What made PS1 a superior game than PS2?

adfadfadf · 2012-10-25, 08:41 AM

Hello guys, I am new to the Planetside franchise. I've played some great mods of BF2(about 500 hours), BF3(300 hours), Red Orchestra 2(70 hours), some old and recent CODs(in combination about 300 hours). And I have to say I really enjoyed my 10 hours time in beta so far. I feel this game has tons of potential.

However from time to time I came along some threads saying PS1 was infinitely better than PS2 and PS2 will die and get mercifully forgotten soon after launch. I know I can just play PS1 and find it out myself, but it's quite old and I fear the state of the game is not what it was at its best. So if any veteran is kind enough, I would like to know exactly what were the elements that made PS1 better than PS2?

Oh and I've read this post(http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=46776), but I wanna know more.

Also will PS2 be on Steam? I saw this but don't know if it's true: http://goo.gl/CPvQ7

Thank You!

duomaxwl · 2012-10-25, 11:48 AM

Now, what I'm about to say isn't fact, just my opinion.

I believe that Planetside 1's mechanics (in my opinion) are better, because it gave you reasons to capture bases besides just resources. Now, maybe they have changed Planetside 2 and I haven't been on to notice, but it just doesn't have the noticeable front line PS1 did.

Than again, I think a lot of it has to do with nostalgia. The combat was clunkier, but it was good enough to keep me around on and off since 2003.

Also, SOE has other games on Steam, so I'm sure it'll be there.

adfadfadf · 2012-10-25, 12:01 PM

I thought "wanna get into action" or the BF saying, PTFO, is the incentive strong enough for players to capture bases lol. So howexactly did defending a base in PS1 benefited your team?

ringring · 2012-10-25, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by adfadfadf

I thought "wanna get into action" or the BF saying, PTFO, is the incentive strong enough for players to capture bases lol. So howexactly did defending a base in PS1 benefited your team?

In a direct sense you got xp for the kills and if your enemy put a hack on the base which you resecured you got xp for that too.

However, the bases were designed so that they could be defended and if you did it could become a farm.

The other reason to defend is so as not to lose territory, planetside is essentially a game of owning as much territory as you can. And, if you're defending a base while being outnumbered 2:1 it means that your empire has spare capacity to attack elsewhere, hopefully.

duomaxwl · 2012-10-25, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by adfadfadf

I thought "wanna get into action" or the BF saying, PTFO, is the incentive strong enough for players to capture bases lol. So howexactly did defending a base in PS1 benefited your team?

Adding on to ringring's post:

By capturing and holding an Interlink, you got radar, by holding a tech plant, you got to pull advanced vehicles (heavy tanks/phantasms/reavers) and so on.

If you went and captured an enemies only Tech plant on the continent, they could not pull advanced vehicles from that continent, they had to go to their Sanctuary and pull one.

I'm not saying that the system in Planetside 2 is necessarily bad (though a lot of vets do say that.) I'm saying you went for bases for more reasons than JUST fighting. Some people like it more, I personally feel the game is more abstract and lacks cohesion. But, it is still fun to play.

Bocheezu · 2012-10-25, 02:20 PM

There are many key differences, and I'll try to outline the ones I can think of off the top of my head --

1. Continental Domination/Lattice/10 Continents

I think this is the biggest thing missing. In PS1, there are 10 continents. Your faction only has a direct link to 2 (if I remember?) of them, and you have to fight/conquer to see the other ones. None of this crap where you have a guaranteed link on every continent. You can completely take over a continent and boot the other factions off it entirely, which was very satisfying.

The population was more concentrated due to the lattice system; you weren't spread out fighting 5v5 at some outpost. A 3-way battle on a continent was not standard and only became prevalent when population decreased. The normal setup was to poplock two continents; you'd fight one faction on one continent and the other on a different continent. There was a strategy involved as far as which continents you fought on and why.

2. Base Layout/Defense/Availability of Spawn Points

Bases just make a lot more sense in PS1. Outposts in PS2 with a single control point are especially dumb because the control point is way far away from the spawn point, and if you lose that control point, the outpost is immediately lost.

As for main bases themselves, most PS1 bases are similar to PS2 biolabs as far as defense goes. Just replace teleporters and gravlifts with doors. The difference in PS2 is that attackers have a very finite time to capture the base before defenders start spawning elsewhere and bringing vehicles to blow up all your tanks/AMSs. This rarely happened in PS1; it was a lot harder to pull vehicles as a defender due to very limited spawn points. In PS1 you had a max of six spawn points.

-- Nearest base. This is whatever base you're trying to defend. Most vehicle terminals are outside the base, so if the courtyard is taken, you can't pull a vehicle from that base.
-- Bound base. Smart people would bind to a base that wasn't under attack so they could pull a vehicle, if necessary. This was the only reasonable way to pull a vehicle and counterattack after you lost the courtyard.
-- Nearest tower. Often far away from the defense because you've lost the nearby base tower already. Cannot spawn vehicles at towers. Not useful.
-- Nearest AMS. If the attackers have the courtyard, the nearest AMS is far away. Not useful.
-- Bound AMS. Same problem as "nearest AMS" above
-- Sanctuary. Really the only other way to pull a vehicle if the courtyard is taken, and the distance required to get from sanc to the base by ground often meant you wouldn't get there in time to do anything.

PS1 defense required you to fight out from the spawn tubes, push out the front door, retake the courtyard, and pour out vehicles from within to fight back. PS1 defense was like a tug-of-war between attackers and defenders.

PS2 defense requires you to quit and go somewhere else to get a vehicle from outside and attack the attackers, which bypasses the entire tug-of-war defense from PS1 and really cheapens the thrill of successfully defending and pushing out.

3. Other things to do

There was other stuff going on in PS1 that wasn't all base zerging. ANT runs to power the bases and module runs/cave fighting to add benefits are the two big ones. Many people thought these were boring or took away from the fighting, but I personally found them as a nice diversion from the constant meatgrinder. It felt good to do something useful that didn't necessarily involve shooting people.

Hamma · 2012-10-25, 11:17 PM

Base Benefits will be added to PS2 at some point in the near future. SO that one in particular will make a return

HKPlane · 2012-10-28, 04:56 PM

From my point of view, PS1 and PS2 are simply two games. PS2 is basically a Planetside:BattleField or Planetside:COD, sadly they even more borrow the concept from BF/COD than original Planetside overall. You see the answer here.

So, the fact here is SOE wanted to make a BF/COD multi-play so they lend some stuffs from Planetside(uses it for marketing purpose), not really trying to make a true Planetside 2 from day one.

If you like the style of BF/COD you are still good to go and having fun, that's the reason some guys said they are having fun in PS2. But just they are very different. PS1 is more focus on strategy(teamwork, long and large battle) while BF/COD is more focus on tactical(solo, fast and small battle). In PS1, some stuffs like base design and shooting style is a bit simplified but that makes it easier to fight in massive scale and long battle environment. While in BF/COD/PS2, this is just works in the opposite way. So, a pure FPS shooter might find PS2 better it actually requires more shooting skills but for me, I'm looking for more, not only about shooting and therefore, I prefer the PS1 style.

I like to solo and I have more fun in PS1 because it has the inventory/backpack and BR, I can do a class-mix in PS1 while PS2 is limited to focus on only one class. A lot more freedoms in PS1, I can create a class whatever I want or think that it's more suitable for the current battle situation or for my own personal playing style.

A lots of good things they took out from PS1 like cloaked AMS, great music, looting corpse(steal weapons)., etcs.

At this moment, I will still play PS2 but not because it's better, just it's new to me and I still have some fun at right now. It's still better than BF/COD in my opinions because the battle scale is a bit larger and I love PS weapons but I doubt I will play it for years.

psijaka · 2012-10-29, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Bocheezu

There are many key differences, and I'll try to outline the ones I can think of off the top of my head --

1. Continental Domination/Lattice/10 Continents

I think this is the biggest thing missing. In PS1, there are 10 continents. Your faction only has a direct link to 2 (if I remember?) of them, and you have to fight/conquer to see the other ones. None of this crap where you have a guaranteed link on every continent. You can completely take over a continent and boot the other factions off it entirely, which was very satisfying.

The population was more concentrated due to the lattice system; you weren't spread out fighting 5v5 at some outpost. A 3-way battle on a continent was not standard and only became prevalent when population decreased. The normal setup was to poplock two continents; you'd fight one faction on one continent and the other on a different continent. There was a strategy involved as far as which continents you fought on and why.

2. Base Layout/Defense/Availability of Spawn Points

Bases just make a lot more sense in PS1. Outposts in PS2 with a single control point are especially dumb because the control point is way far away from the spawn point, and if you lose that control point, the outpost is immediately lost.

As for main bases themselves, most PS1 bases are similar to PS2 biolabs as far as defense goes. Just replace teleporters and gravlifts with doors. The difference in PS2 is that attackers have a very finite time to capture the base before defenders start spawning elsewhere and bringing vehicles to blow up all your tanks/AMSs. This rarely happened in PS1; it was a lot harder to pull vehicles as a defender due to very limited spawn points. In PS1 you had a max of six spawn points.

-- Nearest base. This is whatever base you're trying to defend. Most vehicle terminals are outside the base, so if the courtyard is taken, you can't pull a vehicle from that base.
-- Bound base. Smart people would bind to a base that wasn't under attack so they could pull a vehicle, if necessary. This was the only reasonable way to pull a vehicle and counterattack after you lost the courtyard.
-- Nearest tower. Often far away from the defense because you've lost the nearby base tower already. Cannot spawn vehicles at towers. Not useful.
-- Nearest AMS. If the attackers have the courtyard, the nearest AMS is far away. Not useful.
-- Bound AMS. Same problem as "nearest AMS" above
-- Sanctuary. Really the only other way to pull a vehicle if the courtyard is taken, and the distance required to get from sanc to the base by ground often meant you wouldn't get there in time to do anything.

PS1 defense required you to fight out from the spawn tubes, push out the front door, retake the courtyard, and pour out vehicles from within to fight back. PS1 defense was like a tug-of-war between attackers and defenders.

PS2 defense requires you to quit and go somewhere else to get a vehicle from outside and attack the attackers, which bypasses the entire tug-of-war defense from PS1 and really cheapens the thrill of successfully defending and pushing out.

3. Other things to do

There was other stuff going on in PS1 that wasn't all base zerging. ANT runs to power the bases and module runs/cave fighting to add benefits are the two big ones. Many people thought these were boring or took away from the fighting, but I personally found them as a nice diversion from the constant meatgrinder. It felt good to do something useful that didn't necessarily involve shooting people.

As a PS newcomer, who is absolutely loving PS2, I'm always interested in the reasons as to why some vets say that PS1 was a better game. My PS1 experience is limited to watching a few clips on youtube, which served to whet my appetite for PS2.

1/ I would agree that only having 2 continents seems a bit limiting, but I suppose that we must take account of the fact that we are still in Beta, and SOE probably have a lot more in store for us in this respect (at least one more coming soon).

I like the 3 way conflict as it leads to some interesting dynamics in the centre of the maps, but after a while it becomes apparent that there doesn't seem to be an objective other than to grab as much territory as possible. Again, with the daily server resets that we have right now, perhaps it is too early to judge.

2/ I really like the variety of bases that we have right now, from the simple one control point outposts, 3 point medium sized bases (Regent's Rock springs to mind), Biodomes with several points, and the larger bases with shield generators etc. These result in a wide variety of combat, from desperate 1v1 situations in out of the way spots, to large scale action involving dozens of players on each side. Love it.

My problem with the current system is tank AoE spam; if you are in a medium sized base such as Regent's Rock Garrison, and 10 Magriders turn up and start spamming shells, you might as well just forget it and respawn elsewhere. One might say that if the attackers are that well organised, then they deserve to win, but it's no fun to be on the receiving end and is a bit cheap, IMO. Stronger Phlanx turrets needed, perhaps; something to give the defenders a bit of a chance.

3/ As a solo player, I'm finding plenty to do as an Engi other than simple gunplay. I like to play the support role, repairng tanks/turrets/shield generators/MAXs etc, and resupplying my allies with ammo.

And I like to run an AA loadout, either with a Skyguard or MAX + 2 x Burster, in which case I have to avoid ground contact with the enemy like the plague. This is more of a support role; about safely getting into a good position and denying airspace, rather than just about getting loads of kills. I usually end up getting a lot of assists rather than kills.

The current emphasis on K/D as a measure of "performance" is something that I really do not approve of; very COD. Why on Earth is K/D given such prominence in a massive team based game? Score per hour would be more appropriate (perhaps something for another thread).

psijaka · 2012-10-29, 09:10 AM

I've seen a few posts about how wonderful the lattice system was in PS1 as well. Again, I'm not in a strong position to discuss this, but from what I have seen posted about the lattice, it would appear to me to be rather arbitrary, and somewhat restricting.

I'm a big fan of the hex system as it is implemented on Indar; whenever i look at the map, I start thinking along the lines of "now if we were to capture X it would put additional pressure on the enemy at Y and threaten to cut off Z entirely". Lots of potential for strategic squad gameplay on a higher level; perhaps people haven't realised it's full potential yet.

The hex system on Esamir, with less bases covering much larger areas, seems like a dumbed down version to me. Why play Checkers when you could be playing Go? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

Figment · 2012-10-29, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by adfadfadf

So if any veteran is kind enough, I would like to know exactly what were the elements that made PS1 better than PS2?

Hiya!

Well, where to start really?

See, PlanetSide 2 isn't bad as a generic shooter, but it's not yet a strategic wargame, which PlanetSide 1 was. Bare in mind, I do realise not everything is in PS2 yet, so I will mark what I think will probably become up to par eventually with a * but is like it is now simply because they haven't had the time, where PS1 had a more refined system with ** and where PS1 was actually using a superior alternative system with ***.

Where I think PS2 is superior, will be denoted with a #.

PS1 had a simpler UI***, using pop up windows instead of pretty much taking you out of the game. The UI in PS1 used a less is more philosophy in terms of space management***, provided more options and used scrolling lists so all you needed to know was on one window, which was resizable too of course. You could completely modify your HUD**, change the size and location of the map dynamically, the map had various zoom modes**, if you died or went to the map mode, you still saw and could use the chat window constantly***. PS2 made it easier to find the correct window however, by linking them all# outside of the main menu as well.

The inventory*** and certification system*** opposed to the PS2 class system allowed you to custom make your own character. The only thing PS2 does better is allow for more customizability of the weapons themselves, by providing a larger amount of weapon choices# and up/sidegrades for these weapons#. However, PS1 allowed for 10 favourite slots*, currently PS2 allows one (out of future three*) custom loadouts, but you can't have say 10 Jetpack loadouts, or 4 infil loadouts. You could in PS1. Worse, you can't prepare for more than one context situation in PS2 and it is very "per life" oriented in PS2. In PS1, you could not prepare for every context over all lifes, unless you certed in general and then compromised on the depth of your abilities***. However, you could prepare for about two maybe three situations you'd encounter in game per life. However, you'd have to trade-off your ammo count and abilities through inventory management***.

PS1 let you use "G+number"*** at an equipment terminal*** to instantly select one of your favourite class loadouts. In PS2, you have to click and select your loadout from a dropdown menu before you spawn*. This was superior to the PS2 system because it wasn't just faster, it also gave strategic weight to terminals (take them out and your enemies become weak instantly!) and to having been killed: having been killed meant you would re-enter the fight weakened till you reached an equipment terminal and changed clothes. PS2 only does this in relation to MAXes. PS2 does have a superior loadout system for MAXes as you can select the MAX suit weapons and crosscombine them#.

PlanetSide 1 controlled the numerical presence of units in the field better than PS2, by having interference radii for deployed objects such as AMSes**, splitting roles over more vehicles, requiring deeper certing and forcing specialism that way***. In fact, PS2 allows you to use every vehicle, PS1 did not** till BR40 (hate BR40, which was a late, unwanted and stupid change to the game).

Furthermore, PS1 controlled vehicle spam not just by not having it available to everyone, but by linking power to player numbers. To use a powerful unit like the MBT, more players were required due to firing and driving controls being split***. This also lead to more dynamic combat. It is ambiguous if directional damage absorbtion (PS2) or uniform damage absorption (PS1) is better. The latter does allow for Parthian Shot retreats, whereas in PS2, retreat or showing your rear at all is a death sentence. PS1 also did not have lock on anti-vehicle weaponry, safe for the Striker, the TR infantry AV. This meant that in general, combat was more about driving and aiming skills, less about quantity and Artificial Intelligence controlled accuracy.

Experience points were awarded differently as well: the longer a person was alive and the more damage that person had dealt, the more points you got for taking them out**. You didn't get points for partial damage though#, nor simply doing repair work#. PS2 awards points per spawned player, but doesn't award points for kills made by that player afterwards, PS1 did. Hence PS1's incentive for advantageous placement was greater**, the same is true for healing and repairs** and squad and vehicle crew experience (shared)**. The greatest difference in this is the base capture though: players were only rewarded for capturing territory with a fight**, whereas in PS2 you get a flat rate reward. What is good about PS2 though is that you get points for repairing, destroying or capturing specific consoles and generators#.

Base layout wise, PS1 had a far more defensive/siege approach to base design**. PS2 is more about storming in and never taking and holding a position, but constantly being on the move. What PS2 does well is provide some more open design to some bases, however they frequently take this too far. For instance, in PS1, vehicles couldn't enter the interior of bases, in PS2, they can dominate these areas. In PS1, most interiors were connected***. In PS2, most is disconnected so you have to traverse the outside where enemies camp. PS2 has more cover in the courtyard#, but not enough room for vehicles to travel*** and reach different CY entrances. Internal fights were semi-linear, with important objectives in close proximity and defended by spawning defenders***. In PS2, the attacker is usualy spawning much closer to the objective and has tons of routes to get there.

CYs in PS1 were also smaller allowing a smaller force to have more control over and from the walls** and to communicate threads**, the spawnpoints were in central, rather than perimiter locations*** and battles were therefore more focused and organised**. If a base was hard to break into, it would run out of power eventually anyway by its systems having taken damage and that being repaired**.

PS1 started of with an intercontinental metagame**, PS2 isn't there yet.

PS1 eventually obtained beginner tutorials*, PS2 has none as of yet.

[...]

Thing is, I could go on like this for hours. :/ It's not just little details either since these things have a lot of impact on other things.

PS1 simply was simply more refined as the devs had spend more time on it and didn't much concern themselves with the content of other games, but made decisions based on the context of their game. Hence the final design decisions fit the context better in most cases. Still many times revisions had to be made nonetheless of course, but we know what can and should be. That makes it hard for PS1 vets not to be very critical.

Figment · 2012-10-29, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by psijaka

I've seen a few posts about how wonderful the lattice system was in PS1 as well. Again, I'm not in a strong position to discuss this, but from what I have seen posted about the lattice, it would appear to me to be rather arbitrary, and somewhat restricting.

I'm a big fan of the hex system as it is implemented on Indar; whenever i look at the map, I start thinking along the lines of "now if we were to capture X it would put additional pressure on the enemy at Y and threaten to cut off Z entirely". Lots of potential for strategic squad gameplay on a higher level; perhaps people haven't realised it's full potential yet.

The hex system on Esamir, with less bases covering much larger areas, seems like a dumbed down version to me. Why play Checkers when you could be playing Go? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

The lattice in PS1 was arbitrary in places and sometimes changed for the worse in order to follow the same rules as other continents without having been designed with that system in mind (Capital bases and having to capture sub-capitals).

However, in general the lattice contributed to focusing fights and predicting fights. This made fights actually occur and on a more natural and larger basis than occurs in PS2.

Calisai · 2012-10-29, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by psijaka

I've seen a few posts about how wonderful the lattice system was in PS1 as well. Again, I'm not in a strong position to discuss this, but from what I have seen posted about the lattice, it would appear to me to be rather arbitrary, and somewhat restricting.

It was a bit more restricting. However what this did, was force the zergs (massive groups moving together) to fight each other, rather than to do a round robin kind of thing we have going now. It seems like each faction has a zerg that is fighting a massively outnumbered defending force in PS2, then moving onto another fight with a massively outnumbered defending force.... and nothing really is forcing them to fight each other other than a few terrain bottlenecks.

If you have been playing for awhile (like since tech test), those bottlenecks (Crown, Xroads, etc) are getting a little stale, even after a few months. I think this will definitely be better when they get more continents in place... which is on the agenda as well as a metagame of some sort (hopefully like the old sanc system of ps1).

I believe being able to conquer a continent and then move onto another one was a huge incentive that is missing right now. That was another thing the lattice did. I restricted the ability of a defending team to just bypass the attacking and grab uncontested territory... Allowing for easier conquering of a continent.

We'll see how things go, I think a lot will change once they get more continents and the world metagame done.

PredatorFour · 2012-10-29, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Base layout wise, PS1 had a far more defensive/siege approach to base design**. PS2 is more about storming in and never taking and holding a position, but constantly being on the move. What PS2 does well is provide some more open design to some bases, however they frequently take this too far. For instance, in PS1, vehicles couldn't enter the interior of bases, in PS2, they can dominate these areas. In PS1, most interiors were connected***. In PS2, most is disconnected so you have to traverse the outside where enemies camp. PS2 has more cover in the courtyard#, but not enough room for vehicles to travel*** and reach different CY entrances. Internal fights were semi-linear, with important objectives in close proximity and defended by spawning defenders***. In PS2, the attacker is usualy spawning much closer to the objective and has tons of routes to get there.

This above post is spot on. I would like to add that when attackers were fighting at a base they had to spawn from an AMS. Most bases allowed 3 to be deployed in the bases courtyard, unless someone placed one badly. So you didnt have 30 sunderers next to each other to spawn into. Sometimes you would try and spawn and it would be destroyed pushing you back to the tower/base to grab a vehicle. This made big base seiges needing to be a more co-ordinated attack with vehicles/Ams`s ,otherwise the defenders would keep you at bay.

The command structure would often co-ordinate the attack. In general outfits would be cohesive with one another, but would sometimes fallout due to differences of opinion (just like real life)

camycamera · 2012-10-29, 07:14 PM

OP, PlanetSide 1 is becoming free to play.

it would be a great chance to see what it was all about..... i wanna see what it is all about also, that and my computer can't even run PS2 anyway.