[Feedback] Colorful "Self-Entitled Opinion"

[NewSith]

With that PC Gamer article and video, I just realised that you people (community folk, I mean) need to rethink stuff, here it is as follows:

I will do 2 lists, and include EVERYTHING I think on them, including small details.

Things PS2 did fantastically:

• Gunplay.
  Starting with sniping, ending with vehicular gunplay.
• Resources.
  Potential is huge, but the devs are too lazy to build a complex system around resources, so it's not even a metagame atm. That fact is saddening.
• Vehicle Customization.
  As a matter of fact vehicles are closer to freeform inventory, than infantry classes. Go figure.
• In-Game Recording and Streaming.
• Pacing.
  Some say it's "modern", but tell you what - PS2 is way more flexible in terms of pacing as compared to PS1.
• Territory System.
  Note that I'm not saying "Hex System", because from my perspective 6 edges is just way too much.
• Shredder Liberator.
  I love helicopters, they added a helicopter, that's as much as I can say.
• Leadership Smoke.
  Another fantastic and immersive teamplay mechanic.
• Spawn Beacons.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things that can be done in PS2 that PS1 had nice and tight. Let's start small:

• Ability to holster weapons.
  This one comes to mind first because I was doing a screenshoot not so long ago and had to use a game bug to remove my weapon. What's the point of adding in-game recording and not letting people to holster weapons.
• Ability to see the squad numbers in vehicles.
• Ability to have minimap zoomed in and out.
  And not just expand it to half of your screen.
• Character models inside vehicles.
  Liberator, Galaxy, ESFs, Sunderer, why the heck are they controlled by invisible forces?
• Ability to customize your HUD.
  As in move your minimap, your vehicle HP status, your chats, your character status bars.
• Ability to refit vehicles.
• Chat Macros.
  Many MANY people know what "/macro MED \#8ADV MEDIC HERE! No need to respawn!" added to the game.
• Ability to quickly select your loadout (class) with digit keys.
  Like ""Use Button" on a teminal->1->3" = Infiltrator Class, Loadout Slot 3.
• Deployed Vehicles That Don't Slide.
  Deploying an AMS in PS1 made it so the AMS sticked to the ground, even if it was sliding on it undeployed. In PS2 it works the other way around.
• CE (Mines and such) Count HUD Element.
• Heavy Projectiles Visible On The Minimap.
  You think PS1 Liberator wasn't OP? It was. But red shell-like silhouettes alongside with a distinct "Buzhhhhhhhhhhh, bang bang bang!" made it very easy for troops to realise that they need to run for cover from above.
• In-Game Tutorials.

Now tell me these changes are somehow BAD for PS2...


And then we get global changes:

• Limited Certification Points.
  There are amny people claiming that many things can be balanced by increasing certcosts. You can't do that if your CP income is infinite. Limit the amount of CPs you can get per BattleRank and there you have a wonderful balancing factor.
• Sanctuaries.
• Continents that can be completely captured.
• Defensible designs.
  Hell that's the best joke there is - "We don't want defensible designs, because Defense = Farm". So, bloody instead you go camp spawnrooms, because that is obviously "NOT FARMING, OMG L2P, SPAWN SOMEWHERE ELSE". And that is not only about spawnrooms - shell-proof windows (why not just use the vehicle gate shield model we already have), higher walls, more indoor designs, generators in position where they can be defended from a zerg.
• Freeform Inventory/Freeform Classes.
  Does anyone really think that classes appeal to anyone more than a freeform type? Excuse me, but CoD doesn't have classes, despite the common misconception. BF2142 or BF3 also don't have preset classes. You can arm a recon with a PDW or a shotgun and he's no longer a sniper.
• NTU-Like Mechanic.
  NTU was a slowly draining resource that the bases used to self-repair turrets, terminals and everything of that kind. Eventually the defense failed because once the NTU ran out, the base turned neutral. You think defense may cause stalemates? This is a wonderful anti-stalemate mechanic.
• Valuable Vehicles.
  A vehicle in PS1 was a gamechanger, because of how bothersome (BOTHERSOME!) it was to get one. It's a question of how HARD it is, it is a question of effort-to-reward ratio. Zerg doesn't want to do any kind of activity that involves not doing anything before action starts. This balances itself out wonderfully.
• Valuable Base Benefits.
  In particular - Tech Plant Benefit. One of the KEY features that prevented MBT and rocketpod spam in PS1 was the fact that if you had no Tech Plant Benefit, you had to pull your vehicle from the Sanctuary and that was a long and boring trip. This is exactly the factor I mentioned above.
• OP Vehicle Weapons Bound To Tech Plant Ownership.
• Metagame.
  There is GAZILLION metagames you can come up with. But the only metagames we have right now is killing people and capturing points. And NOTHING ELSE.
• Triangle or Square Territory/Non-geometrical Territory.
  As I said - 6 edges give too many attack angles. Of course some bases have only two adjacent terrotories, but that's deceiving. In all fairness I would rather go for a Compamy of Heroes type of territory design.
• Complex Landscape.
  Areas with natural ceilings, areas disadvantageous to ground vehicles, urban combat, areas that do not allow ground vehicles or air vehicles or neither. Alongside with more impassable terrain, like water+bridges (metagame, I should point out) in PS1.
• More Capture Mechanics.
  Just like with the Metagame, there's plenty of capture mechanics you can add. Take every known multiplayer game-mode and redesign it for PS. 1-way progressing objectives (Rsuh from BF3), 2 way progressing objectives (Tug Of War from World In Conflict), Capture The Flag, Take and Hold, King of the Random Hill, Bombing Run (UT), Oddball (Halo) there is more than enough material to draw inspiration from.
• No Solo MBTs.
  At all.
• Separate Squad Leader and Command Chats.
• More Missiles, Less Flak.
  Like ES Ground-To-Air MAX weapons, or same weapons for lightning. AA to AIr balance will be much more easily reachable that way.
• Indirect Fire.
  Flails never ruined PS1, they were a fantastic addition, considering all the empire-wide requirements to get one. All the hate came from people that didn't like their K/D ruined by a random factor. I for one enjoyed the feeling of being under artillery fire. Immersive as hell.
• Ability to Give Away Vehicles.
  Nobody will ever be able to "supply the entire Empire", now that we've seen the resource system in action, despite the original belief. Unlocking vehicles should allow people outside the squad to drive it.
• Dynamic XP.
  You know why spawncamping wasn't really fun in PS1? Because you only got what has to be the analogue of current 1-2 XP with premiuim bonus per kill. Not to mention that spawnkills didn't count towards any rewards.

Now most of these changes we will never see, because some of them are too cardinal to make in Launch Product.





EDIT:
Post Scriptum:
I would also like to add that I am obviously exaggerating about the absence of metagames, other than 2 - Killing and Capturing. The game has loads of them: Combat Engineering (or Explosives now), Generators Mechanic, Resources Tied to Territories having influence on the vehicular and consumables flow, Satellite Bases of Facilities, etc...

Now, of course, the lack of defensible designs contributes to the issue alot. But the influence is still partial. The reason for things being the way they are, at this point, is that there is no encoragement for metagames. There is nothing that makes these meta games obvious, plain and simple.

For example - Imagine that a spawnroom had only one door out and right outside the door, the SCU was situated. With a giant icon, telling, in a way "I AM NOT A STATIC OBJECT! TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT ME!". Almost everyone coming out of the doorway would at least wonder what the f*** that thing is and why it is there. Some advanced individuals would probably try and press "Use" on it. Bottomline - everyone would know the thing exists and would try and learn what it does. Or a more simple example - a CE count HUD indicator, we're talking about with Brusi in the bottom of this page.

I update my post with that, generally because if we want to apply the "crystal clear" approach, we DO have to have it "crystal".

[Hamma]

Good post, I was going to create a "what did PS2 do well" thread but this about covers it.

[DirtyBird]

I like what you've done there NewSith.
Some of the stuff I'd forgotten about (chat macro ftw)

And yes lots of those global changes we'll never see unfortunately.

[RykerStruvian]

I don't really see where our current thinking is necessarily wrong (not necessarily the right word but whatever). No one is really arguing the points you are making are wrong nor saying they aren't important. How are the points presented in the PCGamer article any different? If anything they should be considered as small steps to greater changes.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by RykerStruvian

I don't really see where the our current thinking is necessarily wrong (not necessarily the right word but whatever). No one is really arguing the points you are making are wrong nor saying they aren't important. How are the points presented in the PCGamer article any different? If anything they should be considered as small steps to greater changes.

Points mentioned in PCG look like a bad perception of the problems we're trying to voice. I wanted to make it crystal clear what I want.



Now, on a side note, I do consider my "I" to be representitive of quite a few other opinions, but I tried to be objective about my subjectiveness, by calling the thread what it is.

[Zulthus]

I completely agree with everything, nice post.

[gunshooter]

[*]Gunplay.
Starting with sniping, ending with vehicular gunplay.

Matter of opinion. For many of us, copying Battlefield gameplay 1:1 is not our ideal fps. The vehicle controls especially are incredibly basic. I'm glad you mentioned sniping - sniping exemplifies many of the problems with the modern FPS. "Press Shift to aim." Doesn't add anything to the gameplay, just an extra arbitrary button that you have to press, but it's there for 'realism' because I guess this far-future space FPS needs to have realistic mechanics. This extends to practically everything. ADSing with non-sniper weapons is another thing that neuters gameplay in the name of realism and of course like every other modern shooter the game forces you to do it.

[*]Resources.
Potential is huge, but the devs are too lazy to build a complex system around resources, so it's not even a metagame atm. That fact is saddening.

So resources weren't done fantastically, as you said yourself.

[*]Pacing.
Some say it's "modern", but tell you what - PS2 is way more flexible in terms of pacing as compared to PS1.

What does this mean? All I can think of is the fact that players are slow moving while death is instantaneous. I guess that's pretty flexible.

[*]Territory System.
Note that I'm not saying "Hex System", because from my perspective 6 edges is just way too much.

The hex system IS the territory system. Again, how was this done amazingly when you said it wasn't?

[Soothsayer]

Good stuff.

[NewSith]

This honestly looks like arguing for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by gunshooter

Matter of opinion. For many of us, copying Battlefield gameplay 1:1 is not our ideal fps. The vehicle controls especially are incredibly basic.

Subjective, idd I will not argue that. Though, let's agree that with all the FPSes out there there is simply NO way to innovate without taking a tremendous risk of horrible failure, and PS2 simply couldn't risk THAT much. Now, let's think about other "copies" we can get - Counter-Strike, CoD, Quake, Global Agenda (Especially its generic Hitbox-less model, like in PS1), Halo...

What does this mean? All I can think of is the fact that players are slow moving while death is instantaneous. I guess that's pretty flexible.

Pacing - is the speed the game forces on you to make descsions with. PS2 was a turn-based strategy in that regard. By flexible I mean that you may aswell go for an AA MAX or a long-range sniper, in that case the pace is slow. You go in a Bio Lab, while pads are already breached and you have to think quickly.

So resources weren't done fantastically, as you said yourself.

Reasource system has potential, and it is really only a design-work away from being outstanding. Hence I named the line "Resources", not "Resource System".

The hex system IS the territory system. Again, how was this done amazingly when you said it wasn't?

Territory system is the system that allows territory denial for greater purposes. While I mentioned hexes I was talking about the shape of territory segments, which I prefer not to be hexes. Hexes have maximum of 6 adjacent territories. To simplify - hex shape allows 6 "lattice links". PlanetSide 1 only had 4 at max.

[Hmr85]

Great Post

[OCNSethy]

I like the way you think NewSith... good post.

[Sledgecrushr]

Great job NS. I hope the devs are working furiously to start making this game what it needs to be.

[Brusi]

I agree with Almost everything you have written! So many of these things were really great contributors to PS. For the relatively complicated gameplay (compared to FPS's these days), many of these game play and HUD elements made the game far less frustrating for new and veteran gamers alike.

One thing that caught my attention in your list of awesomeness though...

Originally Posted by NewSith

CE (Mines and such) Count HUD Element.

Although this may be a godsend for Combat Engineers, trying to maintain a prescence of their defensive devices, i think now that every class can get either Anti-Infantry mines or C4, i don't know if it's entirely Valid any more.

Personally i would rather have the Infiltrator or Light Assault who is mining or C4'ing the capture point have to stick close by, to check if his/her trap has worked. The way CE works now is far more interactive, not a fire and forget and i personally don't mind this so much.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Brusi

Although this may be a godsend for Combat Engineers, trying to maintain a prescence of their defensive devices, i think now that every class can get either Anti-Infantry mines or C4, i don't know if it's entirely Valid any more.

While I understand where that is coming from...


Actually, hell, I'll even tell you - that's the thinking the class system got you into. Let's remember - you could have no CE in your inventory in PS1 at all, being armed with an MCG and a Striker (being a "Heavy Assault Class"), but you still could see your CE. I would totally agree with you if explosives disappeared after switching classes, but they don't.

Originally Posted by Brusi

Personally i would rather have the Infiltrator or Light Assault who is mining or C4'ing the capture point have to stick close by, to check if his/her trap has worked. The way CE works now is far more interactive, not a fire and forget and i personally don't mind this so much.

Though, as I said - I am subjective on this.

[Mastachief]

Good stuff newsith.