A few things that Matt Higby needs to realize

DiabloTigerSix · 2012-05-29, 08:03 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...lS5MYgM#t=117s

Originally Posted by Matthew Higby

So we've brought all those modern FPS elements that today triple-A FPS players, people playing Battlefield, people playing Modern Warfare, have come to expect and love and we've put them into the world of planetside.

1. This "modern FPS" has done nothing remarkable worth noting (let alone putting in your game) other than dumbing down the genre in order to make it more accessible for causal players.
NOTE: "Accessible game" is not same thing as "simple game". A properly made game can be complex, yet still accessible to players who want to just jump in for the first time and do something, ignoring the complex bits - this is what the makers of Battefield, DICE, failed to understand, stripping the franchise off its core features.

2. If you're new to FPS, if you have been playing FPS games just for a couple of years, then yes, you may love these modern elements. But if you, like me, have been playing first person shooters for 10 or 15 years, you'll most likely hate them. Dedicated gamers are tired and sick of modern FPS elements. For example, if you're taking elements from Battlefield 3 which adopted 1/2 of its features from CoD, you're basically taking elements from CoD. This is how nearly every developer out there thinks. FPS market nowadays, is full of the same game and lacks originality because everybody said somewhere in mid-process "Well, CoD is successful!. So let's make this bit and those bits like CoD. People will be familiar with that and like it." Seriously, don't you see how contra-productive this can become? Even people who have been playing first person shooters since CoD 4 - the game that spawned many of these elements) are getting tired of the same gameplay over and over again, would sure love to see and welcome something fresh.

Why am I concerned? Well for the start, the gunplay of PS2 shown so far looks awfully like CoD, that means it looks just like in most generic first person shooters and it doesn't stand out. I dare you to do something about that - looking at Battlefield 2 AND BF2 mods instead of Battlefield 3 might be a good place to start.

3. Catering to your core audience is the most important thing to do. If they're happy, then the whole community will be. If your whole community is happy, then they'll be helpful and friendly to newcomers. If they're not, they'll spread hate.

You might think that you're doing "triple-A FPS players" a favour by putting in features and game mechanics they're familiar with. The opposite might be true. Numerous games have failed trying to grab the call of duty audience by mainstrimizing their gameplay (e.g. Homefront, Operation Flashpoint: Red River,...).

To sum up, even those who love Call of Duty, don't starve for another one or anything overly similar. After all, we're just people. We love to learn and experience new things. And there's been enough of Call of Duty elements everywhere. Being another game to implement them is in no way a key to success.

I beg you not to overdo it in this area.

4. All modern FPS have one thing in common - they're all meatgrinders. Personally, I'd like Planetside 2 to have more tactical organized gameplay heavily featuring teamwork, but from what we've learnt so far, it's turning out to be a meatgrinder. Surely, Planetside 2 had huge maps, but then they might not be big enough for 2000 players and I'm saying this as someone who's got years of experience focusing primarily on games with open landscape battles. I've played games which had 4x4km maps, 64-128 players and there's enough action. 2000 might require bigger maps.

I'm especially concerned about infantry gameplay inside bases and run'n'gun gameplay between portals. It might resemble mainstream shooters too much, but with even more players and less control, meaning you can't influence much when you're getting ganked by 30 people at a time.

5. Which brings me to another thing and that's traveling. Matt Higby said in an interview that they wanted reduced pointless travel times and they were going to achieve that by spawning closer to action. Traveling certainly isn't pointless to everyone. Besides the fact the it can be very "romantic" and allows you to enjoy beautiful environments, it brings natural pauses that make the game more teasing, tense and more fun in a long run. It also gives you time to rethink your next move. Fighting in a meatgrinder 24/7 isn't what people enjoy, however they do tend to do it just to rank up faster.

TL;DR:
- taking inspiration from modern fps (mainly BF3 and CoD) = not good. Going further back in time and taking some elements from there = far better.
- maps very likely to be too small for 2000 players => meatgrinder ALERT!!
- traveling essential to provide players with diversion and regular breaks from combat

Goku · 2012-05-29, 08:13 AM

Just one thing on the maps. There is a bunch of different reports on the actual size of people that will be playing. This can easily be balanced during beta. Really no reason to be complaining about that.

In terms of traveling that is for troop spawning. Not vehicles. Did you play the original PS? You had to depend on human player spawn vehicles you could deploy on your own. Sounds good in theory however not many people had them certed. You have a entire base being assaulted and only have 2 AMSes. Easy enough to blow those out with OSes. Enemy team proceeds to push out attackers and force them to the tower. That was the problem in PS, only one hard spawn for the attackers to go against the base. You are still going to have to go back to bases for vehicles as well. You will see the landscape enough that way. Fights will be very dull having to go back to a base every time you are killed.

Stardouser · 2012-05-29, 08:14 AM

1. What are some more specific examples of how modern FPS have dumbed the game down? I agree with you but I'm curious as to whether you are against the exact same things as I am.
2. Elaborate on gunplay? I do agree with you that they need to look more to BF2/2142 than BF3.
4,5 together. This is the biggest concern for me. I mean, on the one hand, you do want to eliminate pointless travel time insofar as the 2 mile walk from the closest main base. But I think we should have a system where Galaxies are deployed 750 meters from a target, and once you get closer to the target, squad spawning is the primary respawn method. However, it should be squad leader spawn only, meaning if the SL dies, he has to run the whole 750 meters back- this will help prevent meatgrinding since squads will advance more carefully.

As for the Galaxy at 750m from the target, my vision for an MMOFPS has always been a large game world, with 4-5 miles between bases, and the attacking army is able to set up a forward base no closer than 1 mile to the target base.

Some people will come and say that Galaxies, not squad spawning, should be the primary respawn method. But if that were the case, then Galaxies would have to be a lot closer than 750m from the target base. And from what I have played of PS1, AMSs were usually set 10 feet outside of a base wall under sensor jammers. Certainly not what I'd like to see. Having a Galaxy 750 meters away isn't a HUGE penalty, but it makes wiping out an attacking squad very satisfying, knowing they've got a 45-60 second run back. Also provides a great target for reinforcements coming from elsewhere.

Goku · 2012-05-29, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

As for the Galaxy at 750m from the target, my vision for an MMOFPS has always been a large game world, with 4-5 miles between bases, and the attacking army is able to set up a forward base no closer than 1 mile to the target base.

There were quite a few wide spread bases in PS. Empires would at first be fighting in between the two bases, but not for long. Once one lost the momentum it would go right to a base fight. There was no reason to stay out in the middle of nowhere, so everyone went right for the base. That is one of the major issues that Higby said they are trying to solve with the hex system. I don't think we know how well this system is going to work until we have a fully populated battle from all three sides going on these maps.

Gandhi · 2012-05-29, 08:24 AM

I've had all the same concerns at one point or another. I have no doubt that Higby and the team want to make a game that we'll all like, and obviously they want it to be successful in attracting new players too. It just feels like sometimes they're going about it the wrong way; trying to attract people by making it more like what they already know instead of making it into its own thing and then convincing people that it's better.

But on the other hand they've also made some changes to their original plans and kept some possibly controversial things from PS1 in, so it's not all bad. And I have no problem with some changes being introduced, in fact I'm fine with a lot of them.

Originally Posted by Goku

You have a entire base being assaulted and only have 2 AMSes. Easy enough to blow those out with OSes. Enemy team proceeds to push out attackers and force them to the tower. That was the problem in PS, only one hard spawn for the attackers to go against the base.

But that was the whole point of defending a base, remove their spawn points to kick them out of your SOI. If the enemy can just spawn right outside your walls endlessly then you can never successfully defend a base, it'll always depend on the third empire pulling the enemy away.

But I think they've got this covered anyway. Squad spawning has to be limited in some way and we still have AMS's, they're just Galaxies now. Nothing's changed really.

SKYeXile · 2012-05-29, 08:30 AM

I agree with all points.

You should also note that travel time play a vital roll because of supply, In ps1 is was ams and ants along with long ranges for resecuires, the all add layers to the tactical meta game.

Goku · 2012-05-29, 08:30 AM

Gandhi yes thats true. However people never wanted to cert the AMS. I found it lacking so much when I played the last year I actually certed it in order to at least have one at base assaults. This issue was still wide spread when I was playing years ago as well. There shouldn't have to be a total reliance on player made spawns, we should at least have a few more hard spawns around a base. Just consider it a few more towers to retake.

Stardouser · 2012-05-29, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

But I think they've got this covered anyway. Squad spawning has to be limited in some way and we still have AMS's, they're just Galaxies now. Nothing's changed really.

Squad spawning should be the primary respawn method, because you can wipe out a squad and they have to run all the way back from wherever their Galaxy is, which should not be something short like 50 feet away. The Galaxies should be set far enough back that your squad is mildly punished for advancing too fast, not protecting their squad leader(who should be the only person in the squad you can spawn on) and being all killed.

People think that squad spawning is what will cause meatgrinding. It isn't. I think they've got a chance to develop a great pacing balance here, but you have to understand, PS1 did not have squad spawning, didn't have a lot of things PS2 is about to have. There are ways to balance things, but if they go into Beta with the idea that squad spawning MUST be castratedly limited and nothing else but extreme limitation to it will be considered, then that's tying their hands right off the bat.

There's also the fact that squads want to stick together. If squad spawning is not the primary respawn method, this will be extremely hampered.

Gandhi · 2012-05-29, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Goku

Gandhi yes thats true. However people never wanted to cert the AMS. I found it lacking so much when I played the last year I actually certed it in order to at least have one at base assaults. This issue was still wide spread when I was playing years ago as well. There shouldn't have to be a total reliance on player made spawns, we should at least have a few more hard spawns around a base. Just consider it a few more towers to retake.

That's true. It seemed like there were times when AMS's were plentiful and others when you literally had nobody bothering to pull one, and lost an attack because of it.

Plenty of times I pulled an AMS and drove it to the target only to find out I couldn't deploy it anywhere because it was already swamped with the things. I think that discouraged a lot of people too, it would have been really nice to be able to see deployed friendly AMS's on the map including the interference zone around them, or even AMS's currently en route somewhere. The whole system was really lacking support in a lot of ways.

**RadarX** · 2012-05-29, 08:45 AM

I had a couple of questions I was hoping you could help me with. Recognizing the fact I am not a game designer please indulge me.

You state " A properly made game can be complex, yet still accessible to players who want to just jump in for the first time and do something, ignoring the complex bits - this is what the makers of Battefield, DICE, failed to understand, stripping the franchise off its core features." but this seems a little vague. How do you make a complex and accessible game? I also see you only listed DICE. Does this mean the COD series did better? I honestly found the last COD and BF iterations pretty similar personally.

I have to disagree with you on modern elements however. I would say it's just me but I know so many others that talk about the BF1942 and Quake glory days. We appreciate the fact we can just jump in and pick up an FPS.

I absolutely agree with you it's about hitting the core audience but who do you believe that is?

Statements like this "maps very likely to be too small for 2000 players " however I'm going to ask you to wait for Beta. It just won't be true, but you'll see that in time.

ItsTheSheppy · 2012-05-29, 08:53 AM

Homefront is actually a very good example of the statement that just putting 'modern' FPS elements into your game does not lead to success and can actually have the opposite effect; it makes the player realize that they are NOT playing the better, original version, and may make them yearn for it.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-05-29, 08:56 AM

Cod and the bf franchise are doing something right since they have millions of players.

Kran De Loy · 2012-05-29, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Squad spawning should be the primary respawn method, because you can wipe out a squad and they have to run all the way back from wherever their Galaxy is, which should not be something short like 50 feet away. The Galaxies should be set far enough back that your squad is mildly punished for advancing too fast, not protecting their squad leader(who should be the only person in the squad you can spawn on) and being all killed.

People think that squad spawning is what will cause meatgrinding. It isn't. I think they've got a chance to develop a great pacing balance here, but you have to understand, PS1 did not have squad spawning, didn't have a lot of things PS2 is about to have. There are ways to balance things, but if they go into Beta with the idea that squad spawning MUST be castratedly limited and nothing else but extreme limitation to it will be considered, then that's tying their hands right off the bat.

There's also the fact that squads want to stick together. If squad spawning is not the primary respawn method, this will be extremely hampered.

Nah, Squad Spawning should be taken out entirely, imo. I'll live with it should it be in.

I mean if you spawn on any Squadmate then killing them all off is like rooting out rats and cockroaches. If you spawn only on the Squad Leader than he's either got to be a real leader or he'll get consistent shit from his squadmates every single time he dies, often times even when he wasn't at fault for it in anyway. If the Squad Spawn timer is actually long enough to allow the whole squad to get killed before you can drop back in on top of a buddy then why not just run from a nearby Tower or Galaxy?

Besides the whole problem is that everyone would be laboring under the same condition.

Kran De Loy · 2012-05-29, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Cod and the bf franchise are doing something right since they have millions of players.

Graphics, 'feel', fluid/responsive controls that add to a higher level of immersion as well as they just have more options than any other current generation competition.

PS2 looks like it will match the first, Higby already said they are focusing on the second and third and PS2 itself will blow the fourth out of the water entirely.

Gandhi · 2012-05-29, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by ItsTheSheppy

Homefront is actually a very good example of the statement that just putting 'modern' FPS elements into your game does not lead to success and can actually have the opposite effect; it makes the player realize that they are NOT playing the better, original version, and may make them yearn for it.

Or Far Cry 3. Look at some multiplayer footage from Far Cry 2 and compare it to the multiplayer trailer for 3, it's almost comical.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Squad spawning should be the primary respawn method, because you can wipe out a squad and they have to run all the way back from wherever their Galaxy is

On the other hand you'll end up with situations where you're killing the same group of guys 3, 4, 5, 6 times before you can finally remove them from one area of your base. Or entire squads showing up out of nowhere because a single infiltrator slipped in, which isn't hard to do. Or even squads suiciding just to travel quickly to another part of the battlefield after pulling some of your guys away to deal with them. And the whole concept makes Galaxy hotdrops somewhat redundant, when you can just have your leader bail out of a Mossie and then spawn on him.

I think you can make a case for both systems, so I hope we get to try them both in the beta.