Greetings from Mordor(EA UK BF3 forums)

[Stardouser]

Not sure if any of you follow it, but a lot of folks from the Battlefield community are looking forward to Planetside 2 based on the death of Battlefield as it begins to copy CoD.

And so let me first say, I never played PS1, and based on the battle stories I've read, it sounds like a shame.

And I do have two questions, they can be answered based on PS1 if PS2 info is not known.
1. I read on the Sony Planetside forum(which I can't currently post on with my EQ subscription not active) that the game pace is faster than PS1 but still WELL slower than CoD. Since this is a big issue to us disgruntled BF fans, any comments?

2. Out of curiosity...are there a lot of lock-on weapons in the game?

Note: I say greetings from the Mordor forums, I cannot however claim to speak for them but I do know many of us are cheering for this game to turn out well.

[Aurmanite]

In the original Planetside there was only one lock on weapon, the anti-vehicular weapon for the Terran Republic. This is going to chance in Planetside 2 as every empire will have a lock on AV weapon.

For your question on pace, check out the game play videos from GDC demo.

[Duddy]

Can't answer with 100% authority obviously but...

1) Watch (remember Alpha footage is Alpha)

2) From we know so far, only lock on weapons that exists are the empire anti vehicle weapons.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

In the original Planetside there was only one lock on weapon, the anti-vehicular weapon for the Terran Republic. This is going to chance in Planetside 2 as every empire will have a lock on AV weapon.

For your question on pace, check out the game play videos from GDC demo.

I am not against lock on weapons per se...just proliferation!

Question: Is the lock on weapon going to be infantry held? Or will both infantry and certain vehicle types have a lock weapon?

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Question: Is the lock on weapon going to be infantry held? Or will both infantry and certain vehicle types have a lock weapon?

Only infantry as far as I know.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Not sure if any of you follow it, but a lot of folks from the Battlefield community are looking forward to Planetside 2 based on the death of Battlefield as it begins to copy CoD.

And so let me first say, I never played PS1, and based on the battle stories I've read, it sounds like a shame.

And I do have two questions, they can be answered based on PS1 if PS2 info is not known.
1. I read on the Sony Planetside forum(which I can't currently post on with my EQ subscription not active) that the game pace is faster than PS1 but still WELL slower than CoD. Since this is a big issue to us disgruntled BF fans, any comments?

2. Out of curiosity...are there a lot of lock-on weapons in the game?

Note: I say greetings from the Mordor forums, I cannot however claim to speak for them but I do know many of us are cheering for this game to turn out well.

Time to kill varies from class to class (ligher classes are weaker and do less damage but maybe faster / have more utility / etc), but they've stated it will be between BF2 and PS1 (so probably 5 - 7 shots or so).

As of right now the only lock on's are empire specific anti vehicle.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I am not against lock on weapons per se...just proliferation!

Question: Is the lock on weapon going to be infantry held? Or will both infantry and certain vehicle types have a lock weapon?

All we know right now is that infantry have lock on weapons. It's a possibility vehicles will have it too.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Bags

Time to kill varies from class to class (ligher classes are weaker and do less damage but maybe faster / have more utility / etc), but they've stated it will be between BF2 and PS1 (so probably 5 - 7 shots or so).

As of right now the only lock on's are empire specific anti vehicle.

Time to kill is a concern but actually, when I personally talk about game pace, I'm talking about time between firefights/being fired at. Another way to say this is : We hope to have a choice between attacking the enemy with a head on grind, OR trying to be a bit stealthy and often not taking fire until getting caught...time between kills, that is.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Time to kill is a concern but actually, when I personally talk about game pace, I'm talking about time between firefights/being fired at. Another way to say this is : We hope to have a choice between attacking the enemy with a head on grind, OR trying to be a bit stealthy and often not taking fire until getting caught...time between kills, that is.

The pace of the game is persistent. It's not like BF3 where you keep having to start a new round every ten minutes. There will always be fights going regardless of what time you log on. If that's what you were trying to ask.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

The pace of the game is persistent. It's not like BF3 where you keep having to start a new round every ten minutes. There will always be fights going regardless of what time you log on. If that's what you were trying to ask.

It's hard to compare because as you say, it's a persistent world, not a 30 minute round...but what I mean is, obviously I understand that as you get closer to a base the resistance gets tougher...but in general, BF3 can be no matter where you spawn at, even if you spawn back in your own areas, you can be shot at...no time to prepare between engagements even if you intentionally spawn further back with the intent of sneaking closer to the action from further away.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It's hard to compare because as you say, it's a persistent world, not a 30 minute round...but what I mean is, obviously I understand that as you get closer to a base the resistance gets tougher...but in general, BF3 can be no matter where you spawn at, even if you spawn back in your own areas, you can be shot at...no time to prepare between engagements even if you intentionally spawn further back with the intent of sneaking closer to the action from further away.

Ahhh... well, each faction has a foothold on each continent, a staging area, which is out of bounds to other empires (kind of dumb if you ask me) but yes, you can spawn at your base and approach the action from any direction you please. There are no barriers. (Maybe the flight ceiling )

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Ahhh... well, each faction has a foothold on each continent, a staging area, which is out of bounds to other empires (kind of dumb if you ask me) but yes, you can spawn at your base and approach the action from any direction you please. There are no barriers. (Maybe the flight ceiling )

I just got to the point in the video linked in this thread where he's talking about people able to be dedicated Galaxy transport pilots if they want. Awesome stuff...and I know they had Galaxies in PS1, what was the typical procedure? Drop off the troops a safe distance away from the target base, or fly the Galaxy right into the heavy fire to get them close?

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Time to kill is a concern but actually, when I personally talk about game pace, I'm talking about time between firefights/being fired at. Another way to say this is : We hope to have a choice between attacking the enemy with a head on grind, OR trying to be a bit stealthy and often not taking fire until getting caught...time between kills, that is.

you can do everything. go with the zerg for grinding action, or go with an organised outfit for specops action! sneaky classes are also in, so cloak yourself and sneak through the backdoors.

[Zulthus]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I just got to the point in the video linked in this thread where he's talking about people able to be dedicated Galaxy transport pilots if they want. Awesome stuff...and I know they had Galaxies in PS1, what was the typical procedure? Drop off the troops a safe distance away from the target base, or fly the Galaxy right into the heavy fire to get them close?

Whatever you wanted to do, dude. We normally dropped either at max altitude or a low drop at the backdoor or main doors. Since the Galaxy is acting as an AMS this time around people will probably just fly troops in and land a safe distance away from the firefight.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

And I do have two questions, they can be answered based on PS1 if PS2 info is not known.
1. I read on the Sony Planetside forum(which I can't currently post on with my EQ subscription not active) that the game pace is faster than PS1 but still WELL slower than CoD. Since this is a big issue to us disgruntled BF fans, any comments?

What exactly is the stance of BF3 players? There are a number of people here that claim changes made to PS towards both BF3/CoD alike is what "the masses" want. Personalyl I do not share that opinion, as I expect every game to be unique and focus on its own Unique Selling Points.

It's quite ironic that the BF3 playerbase has similar issues as many of us with the game becoming too much like another game.

2. Out of curiosity...are there a lot of lock-on weapons in the game?

Note: I say greetings from the Mordor forums, I cannot however claim to speak for them but I do know many of us are cheering for this game to turn out well.

In PlanetSide 1, you had one Anti Vehicle lock on weapon, as mentioned above: the Striker. However, there were several Anti-Air lock on missiles. Some had to be kept on target manually (Vanu Sovereignty's Starfire) and the New Conglomerate's Sparrow AA, which was fire-and-forget, but took a while to lock on (3 seconds).

There was also the Scorpion, where you had to lock a certain distance to target, fire overhead of it and it would fire projectiles downwards. Though that's not exactly a lock on weapon in the traditional sense.

Lastly, the Wasp (interceptor aircraft) has lock on AA missiles.


In PS2 some things will be different though. We know for instance that some Anti-Vehicle rockets will have laser guidance.