Chalk me up as another vet that loves Planetside2

Illtempered · 2013-01-16, 11:54 AM

Yeah, bring the flames. I'm quite sure that because I don't post in the forums enough, and probably am not an OL of a leet enough, or big enough outfit, that my input doesn't matter. I'm quite sure I'm just a nub that doesn't know what he's talking about, and probably just came from COD on the x-box.

Actually I came from the world of Tribes, Quake, Counterstrike, and UT, and played competitively in some of them. I know my shooters. I started playing Planetside shortly after release, and I've been an outfit leader for the last six years. I started on Markov VS, and joined a zergfit called Trispears. A few of us got tired of the zerg and started Brotherhood of Fallen Angels, a small spec ops outfit that grew in size over the years. I've also played with and against the best of the best when it comes to Planetside outfits and players. I took a sabbatical for a while and went to TR Emerald. I came over for the invasion of Markov with Emerald's Finest, and we turned Auraxis purple on Markov. I've run with, and been member of the best outfits in Planetside, like DARK, DT, VHM, TRx, HT, and PCP, just to name a few. I've been around just about as long as any of you, and invested as much of my life into Planetside as any of you. Hell, I even had a divorce over it. I still contend that she watched too much TV, but ahem, I digress....sure do miss that 'ol girl.

My outfit and I are having a hell of a lot of fun with Planetside2. I'm having as much or more fun than I did in Planetside, a game that kept me playing and paying a sub for ten years. Most of my old outfit members from PS1 retired a long time ago, and few even made the transition, so when I started playing Planetside2, I decided I would create a new VS outfit on Waterson. We've been having a blast, and membership has done nothing but go up. I've noticed a little drop in server pop late at night, but that's all. I don't know if it's because of Total Biscuit or what, but we have plenty of epic battles on Waterson. The 50% TR pop kind of adds to the role-playing, fighting against an evil empire. However, usually during prime-time the pops are about equal.

I just want to address some of the criticism directed towards Planetside 2, and remember I'm speaking from the perspective of Waterson. I haven't spent any time on the other servers. Here are some of the complaints that I hear the most from the community.

"Bases are too hard to defend." - While I tend to agree, some people might be surprised if they actually tried defending the base. I'm guilty of it myself, and there are certain bases that I really refuse to bother with. There are some others though, that because of their geographical location, and/or other factors, are quite defensible. We defend all kinds of bases, yes even AMP Stations and Tech Plants(post-nerf). We look for farms all over the place, even bases we know nothing about but look fun to fight at. Try assigning squads in your platoon to certain areas, like certain vulnerable points, or important generators. The enemy is so used to people running away from defense, they usually get lazy and fall asleep in an attack. We, like any outfit, have also been farmed a few times. I try not to let my guys get farmed at all, but inevitably it happens.

"There's too much vehicle spam" - Sounds like more targets to me. TTK on vehicles is less in Planetside 2 than it was in Planetside, is it not? It sure seems like it. Find the choke-point, get your mines down, focus fire, and watch that armor start dropping like flies. You're getting spawn-camped? Uh oh, maybe you should have secured another spawn point. Maybe you should spawn somewhere else and come back with your own armor or air.

"Air is too OP" - BS. Some of the farms we started were AA farms. Ask those pilots running from our Dual-Bursters if air is OP. You should have seen what we could do at Scarred Mesa Skydock before they nerfed it. We had some epic holds there to save Indar. Though, it wasn't impossible to take. We did lose it a couple times to well-coordinated Galdrops and cover from their Libs. If you can no-longer deal with air from the ground, it's time to redeploy some people to the warp-gate and come back with ESF's.

"Every empire just zergs on one continent." - This isn't really a problem on Waterson, but if it is on your server, then take your outfit elsewhere. Don't have an outfit? Join one. Planetside is nothing without outfits. I make it a point to never have my outfit on a continent where our empire has high pop. If VS have more than 40% you can bet I'm looking really hard at the map to find a new target, and we always find one. Yeah sometimes we are outnumbered 80%-20%. Sometimes, we even hold with that pop until help arrives. Sometimes we have the best farm we've ever had. Sometimes we get stomped. Se la vi.

"There's no meta-game." - I would agree that there isn't enough of one, but you can play one. Ever since Total Biscuit invaded our server we've had a meta-game. We hold Indar, and try to take as much of the other continents as possible, all the while focusing on TR and their big pop. We've rushed into a cont a number of times, just to help NC hold a benefit, so TR didn't zerg the entire world. Hopefully the meta-game only gets better, and I think it will.

These are just some of the complaints I hear the most. My biggest problem with the game is the ridiculous free2play system. If Planetside2 is ruined, I fear that will be the way of it. To release an unfinished game, prematurely, then charge real money for weapons that get nerfed two weeks later, is just lame any way you look at it. Having said that, I still love Planetside2. I still have faith, because of the community, and the firm foundation of gaming it's built on. I'm also encouraged by the devs actually listening to the community, even though it has it's downside. With enough crying about something, nerfs are inevitable. That's why I took the time to start a thread, voicing my opinions and concerns, and defending what I love about the game.

SGTalon · 2013-01-16, 12:24 PM

Nice post Illtempered!

I find that i feel the same way you do about PS2. Most of the things that people complain about I have found ways to deal with it so they are not an issue.

I am not really worried about the Store items though. I haven't really purchased much using SC. Just Alpha Squad and I bought some on Triple SC day. Overall, i am pretty satisfied with my purchases. If I had a Re-Cert capability i would probably do things a little differently now.

Luckily for us, we chose Waterson as our server. We have a great mix on our server and i think that mitigates a lot of the things that tend to ramp up the unhappiness for most people. It is easy to avoid stewing about a problem when you are having too much fun to notice it. Even when it comes to Hacking. I have seen very little obvious hacking on Waterson.

BTW, VHM is still alive and on Waterson. It is too bad you went Barney! Since Christmas a bunch of the old VHM Vets have been logging in and kicking butt. Are you Illtempered in game too? If so i want to make sure VHM says Hi!

Thanks for posting my brutha!

Elahhez · 2013-01-16, 12:43 PM

I will only add one funny detail

When people say stuff like "PS2 sucks, is nothing like PS1" and "FIX THE ***** META GAME!!" whilst using alot of swear words and offensive writting style.

they are actually saying: "WE LOVE THE GAME, BUT MAKE IT BETTER"

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-16, 01:00 PM

I love PS2 - but have been high discouraged by the high air power. Im feeling better and better now though.

IamEternal · 2013-01-16, 01:17 PM

Well put Illtempered,

I must say I do lover this game and though I have spent SC (wanted my sniper rifle), I dont feel the real money thing will hurt the game since everything in the store outside of cosmetics can be purchased with certs.

A lot of the things people complain about I noticed have less to do with the game and more to do with their inability to work cohesively as a team. Bases can be well defended if you work with your team in a joint venture. Balance isnt really an issue either since each faction have basically the same things just with so minor changes. If you can work together and know how to play your faction then you can be a real threat on the battlefield.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2013-01-16, 01:29 PM

Who's the other one?

Archonzero · 2013-01-16, 01:39 PM

Well said illtempered. An I agree with ya. There are plenty of great battles hatched out, some great sportslike rivalries developing on Waterson. There are some fun bases to defend, an many that are not. Personally I'd just like to see more infantry heavy base design, perhaps a resource/power supply minigame (for the players who aren't so shooter capable but enjoy the player social dynamic among friends). An the overall metagame, continental conquest.

As it stands if they can build the game up from what they currently have, it's only going to get better. Suggestions, ideas an constructive posts are all just brainstormed ideas/opinions for our passionate PS community to help in any way to add more dynamic aspects to the current game.

Glad to see a veteran outfit make their way to Waterson an the mighty Vanu Sov.

Figment · 2013-01-16, 02:01 PM

Wow. Ignorance due to making lots of prejudiced statements (from frustration with people posting critique from the looks of it) is staggering in this thread (not just you Illtempered and please don't take this post too personal). But please stop making general assumptions about others and why they post their critique, why they stop playing and what their capabilities are.

Face it, you don't really comprehend why people don't like this game because you do. What's strange is that you assume people will say you're not entitled to your opinions, because you are. However, that doesn't mean you have to insult others because you simply don't understand them (by for instance pretending they don't know how choke points and mines work... Come on, really?). And no, you don't understand them. Most your arguments are ill-construed due to context varying to too high degrees to be accurate solutions and while admitting it's only situational solutions. You argumentation is riddled with assumptions and furthermore simply missing the entire point regarding difference in design vision regarding game play and game flow between a very large amount of PS1 veterans and the PS2 design team.

The design and created game play simply doesn't match with the expectations of veterans. And no, before someone says it, NOBODY expected a carbon copy of PS1, but they expected the feel of PS1 and a retention of the most important meta-game and design and working balance solutions. Something that's very hard to express in a general remark considering the complexity of the game and variation in detailed opinion and is usualy not done justice by the PS2 fans, who just try to envision this one, singular opinion to argue with.

Inter-empire balance is irrelevant to PS1 vets: they're all pretty much the same. It's the balance between small and large groups that is important. It is the quality of options you have to do something about a given situation. It's the likeliness that your team can actually perform to at least some degree of competitiveness in disadvantaged circumstances.

It's things the majority of respondents so far don't seem to understand at all. And for the record, 50% pop on one side, is highly problematic as it forces both opposite empires to completely forego the idea of global conquest for the sheer control of the third empire. In this case TR. That means the entire goal of the game (global conquest) is removed from two factions and it will drive away those players dedicated to that goal.

If you can't perceive the problems because you're too pre-occupied with what you yourself think of it, that's your concern. But if I read your response to the critique, you're simply waving away that which you don't understand. Especially since you retort with argumentation that has nothing to do with the perceived issues.

AV power is irrelevant if you have no control methodology. Choke points don't exist everywhere. Two equal groups of players in size, one with, one without tanks, are not equal groups. When you look at PS1 instead, groups of the same size were equals, despite of the relatively stronger vehicles. Why? Because there were less of them (allowing concentration of power and being targeted by less enemies at once), meaning the leverage of these one shot kill units wasn't as big.

If you don't comprehend things like that, sure you can have an opinion, but it hardly seems informed and mostly seems self-deluding.

In my outfit, I still got about a squad playing. Virtually all of which are new players. The remainder refuses to play because they dislike the core game play itself. And no, they don't find the core a sturdy foundation, quite the contrary.

F2P has nothing to do with it, aside from making it cheap for cheaters to keep coming back. That's the only complaint they have about the f2p system. Too many certs, inflexible classes, spammy game play of everything, extremely short TTKs that prevent reactions from enemies and yourself making engagements dull and predictable, lack of teamoriented objective play, no base to base flow control, no higher targets to shoot for, no allowing of making a stand against a bigger enemy because "they haz moar so they shud naturly winzors", which is the most stupid argument you can hear, maybe at 6 to 1 odds (which doesn't mean they shouldn't use those numbers right), but at 40 to 34 that's absolute bullshit, yet it's true due to design and leverage.

There's loads of things people take issue with and you don't seem to understand what issues they have with it as you come up with some random solutions that either require very specific pre-requesits or an adaption to game play that involves completely ignoring game play is missing by replacing it with an alternative game play method that should simply be that: an alternative, not THE alternative. Certainly not the ONLY option, which stops it from being an alternative altogether.

That seems to be something the non-critics can't comprehend: vision differences. This is not a flame btw, it's critique. It's however, critique posted in annoyance at your prejudiced tone and beligerent attitude.

Illtempered, you name DT.

Ask them about what they think of the game and also try telling them they don't know how to play it. Go on.

And for the love of all that's holy, you go and find the "choke point" at Palos Solar Array that let's you stop 30+ tanks with 20 people at your disposal. Here's a hint: THERE ISN'T A SINGLE CHOKEPOINT. It's simply badly designed in favour of the attackers! As is everything! Every single system in place benefits attackers more than it does defenders. Don't you see that's a huge general imbalance issue especially when groups become larger and larger?

It takes two to tango, if one party is not allowed to tango, they'll leave. They'll quit. They'll never come back.

Look at your 50% TR pop. If the pop balance doesn't change, in three months, the same TR pop in numbers, will be 55-60%. From there it can quickly escalate. 50% is a HUGE issue. Don't try to dismiss it as a good thing. It's not. Seriously, it should be at the top of your concerns list even if you do like the current state of the game...

Wahooo · 2013-01-16, 02:07 PM

Shame you think you are subject to being flamed simply for liking the game. *edit* lol posted concurrently with figgy's post... I guess some will flame LOL

I have to agree with Elahhez though. Most of the really harsh posts are people that WANT to like the game more.

For me personally I see the potential but find it gets boring REALLY fast. Partly because I haven't been able to log on at times my PS1 mates have been on so i've been kinda flying solo. I understand the game is MORE fun in an organized outfit, but it should be at least SOME fun if you log in by your lonesome right?

It has potential. I want it reaching that potential. I am normally a patient person but I do not appreciate that the game was rushed to launch, and I feel they did this without a good 6 month plan for adding/fixing the issues that were still in the game at the end of Beta.

Elahhez · 2013-01-16, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Wow. Ignorance due to making lots of prejudiced statements (from frustration with people posting critique from the looks of it) is staggering in this thread (not just you Illtempered and please don't take this post too personal). But please stop making general assumptions about others and why they post their critique, why they stop playing and what their capabilities are.

1. It was in part a joke.
2. Why would people complain about a game, if they didn't care about it?
3. Critique should be objective, often it's not.

Lighten up

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-16, 02:23 PM

Some people on the forum basically just bitch because this isnt PS1 with new graphics and net code.

Assist · 2013-01-16, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Wow. Ignorance due to making lots of prejudiced statements (from frustration with people posting critique from the looks of it) is staggering in this thread (not just you Illtempered and please don't take this post too personal). But please stop making general assumptions about others and why they post their critique, why they stop playing and what their capabilities are.

Face it, you don't really comprehend why people don't like this game because you do. What's strange is that you assume people will say you're not entitled to your opinions, because you are. However, that doesn't mean you have to insult others because you simply don't understand them (by for instance pretending they don't know how choke points and mines work... Come on, really?). And no, you don't understand them. Most your arguments are ill-construed due to context varying to too high degrees to be accurate solutions and while admitting it's only situational solutions. You argumentation is riddled with assumptions and furthermore simply missing the entire point regarding difference in design vision regarding game play and game flow between a very large amount of PS1 veterans and the PS2 design team.

The design and created game play simply doesn't match with the expectations of veterans. And no, before someone says it, NOBODY expected a carbon copy of PS1, but they expected the feel of PS1 and a retention of the most important meta-game and design and working balance solutions. Something that's very hard to express in a general remark considering the complexity of the game and variation in detailed opinion and is usualy not done justice by the PS2 fans, who just try to envision this one, singular opinion to argue with.

Inter-empire balance is irrelevant to PS1 vets: they're all pretty much the same. It's the balance between small and large groups that is important. It is the quality of options you have to do something about a given situation. It's the likeliness that your team can actually perform to at least some degree of competitiveness in disadvantaged circumstances.

It's things the majority of respondents so far don't seem to understand at all. And for the record, 50% pop on one side, is highly problematic as it forces both opposite empires to completely forego the idea of global conquest for the sheer control of the third empire. In this case TR. That means the entire goal of the game (global conquest) is removed from two factions and it will drive away those players dedicated to that goal.

If you can't perceive the problems because you're too pre-occupied with what you yourself think of it, that's your concern. But if I read your response to the critique, you're simply waving away that which you don't understand. Especially since you retort with argumentation that has nothing to do with the perceived issues.

AV power is irrelevant if you have no control methodology. Choke points don't exist everywhere. Two equal groups of players in size, one with, one without tanks, are not equal groups. When you look at PS1 instead, groups of the same size were equals, despite of the relatively stronger vehicles. Why? Because there were less of them (allowing concentration of power and being targeted by less enemies at once), meaning the leverage of these one shot kill units wasn't as big.

If you don't comprehend things like that, sure you can have an opinion, but it hardly seems informed and mostly seems self-deluding.

In my outfit, I still got about a squad playing. Virtually all of which are new players. The remainder refuses to play because they dislike the core game play itself. And no, they don't find the core a sturdy foundation, quite the contrary.

F2P has nothing to do with it, aside from making it cheap for cheaters to keep coming back. That's the only complaint they have about the f2p system. Too many certs, inflexible classes, spammy game play of everything, extremely short TTKs that prevent reactions from enemies and yourself making engagements dull and predictable, lack of teamoriented objective play, no base to base flow control, no higher targets to shoot for, no allowing of making a stand against a bigger enemy because "they haz moar so they shud naturly winzors", which is the most stupid argument you can hear, maybe at 6 to 1 odds (which doesn't mean they shouldn't use those numbers right), but at 40 to 34 that's absolute bullshit, yet it's true due to design and leverage.

There's loads of things people take issue with and you don't seem to understand what issues they have with it as you come up with some random solutions that either require very specific pre-requesits or an adaption to game play that involves completely ignoring game play is missing by replacing it with an alternative game play method that should simply be that: an alternative, not THE alternative. Certainly not the ONLY option, which stops it from being an alternative altogether.

That seems to be something the non-critics can't comprehend: vision differences. This is not a flame btw, it's critique. It's however, critique posted in annoyance at your prejudiced tone and beligerent attitude.

Illtempered, you name DT.

Ask them about what they think of the game and also try telling them they don't know how to play it. Go on.

And for the love of all that's holy, you go and find the "choke point" at Palos Solar Array that let's you stop 30+ tanks with 20 people at your disposal. Here's a hint: THERE ISN'T A SINGLE CHOKEPOINT. It's simply badly designed in favour of the attackers! As is everything! Every single system in place benefits attackers more than it does defenders. Don't you see that's a huge general imbalance issue especially when groups become larger and larger?

It takes two to tango, if one party is not allowed to tango, they'll leave. They'll quit. They'll never come back.

Look at your 50% TR pop. If the pop balance doesn't change, in three months, the same TR pop in numbers, will be 55-60%. From there it can quickly escalate. 50% is a HUGE issue. Don't try to dismiss it as a good thing. It's not. Seriously, it should be at the top of your concerns list even if you do like the current state of the game...

So much to respond to, I'll probably miss some. First off, it's pretty ignorant of you to call someone ignorant for making general statements and then going on to make general statements of your own. For two, there is no critique in your post. You were straight up flaming him on more then a few points. Thirdly, I'd suggest you read his post rather than read what wasn't written.

1.) He wasn't insulting the intelligence of people about the TTK on vehicles. He was stating a fact that vehicles die quickly. There are counters to them, even air, and they are effective. To stretch into your own arguement about intelligence seems to me that you're attempting to just flame him.

2.) His statement about 50% TR and your reaction to it. I'm not sure if you read it. On Waterson, there is no question, the VS dominate the server during primetime. We're always outnumbered during primetime as well. We've held Indar for over a month and during some point of primetime we get another continent. Last night TR had 42% population and VS had Indar/Amerish while NC had Esamir. What does this tell you? That huge population shifts don't matter nearly as much as some want you to believe. Just because a bunch of players flocked to one server doesn't change the balance of the game. If you believe otherwise then I welcome you to come to Waterson. There's more strategy and organization in this game than many, including you, PS1 Vets want to give it credit for.

3.) Your last comment, about every system in place benefiting attackers is just wrong. Completely wrong. No one is going to argue that base design is perfect. But explain to me how 22% server population can hold 4 territories on a continent against the 62% attacking population? Explain to me how even though the attackers had, by your definition, every single system advantage and more than triple the population advantage, they didn't win?

4.) I'm sorry you've had bad experiences and that nothing seems to work in the game for you. But to allude that because one guy has had positive experiences that he's some numskull is really ignorant of you. VS on Waterson has got it done lately, we've held our own, we've figured out what bases we CAN defend and what bases are not worth the effort. We use the advantages we've discovered and we've prevailed for the most part. The TR population has advantage on Waterson due to Totalbiscuit and his euro buddies. Late EST evenings the population is usually 30/38/30, which is very manageable. If there's one thing that Waterson has taught the rest of the community, it's that population isn't everything and that there must still be tactics in the game beyond just a basic shooter otherwise we would be getting crushed as we have the greatest differences in faction population of all servers.

If you wish to go and flame every other post on PSU go for it, but please leave at least one for those of us who have enjoyed the game and still enjoy the game.

Hamma · 2013-01-16, 02:42 PM

Really Figment? There was no need for that novel of a reply.

Good OP, I enjoy this game as well it just needs some loving. And it's coming!

Figment · 2013-01-16, 02:46 PM

Where to begin...

Originally Posted by Assist

So much to respond to, I'll probably miss some. First off, it's pretty ignorant of you to call someone ignorant for making general statements and then going on to make general statements of your own.

Not at all the case and I actually opened with that post not being entirely addressed specifically at Illtempered, so please, reconsider why they're general remarks.

And stop assuming so much.

For two, there is no critique in your post. You were straight up flaming him on more then a few points.

Do you even know what flames are? I didn't call him names. And no, "ignorant" is not name calling, it's a state of mind.

Thirdly, I'd suggest you read his post rather than read what wasn't written.

I suggest you do just that, regarding my post.

1.) He wasn't insulting the intelligence of people about the TTK on vehicles. He was stating a fact that vehicles die quickly. There are counters to them, even air, and they are effective. To stretch into your own arguement about intelligence seems to me that you're attempting to just flame him.

Yes he was even if he wouldn't realise it: He provided a crash course in killing vehicles for dimwitted people and thereby proclaiming it was actually okay and insinuating others would not be able to do that, leading those others to claim it's not okay. That's not the source nor reasoning for complaints about vehicle spam at all! Meaning he assumes it unknown information, otherwise he wouldn't be there explaining how one goes about it.

2.) His statement about 50% TR and your reaction to it. I'm not sure if you read it. On Waterson, there is no question, the VS dominate the server during primetime. We're always outnumbered during primetime as well. We've held Indar for over a month and during some point of primetime we get another continent. Last night TR had 42% population and VS had Indar/Amerish while NC had Esamir. What does this tell you? That huge population shifts don't matter nearly as much as some want you to believe. Just because a bunch of players flocked to one server doesn't change the balance of the game. If you believe otherwise then I welcome you to come to Waterson. There's more strategy and organization in this game than many, including you, PS1 Vets want to give it credit for.

There's no sophisticated strategy nor sophisticated tactics involved in the game, at all. Brute force and random attacks get you just as far as a basic plan and you're entirely dependent on the incompetence of the enemy to find and take your less defended areas, since you can't actually defend them. Planning is very simple: keep the enemy occupied somewhere, ghost the rest. That's a strategy, indeed, but so is mindless zerging. Everything can be called strategy. The problem is that there's very little actual planning put into it, but it's pretty much all intuitive reactions to incursions you can't prevent. Luck determines the outcome more than actual strategic choices being made.

Regarding strategy, it is the lack of quality strategy that is criticized or can only be executed on a zerg level of scale.

3.) Your last comment, about every system in place benefiting attackers is just wrong. Completely wrong. No one is going to argue that base design is perfect. But explain to me how 22% server population can hold 4 territories on a continent against the 62% attacking population? Explain to me how even though the attackers had, by your definition, every single system advantage and more than triple the population advantage, they didn't win?

Because they're simply utter crap and don't prevent the small groups of striking at one of the nearby targets by camping the gates properly? Every time we've had a 54%-60% pop on Miller, we've zeroed the other empires on that continent. With NC.

4.) I'm sorry you've had bad experiences and that nothing seems to work in the game for you. But to allude that because one guy has had positive experiences that he's some numskull is really ignorant of you.

Assist, this is you making up a strawman. I never said that and I particularly never said that as a general statement of such decree. I never even called him stupid. Ignorance is having a lack of sufficient knowledge in a particular area, in this case it is ignorance about the argumentation of the "opposition", based entirely on the counter-argumentation provided.

I don't simply call people dumb. That'd be retarded itself. Don't take my words out of context.

VS on Waterson has got it done lately, we've held our own, we've figured out what bases we CAN defend and what bases are not worth the effort. We use the advantages we've discovered and we've prevailed for the most part. The TR population has advantage on Waterson due to Totalbiscuit and his euro buddies. Late EST evenings the population is usually 30/38/30, which is very manageable. If there's one thing that Waterson has taught the rest of the community, it's that population isn't everything and that there must still be tactics in the game beyond just a basic shooter otherwise we would be getting crushed as we have the greatest differences in faction population of all servers.

That's all well and nice, but 38% pop probably means you're fighting them more than your other enemy. In fact, to the extend they might be severely outnumbered. And that might have something to do with more than being able to defend, that might simply be them fighting overwhelming odds and not having the manpower to spare. Yeah, they got two enemies, don't forget that. At 50%, if you don't win, you're just consisting of worse players. And it's indeed harder to split a 50% exactly over two enemies. However, with a few more percent, it's very easy if they don't concentrate themselves in specific areas (steamrolling one area, ignoring others).

How do you think we'd now and then technically beat 80% pops in PS1 by taking more territory than them? Because we were more flexible and spread and they were not. If they had actually engaged us proper, we wouldn't have had a chance.

If you wish to go and flame every other post on PSU go for it, but please leave at least one for those of us who have enjoyed the game and still enjoy the game.

If I honestly wanted to flame you, you'd know it. Please, learn the difference between flaming (calling names and bullying) and argumented debate in which one party might be ill-informed and thus ignorant, before you respond...

Originally Posted by Hamma

Really Figment? There was no need for that novel of a reply.

I reserve the right to determine the lengths of my posts.

Illtempered · 2013-01-16, 03:20 PM

Meh, to each his own. I've read many of your concerns, and tend to agree with you on the faults, but I guess I just don't agree that they are game-breaking.

Oh, and I never said DT didn't know how to play. That would be putting words in my mouth. I have always contended that they were the best outfit Planetside ever had. I really feared going up against them on TR Emerald, and I'm quite sure they could kick significant ass in PS2 if they intended to. I don't know why they aren't playing.