Developer Paradigm - Page 2

The Kush · 2012-06-11, 03:12 PM

Yes you are exactly right and that is why old school vets like myself are somewhat dissapointed. The reason I loved PS1 so much is the amount of teamwork, coordination, planning, leadership, ect. was required to actually be successful and make a difference. I understand why the devs are changing this, because it makes the game more accessible for the casual player, but I for one will miss the old strategy based game instead of the free for all deathmatch.

Hopefully beta will put my fears to rest or these issues will be corrected in beta. As of now I am trying to stay positive.

ArmedZealot · 2012-06-11, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Kush

As of now I am trying to stay positive.

Really? Wouldn't know it.

Sirisian · 2012-06-11, 03:32 PM

I think the problem isn't the developer's "paradigm", it's the community's overreaction to everything when it comes to balance and jumping to conclusion. If people took a more objective viewpoint toward new features and the TTK and understood none of it is set in stone then they'd realize the developers are simply testing out new ideas and concepts to make sure Planetside 2 can give players everything they want.

There's a huge reason why a vocal minority of vets keep commenting with "we'll see in beta" or "let's see it implemented and see if it works". They're understanding what the developers are attempting to do and why this alpha, and soon beta, testing is so critical to make sure things that are in work and to see if new ideas can work within the game. Sadly some players (as can be noticed from threads like these) would rather jump down their throats whenever something "new" is implemented. Especially when they do it in an irrational way without valid arguments. The developers are reading these forums and most of the comments have absolutely no justification to them.

On the comment of TTK. It's mostly just numbers. Something I'm sure the developers want to test and work out during beta and get feedback on. (Really they've already gotten more than enough feedback about it). If anything we as a community should try to limit our posts to just the core information to help the developers gather opinions and arguments.

Also listing off what you'd like to see goes a lot further in helping the developers than telling them simply that they are doing it wrong. Do you want more complicated bases with hallways and chokepoints?

Originally Posted by amblingalong

It seems the devs have largely chosen to emphasize the immediate FPS gameplay experience at the expense the larger strategy experience. Things that fall into this category include permanent footholds, rapid TTK, and perhaps most importantly base design that promotes rapid, deathmatch style fighting instead of requiring carefully coordinates attacks (due to static defenses, generators, and walls).

Let's just be clear there's a huge difference between strategy and tactics. Permanent footholds are strategic gameplay elements. The TTK, base design, and how players fight for targets is tactical.

In Planetside 1 we have strategic systems like the lattice system and tech plant bonuses to unlock certain vehicles. In Planetside 2 we have a subjectively broken resource system to control strategic objectives. On top of that we have the mission system to control player movements strategically at the macroscale and voice comms for both tactical and strategic communication.

If you want strategy over tactics then start suggesting changes to the map layouts and the flow of combat between bases. Should there be bonuses for adjacent squares for certain bases? Should there be a clear lattice system?

If you want to discuss tactics that's fine, but realize that it's all up in the air still and arguing about the TTK with 100 players fighting versus 2K when the game launches is probably something the developers are aware of.

Haro · 2012-06-11, 03:52 PM

I think its the players, more than any real mechanics, that truly enabled the level of strategy and cooperation Planetside could reach. You can't really design strategy into the game, the dominance of zerg tactics in the original was proof of that (though it was technically a strategy... kinda.) As long as the game allowed large numbers of players into the same server (it does, now more than ever) and keeps the infrastructure of outfits, squads, and platoons that helped make coordination so much easier, players will provide the strategy. I think that will be stronger than ever, just because many of us have years of experience and practice to build off of, and it's almost guaranteed that more people will play Planetside 2 than the original ever saw, even at its peak.

But how many can argue that PS didn't need serious shooter reform. It's a nine year old game, and even in 2003, the ttk wasn't especially popular. Combine that with bugs, balancing issues, and a polarity between vehicles and infantry combat and I'd totally understand if people were put off by how it played. I think modernizing the system will help with popularity and provide a smoother and more fun experience. The overwhelmingly positive reaction to the game seems to point to the solid shooter mechanics even with a general lack of balancing.

It's really too soon to comment on strategy though, as no battles have really been fought on that large a scale. E3 was certainly no real model for it, given that it was designed in an uncharacteristic fashion for demo purposes.

Madfish · 2012-06-11, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Xeb

To be spawning that close to a base you would need a gal, to get a gal that close you will need air superiority, to gain air superiority in a large battle you need AA and fighters to cover the area... etc etc Just getting to a base requires alot more coordination than it did in PS1... AMS was easymode

I don't want high walls and open courtyards back... they hardly glow with tactical opportunities...

Here here, that's my take on the e3 demos - it demonstrated the core combat experience.

Games need to get the core repetitive experience right - and that's the Fps for PS. And to be frank ps1 didnt get that right!

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

p0intman · 2012-06-11, 04:03 PM

Without logistical need there is no reason for coordinated strategy between bases. Without the ability to fully lock a continent, there is no global strategy. Without global strategy, ps2 is simply bf3 and cod with a planetside spin on larger maps.

I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love to see that there is potential for continental and intercontinental strategy. I haven't yet though. I'm afraid too much has been changed, this isn't what planetside is about so far. Like Malorn said, too many babies being tossed out with water. I'm afraid that too many new guys don't 'get' it and want it dumbed down.

Originally Posted by Xeb

I have disagree here, It may have looked that way at E3 but only because they had made special spawn points for all the factions around the base...

To be spawning that close to a base you would need a gal, to get a gal that close you will need air superiority, to gain air superiority in a large battle you need AA and fighters to cover the area... etc etc Just getting to a base requires alot more coordination than it did in PS1... AMS was easymode

I don't want high walls and open courtyards back... they hardly glow with tactical opportunities...

Have you ever driven an ams into a hotly contested area? Not easymode for the driver when he is just as likely to get shot or os'd upon deploying.

Haro · 2012-06-11, 04:28 PM

Another point I forgot to make: the devs are trying to go for more accessibility. I just glanced through a review of Planetside on IGN, and while I disagree with a lot of poorly made points made by the author, there was one thing I really couldn't contest with: the game wasn't fun if you didn't have an outfit. Even then, it wasn't always great if you had a group of friends to really organize with. The majority of players in the game's peak years were mostly zergers who didn't really get into a lot of the heavily organized stuff, a perspective we don't see anymore because only hardcore outfits remain after so long.

The game is striving to be more accessible with autojoin squads and hopefully a great way to introduce and integrate outfits and social structure to new players, because FPS games rarely have that. I think it may be easier now than in 2003, because clans have caught on more even in smaller fps games, but its still a very new and rpg-esque mechanic.

While I agree coordination and strategy are important for Planetside, the core experience needs to be better for people who don't have that.

Xyntech · 2012-06-11, 05:23 PM

Just imagine if PS2 was actually the first game, and launched with everything it currently has planned, and then they tried to release something like Planetside Next (PS1 with modern graphics) as the sequel.

People would be shitting themselves at some of the changes. Some because they were changing the style of the gunplay (longer TTK's and stuff like that), others because we were losing all sorts of awesome new features. I don't doubt people would be complaining about even some of the better systems from the first game, just because they were different and they didn't know how to deal with them yet.

My point being that PS2 is different, but there are a lot of good changes amongst the controversial. The game has to move forward or it will stagnate and die.

Players like p0intman ask for proof that some of the new systems won't fail miserably, but I ask for the opposite. I ask for proof that they will fail. I don't doubt that some things will need a little tweaking, but the bones of the new game seem solid enough to me. Prove me wrong. Gotta wait for beta for that. I certainly hope I'm not proved wrong in beta, but I doubt I will be.

p0intman · 2012-06-11, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Players like p0intman ask for proof that some of the new systems won't fail miserably, but I ask for the opposite. I ask for proof that they will fail. I don't doubt that some things will need a little tweaking, but the bones of the new game seem solid enough to me. Prove me wrong. Gotta wait for beta for that. I certainly hope I'm not proved wrong in beta, but I doubt I will be.

:bitter vet:

I don't need to give you any, just look at SOE's track record.

MedicDude · 2012-06-11, 06:03 PM

The spawning system is going to need a lot of tweaking, this will get done in the beta. I'm also wary of the squad-spawn system, for the most part I feel it's simply not necessary, but maybe we can tweak it to make it work.

The drop podding inside bases will not make it through beta, it breaks so much tactical barriers and focuses all defense indoors, something from PS1 that PS2 would be wise NOT to repeat.

PS2 still needs chokepoints for strategy and to establish points of contention, but they need to be much wider than the 2 man corridors in PS1.

BattsTR · 2012-06-11, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

:bitter vet:

I don't need to give you any, just look at SOE's track record.

I echo this. I simply don't trust SOE. And some preliminary things I've seen on this game reinforce my opinion. Maybe beta will fix all my concerns? But i doubt it. For as many vets who are weary of some changes, there are people who are very quick to trust the Devs and "wait for beta", that's a great attitude to have I suppose but after the way they butchered the first game color me a skeptic.

Xyntech · 2012-06-11, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

:bitter vet:

I don't need to give you any, just look at SOE's track record.

You like PS1 well enough, don't you?

I think PS2 is going to be (almost) everything I loved about the original, with most of the annoying stuff fixed.

Doubtless SOE still has the potential to screw it up, especially post launch, but what I'm seeing from the developers themselves isn't worrying me at the moment.

I'd probably be more worried about some of the little sticking points if the developers were less open to feedback. But the core stuff like F2P and classes and heavy customization tiers are great. IMO, of course.

Anyhow, I could ask for examples of why the PS1 ways of doing stuff won't fail as well. Because that game certainly died a quick death, and to blame it on any one thing or the failings/tamperings of SOE corporate in general would be doing it's failure an injustice. Planetside failed on many levels, and would fail even harder in todays market.

I love Planetside and would play it, flaws and all, today, if it were like in the old days. But I would much rather play an improved version.

I guess I'm a bit of a bitter vet myself. Bitter at how the original game was such a flawed flop when it had so much potential.

The fact that it has loyal players playing it to this day is awesome, but it's a pale shadow if itself for me now. What it's become is just not for me. I think PS2 will bring a lot of people around once some of the minor issues are worked out in beta though. I definitely want it to be enjoyed by as many Planetside vets as possible.

Originally Posted by BattsTR

I echo this. I simply don't trust SOE. And some preliminary things I've seen on this game reinforce my opinion. Maybe beta will fix all my concerns? But i doubt it. For as many vets who are weary of some changes, there are people who are very quick to trust the Devs and "wait for beta", that's a great attitude to have I suppose but after the way they butchered the first game color me a skeptic.

So ironic hearing people attack anything SOE as doomed to be terrible while defending an SOE game at the same time. Obviously we're all mad at the way the first game was screwed with as well, but clearly we all loved the first Planetside as a whole. I can understand suspecting that SOE will screw it up post launch like SW:G (and Planetside for that matter), but it seems like a lot of people think that company that put out Planetside isn't good enough to put out... Planetside. It makes no fucking sense. Especially considering how cool the devs have been about changing stuff that needs changing.

Some of the stuff hasn't been changed yet because the devs have a vision and want to actually test some of it out in beta before considering chucking it. Do you really think the devs who were so responsive with the kill cam shit will ignore mass outcry if something in beta is fundamentally broken? Maybe they know something we don't and some of their ideas are better than ours. I look forward to sorting the good from the bad.

And stuff like F2P isn't broken, it's essential. Diminishing populations from the first game is what was broken. F2P will fix more than it will break. I guarantee you that.

Red Beard · 2012-06-11, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

Without logistical need there is no reason for coordinated strategy between bases. Without the ability to fully lock a continent, there is no global strategy. Without global strategy, ps2 is simply bf3 and cod with a planetside spin on larger maps.

I'd love to be proven wrong, I'd love to see that there is potential for continental and intercontinental strategy. I haven't yet though. I'm afraid too much has been changed, this isn't what planetside is about so far. Like Malorn said, too many babies being tossed out with water. I'm afraid that too many new guys don't 'get' it and want it dumbed down.

Have you ever driven an ams into a hotly contested area? Not easymode for the driver when he is just as likely to get shot or os'd upon deploying.

Without logistical need there is no reason for coordinated strategy between bases.

I see it simply as a matter of how much, not if, since on the larger scale, organized troops will win every time.

Without the ability to fully lock a continent, there is no global strategy. Without global strategy, ps2 is simply bf3 and cod with a planetside spin on larger maps.

While I think you're over-simplifying the issue, I do agree nonetheless. I'm more of a proponent of being able to kick factions off a continent, but intead of a lockout, various rewards for the achievement, with either little or no lockout time.

I take that angle because Higby has stated that they want to keep the content open to all the players, and I suspect that's a business-driven decision. I like the idea of neutral warp gates and continents, as I suspect the current approach of locking all three factions permanently within the conts have a tendency to stagnate front line movement too much. You are definitely right about the three continents essentially being cut off from each other. They might as well be different servers as far as I can tell...

Yeah I also think "modernization" needs to be a selective process, as there are a few changes in FPS's that have degraded game play, but since they've piggybacked onto popular games, they have been presumed to be improvements when they aren't.

Red Beard · 2012-06-11, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Haro

Another point I forgot to make: the devs are trying to go for more accessibility. I just glanced through a review of Planetside on IGN, and while I disagree with a lot of poorly made points made by the author, there was one thing I really couldn't contest with: the game wasn't fun if you didn't have an outfit. Even then, it wasn't always great if you had a group of friends to really organize with. The majority of players in the game's peak years were mostly zergers who didn't really get into a lot of the heavily organized stuff, a perspective we don't see anymore because only hardcore outfits remain after so long.

The game is striving to be more accessible with autojoin squads and hopefully a great way to introduce and integrate outfits and social structure to new players, because FPS games rarely have that. I think it may be easier now than in 2003, because clans have caught on more even in smaller fps games, but its still a very new and rpg-esque mechanic.

While I agree coordination and strategy are important for Planetside, the core experience needs to be better for people who don't have that.

Paradoxically, though I am a big proponent of team play, a major portion of my time on PS1 was lone-wolfing in a reaver. And yeah; that dude is dead wrong about non being in an outfit. PS1 is my favourite game of all time, and somewhere between 40 and 60 percent of my time was spent following my own orders

It is true though that I was playing when player populations were quite high and poplocks were daily.

I really think the devs are too worried about giving access to everything all the time though...it makes people want something more when you tell them they can't have it, lol.

Ratstomper · 2012-06-11, 08:59 PM

Part of me feels similar, but I'm withholding judgment until I actually get hands on and see how I like it. If they implement things well, then I may wind up not missing some of the few things that the new planetside lacks.