So - End of a long journey, or start of a new one?

Mechzz · 2012-11-09, 05:43 AM

Well, just one week to go before the beta servers are taken down to be readied for launch day. It’s been quite a ride to this point. Planetside 1 was/is my favourite game of all time. Played the game in its 2003-2004 heyday and no other game has ever quite filled its shoes. So when I did a random google search back in what, late 2010, and found the references to Planetside Next, then the models for the Vanguard were released, etc. I started to get quite excited that a new Planetside might be in the offing.

Since then, it’s been a real roller-coaster ride, hasn’t it? Excitedly discussing and dissecting every tweeted screenshot and character model the Devs leaked to us. Higby and T-Ray on these forums regularly, sharing the banter with us. I even bought a new rig to play this game back in February 2011 based on Smed’s talk of a Q1/Q2 beta! Now, I know that not everyone has got everything they wanted in this game. There have been some very touchy topics, and they just keep coming (health regen, anyone?) even so close to release. I also remember a somewhat wistful-seeming post from Higby where it felt to me like he was saying goodbye to us, the PSU community. With hindsight, I think he knew how much different the game was looking and how rough the ride was likely to be as beta approached.

So, before I get all “Duke” on you, here’s my question:
From where we are now, with 3 continents 1 of which (Amerish) offers good gameplay, 1 of which is being revamped today to come closer to Amerish (Indar) and 1, Esamir, which I’ve played maybe 2 hours since it was released, how long do you see yourself playing this game?

For me, the critical issues to give the game longevity are:
1. Need more continents so we can get continental domination back.
2. Need the sidegrade weapons to be slick and polished – too many lemons at the moment.

I would say I’m prepared to play until maybe 5 continents are out. By that point, unless the current basic shoot-em-in-the-face nature of the game has not been replaced by true continent-spanning campaigns with battles flowing from base to base over a period of hours and days then I can’t see it having the same long-lasting appeal as the original.

Thoughts?

Figment · 2012-11-09, 06:20 AM

On a fundamental level, the most important things are IMO:

Active and effective empire command, can't stress enough the importance of this
Meta-game: continental -> global conquest. Connect the fights instead of making them feel like separate wars.
Meta-game: satisfaction of winning without feeling it is pointless or repetitive.
Meta-game: ensure all units are viable and appealing and have viable specialist roles
Improve chat communication system and at the very least make sure everyone knows the different types of chat
Getting new players into the game by teaching them the ropes (intuitive tutorials)
Communicate well what all the different tools do, their advantages and disadvantages and have somewhere to test it and see the effects.
Improve base defensibility
Cut down on specific unit spam (currently: solo MBTs)
Making the interface more intuitive and less multi-level window
Raise more global awareness of the series

Those are the top issues to work on right after release, IMO, while management and marketing should really push awareness and help manage player expectations (and use marketing also for early tutoring, IMO, so it's less "all new" when players come in to try).

Regardless, I'm confident PS2 will attract a wealth of players, but like Hamma's vid showed they are going to need a lot of help getting into the game because they've been forced into a narrow frame of reference by all the bland shooters sofar. PS2 (as PS1 was) will be a breath of fresh air to the genre.

Mox · 2012-11-09, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

On a fundamental level, the most important things are IMO:

Active and effective empire command, can't stress enough the importance of this
Meta-game: continental -> global conquest. Connect the fights instead of making them feel like separate wars.
Meta-game: satisfaction of winning without feeling it is pointless or repetitive.
Meta-game: ensure all units are viable and appealing and have viable specialist roles
Improve chat communication system and at the very least make sure everyone knows the different types of chat
Getting new players into the game by teaching them the ropes (intuitive tutorials)
Communicate well what all the different tools do, their advantages and disadvantages and have somewhere to test it and see the effects.
Improve base defensibility
Cut down on specific unit spam (currently: solo MBTs)
Making the interface more intuitive and less multi-level window
Raise more global awareness of the series

I totaly agree that these are the most critical issues.
I hope we will see these things in the game at the beginning of 2013.
At its current state ps2 womt hold me longer than a month or two..

fishywishy · 2012-11-09, 06:49 AM

for me, the key to staying with a game for a long time is the community. if im with a great group of people i can stay with the game forever

Mechzz · 2012-11-09, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by fishywishy

for me, the key to staying with a game for a long time is the community. if im with a great group of people i can stay with the game forever

Yeah, that was a very important factor in PS1's longevity. My outfit faded out of PS1 as other shinier toys came along and it was never a game for the solo player. I may cave in and see if I can find a niche in one of the bigger outfits for PS2 since team based is definitely the way to get the most out of this game. My outfit in beta is pretty small, and while they're great guys we've never got more than a squad online.

Good points by Figgy as always. Regarding vehicle spam, I think you'll find in any game of this nature that certain weapons or vehicles will get spammed due to real or perceived OP'ness. The Devs need to do their bit to keep things in line. They have 1, maybe 2 chances to get the launch balance sorted. Here's hoping!

Cosmical · 2012-11-09, 07:35 AM

Whereas i always enjoyed the locking mechanic in PS1, im not too sure i will miss it that much in PS2. I know everyone is lobbying for it. My main issues are

1. Even with 5 continents the lock will never last longer than like 30 minutes, in order to be fair to people who are logging in. You can never lock out a large player base for hours, forcing them to wait in queue for the ONLY continent they can enter cos all the others are locked is stupid, and will see no one plays at all. And you can spend 30 minutes going back to gate and spawning a tank. So whats the point?
2. Giving an empire a substantial advantage for locking a cont will only see a further snowballing effect meaning they will dominate others.
3. Any combat situation that can see long term advantages for your faction, purely by one outfit staying up late and stealing a whole cont while other people sleep is retarded.

I love the meta game, but i think bases need to be more defendable than anything. I want more facilities with high walls, so you actually get that feeling that the first game had of "being on the battlements, holding off the hordes."

Teleporting into a bio dome and sitting in a shielded cupboard just doesnt feel as epic to me... call me crazy?

GuyFawkes · 2012-11-09, 07:38 AM

My only hope is that 2012/13 doesn't go along with 2003/4 in this games life, and their sandbox vision does materialize and isn't sidelined to be more 'mainstream'.

This game needs constant turnover to allow that to happen, and why the new player experience is paramount to get them to stay longer than 30 minutes, and the metagame is paramount to stay longer than 30 days. The first 3-6months they need to have this set in concrete.

I wish them well.

Cosmical · 2012-11-09, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by GuyFawkes

My only hope is that 2012/13 doesn't go along with 2003/4 in this games life, and their sandbox vision does materialize and isn't sidelined to be more 'mainstream'.

Not to poo on everyone's dreams, but can anyone image the sandbox aspects being worked into this game well at all? Say they do make a continent with no facilities and its only player created structures? And faction controlled bases?

Does that mean they can be destroyed? Does that mean if your faction is offline, there is no one to defend it? Can any average joe with enough resources spawn an outpost, or is it only for outfits/outfit leaders? When i had no idea who the game worked i would have said it was possible. But with the current mechanics, i doubt a system beyond. "THIS BASE HAS YOUR BANNER NOW COS YOU SPENT 10000 OUTFIT POINTS".

If you ask me the long life plan should be getting Planetside2 into space. Fighters, Destroyers, Cruisers and outfit controlled Mother ships, with multiple manned gunner seats. Its well within the capabilities of their engine, has a workable concept and time frame that it could be a large update, and would be a unique enough from the games current face paced FPS style, that it could really be a strategic monster that could directly impact the combat on the ground.

But my posts are huge so i don't have to force myself to do any drawing right now... so....weeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Mechzz · 2012-11-09, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cosmical

Not to poo on everyone's dreams, but can anyone image the sandbox aspects being worked into this game well at all? Say they do make a continent with no facilities and its only player created structures? And faction controlled bases?

Does that mean they can be destroyed? Does that mean if your faction is offline, there is no one to defend it? Can any average joe with enough resources spawn an outpost, or is it only for outfits/outfit leaders? When i had no idea who the game worked i would have said it was possible. But with the current mechanics, i doubt a system beyond. "THIS BASE HAS YOUR BANNER NOW COS YOU SPENT 10000 OUTFIT POINTS".

If you ask me the long life plan should be getting Planetside2 into space. Fighters, Destroyers, Cruisers and outfit controlled Mother ships, with multiple manned gunner seats. Its well within the capabilities of their engine, has a workable concept and time frame that it could be a large update, and would be a unique enough from the games current face paced FPS style, that it could really be a strategic monster that could directly impact the combat on the ground.

But my posts are huge so i don't have to force myself to do any drawing right now... so....weeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

Well, Smed is a big Eve fan, it seems. And that game is quite hardcore in allowing things players have spent months in building and cherishing to be destroyed. That is the special appeal of Eve, the "adapt or die" mentality. So allowing outfit-built bases to be destroyed isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
Now, the BIG question is - are FPS players up for this sort of shenanigans?

But in reality, the game has to survive long enough for things like this to make it into the game at all. Hence my short and sweet list of "bare essentials". Wouldn't disagree with most of the things others have suggested though.

fishywishy · 2012-11-09, 08:35 AM

I would love to see the devs randomly move the bases around during updates. It will make things a bit confusing, but will keep things fresh too.

psijaka · 2012-11-09, 08:36 AM

The start of a long journey for me; Planetside 2 has the potential to keep me busy for years. But, for this to happen, I'm going to need:

More reason to capture and hold territory. At present, the resource system seems a bit irrelevant, and I'm sure that most players just go where the action is. I would like to see some more obvious reward, such as a cert reward, linked to holding territory over time, in addition to XP related certs.

Regular new content. In the form of new weapons, vehicles, gear, base layouts and especially continents. And possibly even in new gameplay mechanics. Variety is the spice of life.

Open ended progression. Not sure whether a maximum rank is planned, but I don't ever want to reach end game. The cert system certainly seems pretty open ended (I'll be spending cash on weapons, but for upgrades I'm going to save up my certs, to give prolonged meaning to them).

Resolution of irritating gameplay issues. Such as spawn camping and tank spam, to name the first two that come to mind. But I'm confident that issues like this will be resolved.

There are other issues that need to be addressed to ensure the success of the game; most notably, enhancing the experience of new players by providing tutorials, beginner missions etc to guide them into the game. As things stand, new players may well wander around the Warp Gate for half an hour, and then give up in frustration.

And for goodness sake, sort out the UI - what a minefield! Red5 Studios have done a 5 star job on Firefall in this respect, and it shows; really slick even though it is still work in progress.

Babyfark McGeez · 2012-11-09, 08:54 AM

During my stay in the beta (~2-3 months) this game gradually became better and more enjoyable. Really good job on that!

It still has its issues, the feeling of a (too) fast paced game à la "CoD / BF" is still there (allthough it's bearable now), and i have only took part in a handful of successful base defends (which has been the most fun so far) as opposed to the hundreds of successful captures, that's my second big issue.

Aside from that, it's all just a question of adding things (tutorials, continents, weapons, vehicles, etc.) or tweaking existing numbers (health, damage, prices, times, etc.).
So in conclusion i think i will spend alot of time with Planetside 2 and will definetely check out if and how i can contribute by creating content myself (playerstudio?).

Edit:

Originally Posted by psijaka

...Open ended progression. Not sure whether a maximum rank is planned, but I don't ever want to reach end game. The cert system certainly seems pretty open ended (I'll be spending cash on weapons, but for upgrades I'm going to save up my certs, to give prolonged meaning to them)...

The cert system seems to have a "technical" limit, if you check your certs you see a "%" number, implying that you can reach 100% and thus get no more certs then. But even with the 4-6k certs (just an educated guess) i accumulated during the beta i have like "3%". So yeah, it seems quite open-ended.

...then again we will probably see people reaching "100% certs" in about half a year after release lol.

sylphaen · 2012-11-09, 10:31 AM

To be honest, I am still undecided.

I may just choose to be one of the free players and let time decide if I feel involved enough to keep playing or spend money on the game.

In a way, I'm reaching my thirties. Other activities compete with playing and other things also preoccupy me more than PS2 (like the state of the economy, finding a job and securing an income - in essence, the future). I do have some attachment to the PS franchise since, you put it very well, it was a meaningful part of my entertainment for almost a decade. Especially sharing time with the people from my outfit was awesome. Forumside has also been fun and interesting.

Overall, I hope PS2 will work out well and that the young ones who will be able to spend time with the game will find an experience that will give them opportunities to grow, and not just something that will keep leaching substance out of them.

Of course, I have to nuance my post: in the end, this is "just a game". Yes, it IS just a game and people should always remember that it is ONLY a game. However, realize that at some point, you may meet new people, you may join a community, you may become a leader, you may think about strategy as a group and in concrete ways, you may create plans of action, etc... Some people learn it with a football team, other learn it by spending so much time with their teammates that you know what they think without saying.

The concept of Planetside and online gaming has more to offer than a fragfest and unlock grinds and I hope PS2 will offer something greater and meaningful to its players than just playing a game.

VaderShake · 2012-11-09, 10:43 AM

Perspective from a long time gamer (30+ years) new to PlanetSide.

I have been playing FPS's about 90% of the last 10 years and the number 1 thing I am looking for is a game that I can play with a dozen or so of my friends and continue to enjoy the comradere we built over the last 10 years playing battlefield, BF3 killed it for us, and now PlanetSide has re-invigorated my group. That alone means I will be playing this a long while.

I would rather ride the roller coaster than the Log Ride or Demon Drop...

This is the first game in awhile that I am really looking forward to taking the roller coaster ride on to see how it developes. The ups and downs are what get's you emotionally involved in the game. If everything is perfect it can be a sterile expirience.

Also the other FPS offerings out there are so underwhelming regarless of how refined they are.

I say bring on the problems and sucesses with PS2, bring on the dev differences/mistakes/victories, bring on the roller coaster because I would rather be emotionally engaged in a game (frustations, joy, sadness) than go 84 - 6 in a mind numbing COD session or BF game.

PS2 has re-invigorated me and my hopes for future gaming, regardless of it's current flaws...let's see where we are at in 12 months.

Qwan · 2012-11-09, 12:15 PM

One of the key things that will keep me playing is the evolution of the game. If PS2 stayed the way it is for the next year (not to include bug fixes and stuff) I would get bored with it quick, and probably play stuff on the side.

When dev stop listening, and do what they think we like, this is a instant game killer (BFR for example).

But mainly its the community, and the people I play with. Everybody or group of bodys wants to do somthing to make that difference. As Ive stated before, alot of the strategy is taken away from the game. Outfit courdination made a difference, now its just "hey guys lets move to the next base. I think this may kill it for me in the long run as well, but well see.