, rips my arm off and beats me with it).

Originally Posted by Malorn

I fear too many RPG elements, particularly power advancement through certs.

As mentioned before, they are trying to attract the WoW crowd, and if the power advancements are too much they will scale them back, I am almost certain of it.

Originally Posted by Kietharr

I fear that a complete and utter lack of any cert caps/limits combined with the class system will eventually lead to zero character diversity. Character diversity/customization is the point of having RPG mechanics in the first place, why even bother giving out certs if there's nothing stopping me from eventually getting every single one? Why not just start everyone out with these benefits if you're doing a class system TF2 style anyways? It's just a stupid grind mechanic to keep idiots addicted if it's not going to be contributing to character diversity on BOTH the short and longterm.

I fear SoE speeding the pace of the game up. Part of the charm of planetside was that it was slower, the 'fast' elements of gameplay like agile jackhammer surge implants were pretty much universally loathed. Now I don't mind them kicking COF to the curb or adding hitboxes because those were just results of technology limitations of the time. But I don't want this to be call of duty 'every gun kills you in 2-3 hits SO REAL AND HARDCORE' either.

I share your concern, after a year many people could have all certs severely reducing the need for team work. If I am reading SOE right they want people to think that, and as time goes by more and more skills will be introduced. This addition of skills will both excite people since it is new content and make it harder and harder to get all the skills. It would be very nice however if in order to train AA MAX (as an example) past a certain point you had to actually get a certain amount of kills with AA max. Would reduce peoples abilities to get all skills even further. O, and it would also make for conflicts , i.e. if i max out gal pilot and want to get AA max fully skilled up i would need to stop piloting a gal, but im so good that public outcry from my outfit is for me to fly a gal and not use AA max. Just a thought though, they may have already come up with some better ideas.

Originally Posted by Carver

I fear TTK won't be low enough.

I fear that there still won't be any point to stepping foot outside unless it's to get into a tank or an aircraft.

It doesnt matter if TTK isn't low enough, the battle is so big you will die relatively quickly unless doing 1 v 1 or 1 v 2.

They have stressed over and over that they are trying to make every square inch contestable, vehicles will be used extensively as a result but only some points will be capturable in vehicles. Most points on the map from what I have gathered will require exiting a vehicle and going into a building of varying size to capture the location. With the need to exit the vehicle comes the need for some degree of slyness. Many instances in PS1 called for a foot assault on a base instead of in a vehicle since vehicles are big targets. Also vehicles popped up on radar and a player wouldn't unless they were shooting or at an interfarm. Similar features being incorporated will increase the likelihood of frequent outdoor foot engagements.

Bags · 2011-07-17, 08:12 PM

Why did this need its own thread? Why not just respond in that thread?

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

Why did this need its own thread? Why not just respond in that thread?

I think it was a good idea. It leaves the other thread "clean" for dev.s to read fast purely the fears instead of skipping every 5 posts of people commenting on others fears.

MgFalcon · 2011-07-17, 09:13 PM

You have yet to address my fears:

Alligators, Crocodiles, and Aneurysms.

They are the worst kinds of fears!

Headrattle · 2011-07-17, 09:14 PM

They are indeed going to make it more like FPS's out on the market. The REAL question however is if they leave the options to step back, regroup, and reengage. A modern FPS player playing PS1 would likely just mash instant action repeatedly until he got into a base battle. Even though it was instant action there was not always action in the immediate vicinity of where you spawned since it spawned you as close as possible to a hot spot. By pushing forward spawn locations they are able to engage one another more quickly. That said, as long as the option to spawn towards the back and attack an area on your own terms is there the spirit of PS1 will be alive and strong. Let the zerglings keep zerging, we can get around them while they are running around like chickens with their head cut off pretending that they are playing a CoD size map with 16 players.

Well, the instant action bit wasn't broken. It was fine, really. You got to spawn near the hotspot through an AMS. If there wasn't a nearby AMS or Tower, the other guys were winning. Like it or not, PS tactics were about spawnpoints when you got to the heart of it. You couldn't get the other guys off your continent unless you got rid of the spawn points. You couldn't really defend a base and hope to actually keep said base unless you got rid of their spawn points. And you couldn't really take a base unless you had spawn points. You lost those spawnpoints, you lost the base.

So, if you make spawnpoints without spawn tubes (or the like) that is going to change a lot of the game, and not for the better. What comes to my mind is Modern Warfare 2. You never pushed the enemy back to their home lines or anything in MW2. You tended to chase them around the map as they spawned in new areas. This may work in MW2, but I question whether it could work in Planetside 2.

Like it or not, spawn tubes were a good thing. You had AMS's, and towers and bases. You could also Gal Drop into an area. I don't mind the idea of a sometimes drop from a drop pod to get with your squad. "Hey, welcome to the squad, use your drop pod and get to us, we are on Solsar!" That makes sense. But after that? We should spawn in spawn tubes because if it is a spawn where the action is like many FPS's you are gonna have MORE zerg. Zergs are gonna Zerg, I understand that. But let's not be forced to zerg. I don't want to zerg. I like the choice of zerging or not. But that isn't it. Imagine fighting a group coming over the hill. In PS, you know if you take that tower, you at least push them back to the tower you are good. But if they just spawn on the otherside of the hill, and then the otherside of the next hill, and then behind those trees... That gets tiring and frustrating. Which means unfun. Killing someone until they decide to log off is not fun.

The class system will be balanced, it has to be since there are no ways for new players to only fight people their own level. If the system is found to be imbalanced it will be changed to encourage new players to stick around instead of rage quitting.

Let's hope. However, programmers have done dumber things.

The idea of a PVE faction that attacks everyone sounds pretty dumb, but alas it will attract a whole other group of individuals to play PS2 (the ones that suck at pvp). SOE wants to make money on this, they need to make money on this, and we should try and let them make as much money on this as possible as long as this PVE isn't forced on us (i.e. i run around the corner chasing a MAX and an alien is there, rips my arm off and beats me with it).

The main problem is that it will suck away programming resources to do it well. The AI for example will have to be at least a decent AI, and that is still a lot of coding. Most MMORPGs have very limited AI (I can't think of one that has good AI actually) and to have that in an FPS (much less an MMOFPS) would be very very bad. Players would see them as a pain in the ass rather then a challenge. Essentially, aliens that come down forcing the three empires to maybe work together just sounds like a bad idea. (Which is essentially what they said.)

Originally Posted by MgFalcon

You have yet to address my fears:

Alligators, Crocodiles, and Aneurysms.

They are the worst kinds of fears!

Aneurysms! They can happen anytime anywhere! That is what makes them so scary Lana!

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by ShowNoMercy

As mentioned before, they are trying to attract the WoW crowd, and if the power advancements are too much they will scale them back, I am almost certain of it.

Oh yes I'm not terribly concerned about it. I'm sure beta will sort it out, but I believe the point of Hamma's post was to try to take the pulse of the community and capture their biggest concerns, sort of like a one-stop shop for Matt when he stops by.

Its just one of those slippery slope things so I'm a bit concerned. But by no means in panic mode. Hacking is far, far, far more damaging to the game than anything those RPG elements could bring in. Several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

MgFalcon · 2011-07-17, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by Headrattle

Aneurysms! They can happen anytime anywhere! That is what makes them so scary Lana!

Seriously your children are playing with broken bottles! This is what you do for fun in Russia?!

Forsaken One · 2011-07-17, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Its just one of those slippery slope things so I'm a bit concerned. But by no means in panic mode. Hacking is far, far, far more damaging to the game than anything those RPG elements could bring in. Several orders of magnitude more dangerous.

A easy way to counter hackers is the sell the base game since it will be F2P. even the "rights to have a account/CDkey" just $15 will put a decent dent in hackers as they would need to pay the $15 everytime they make a new account after getting banned.

In a sense the Hackers will be paying for the GMs to hire people who's sole job is to watch out for Hackers. Its a ironic loop of lulz.

**Malorn** · 2011-07-17, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by Forsaken One

A easy way to counter hackers is the sell the base game since it will be F2P. even the "rights to have a account/CDkey" just $15 will put a decent dent in hackers as they would need to pay the $15 everytime they make a new account after getting banned.

In a sense the Hackers will be paying for the GMs to hire people who's sole job is to watch out for Hackers. Its a ironic loop of lulz.

I agree that is a good deterrant. It's also consistent with the typical business model of a shooter - pay retail price and then play for free.

If the consequence for cheating is losing your account and having to buy another then that will help keep down the hax. The skill training system that is time-based also helps this since it gets us to invest in our characters and care more about losing them.

It also keeps down the empire hopping behavior. And SOE gets some money back up front for PS2. All around goodness by having a monetary barrier to entry to the game and then being free to play afterwards (with a subscription option for additional perks of course).

But all that said, hackers are what ultimately ruined my PS experience, so that's what I am most concerned about by far.

Sifer2 · 2011-07-17, 11:04 PM

Your not doing too good a job of easing my fears. Since you mostly just counter with "Yeah they did say that but maybe they will fix it in Beta". lol

Honestly I would call PS2 a mixed bag at this point. Some good ideas an some bad ideas. I doubt all the bad will be weeded out in Beta unless its a really long Beta. That in the end is probably the biggest fear is that by the time they start to test this stuff there wont be time to change it. I mean I don't remember much being changed in PS1's beta except they added the lattice to stop the rampant back hacking. An nerfed the TR MAX an that was about it.

SOE's style is usually to make major changes after the game has already been Live for months often with disastrous results.

Vancha · 2011-07-18, 02:43 AM

So your response to me is telling me the things that provided the basis for my fears in the first place (knowing there'll be a lower TTK and no vehicles animations), and then saying "yup, we can't know that yet"?

You're practically agreeing with me.

Carver · 2011-07-18, 02:45 AM

It doesnt matter if TTK isn't low enough, the battle is so big you will die relatively quickly unless doing 1 v 1 or 1 v 2.

They have stressed over and over that they are trying to make every square inch contestable, vehicles will be used extensively as a result but only some points will be capturable in vehicles. Most points on the map from what I have gathered will require exiting a vehicle and going into a building of varying size to capture the location. With the need to exit the vehicle comes the need for some degree of slyness. Many instances in PS1 called for a foot assault on a base instead of in a vehicle since vehicles are big targets. Also vehicles popped up on radar and a player wouldn't unless they were shooting or at an interfarm. Similar features being incorporated will increase the likelihood of frequent outdoor foot engagements.

a. If damage is too low it just feels like a spamfest and I don't find it fun. Also when it takes a long time to kill someone skill and tactics go right out the window and it is purely who has a bigger zerg that will win in a firefight.

b. If the terrain is more detailed and there are more places where armor is not effective there will probably be more battles on foot. But I will still hate it if it takes 37 direct hits with a rocket launcher to kill a vehicle when it takes them 1 or 2 to kill me. It is so one sided it is ridiculous. I'm not saying I should be able to 1-shot them too, but there should be some kind of AV weapons that are a real threat, especially at very close ranges.

Bags · 2011-07-18, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Carver

a. If damage is too low it just feels like a spamfest and I don't find it fun. Also when it takes a long time to kill someone skill and tactics go right out the window and it is purely who has a bigger zerg that will win in a firefight.

b. If the terrain is more detailed and there are more places where armor is not effective there will probably be more battles on foot. But I will still hate it if it takes 37 direct hits with a rocket launcher to kill a vehicle when it takes them 1 or 2 to kill me. It is so one sided it is ridiculous. I'm not saying I should be able to 1-shot them too, but there should be some kind of AV weapons that are a real threat, especially at very close ranges.

I recommend trying jammers.

CutterJohn · 2011-07-18, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Carver

But I will still hate it if it takes 37 direct hits with a rocket launcher to kill a vehicle when it takes them 1 or 2 to kill me. It is so one sided it is ridiculous. I'm not saying I should be able to 1-shot them too, but there should be some kind of AV weapons that are a real threat, especially at very close ranges.

The balance may be a bit off, but not all that much. The infantry gets to respawn right nearby. The tanks took a bit longer to get back to the fight. Plus it was 2 people in the tank(or 3). 2 or 3 AV users focusing on a tank could melt it pretty damned fast, and from well beyond the tanks own effective range. And if you got a decent AV squad going that focus fired in a place with some good cover, it could be very difficult to push.

That said, the tanks should have far less infantry gibbing ammo. 30 or 50 rounds, instead of 300+, so that they are more selective and actually use the coax(also all gunners should have a good coax), and infantry could use a better short range AV. The deci had way too little damage potential for how much room it took, and really didn't have that great of a dps advantage either.

ShowNoMercy · 2011-07-18, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

So your response to me is telling me the things that provided the basis for my fears in the first place (knowing there'll be a lower TTK and no vehicles animations), and then saying "yup, we can't know that yet"?

You're practically agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by Carver

a. If damage is too low it just feels like a spamfest and I don't find it fun. Also when it takes a long time to kill someone skill and tactics go right out the window and it is purely who has a bigger zerg that will win in a firefight.

Yeah, that was an incomplete thought on the lowered TTK. There will be lowered TTK, which is a concern, but it really depends on how they balance it out. Since you will be able to spawn closer to the battle front dying shouldn't stop you from getting back into the battle relatively quickly. Additionally, they have made little mention of what the medic's capabilities will be. A medic being able to instantly slap a patch on someone that allows them to rez in 3-5 secs would be one way to get people up quicker and counter lowered TTK. They are likely lowering TTK to allow for more tactical play, I can't count how many times I have gotten the jump on a guy healing only to be killed by him. Thats not fun, it makes me feel like an idiot, and encourages rage quitting. Newbs won't appreciate that either even though its a show of how good the veterans are. Veterans will likely appreciate the lowered TTK as well since they will be able to kill far more people at a time if they go head to head. All in all, I would say don't fear the lowered TTK because even though you may have more deaths in a session, you will certainly have more kills and the time to reengage the enemy will be lower.

There could be certain situations that feel like spam fests, but engagements should vary in length depending on surroundings. 3rd person camping was a main tactic in PS1, with that gone there should be a significant reduction in people randomly popping out and killing you. So when you are running around outside in wooded areas you will likely see your enemy's general location before engaging since they will need to pop out just to see whats out there. Hope that is a little better answer, I am not trying to discount the fear, but rather add some perspective to hopefully give you a better idea of the implications associated with altered TTK

Originally Posted by Carver

b. If the terrain is more detailed and there are more places where armor is not effective there will probably be more battles on foot. But I will still hate it if it takes 37 direct hits with a rocket launcher to kill a vehicle when it takes them 1 or 2 to kill me. It is so one sided it is ridiculous. I'm not saying I should be able to 1-shot them too, but there should be some kind of AV weapons that are a real threat, especially at very close ranges.

They are for sure adding hitboxes to vehicles, so player skill will be more important when fighting vehicles. That said, i am unsure if auto locking AV weapons will make a return. Finally, since classes are being added, not everyone will be carrying deci's around, that being the case, they can up the dmg on them without adding imbalance to the game. In fact, that is one of the primary reasons for adding classes and limiting individual inventories.