A few things that Matt Higby needs to realize

[Rozonus]

Regarding travel time (and waiting in general), a potential problem I've been fearing about players who haven't played PS1 is that because all they're used to are fast paced 'modern FPS' style games, they'll have no patience when it comes to planning and tactics.

I would imagine that if they played PS1, the idea of having to wait for 15 minutes for a base hack to finish would be really boring unless the enemy was constantly trying to recapture the base. Those of us who have played PS1 are used to the slow paced parts of the game but I can see it causing a negative effect for some people.

Saying that, I can still remember the times I kept my Galaxy grounded outside a base waiting for more random people to get in and there would always be some people using the 'Move' emote because they had to wait for more than 5 seconds.

The main good thing about cutting travel time is that it should help to keep more of these people playing the game. They might be annoying, but they'll help keep the game alive.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I described my vision of how quickly people should get back into the battle. Why don't you describe yours? Where would you expect your AMS to be placed, how long is your expected respawn timer system and then the average runback time to the fight/to your squad?

I'm not asking for statements of faith in SOE to do it right, or anything like that; I mean, what is your vision for this?

How quickly should people be getting back into a battle? As fast as the walk from the closest AMS, Tower, or base spawn room.

I don't need vision. It was already sorted out in PS1. Some of you are talking like it took FOREVER to get back into a battle. It did not. Unless your side was getting stomped, AS IT SHOULD BE. If your side is loosing, be better.

I want Planetside, not an endless spawn cycle. Removal of spawn locations is part of war games.

[Sabrak]

Originally Posted by Rozonus

I would imagine that if they played PS1, the idea of having to wait for 15 minutes for a base hack to finish would be really boring unless the enemy was constantly trying to recapture the base. Those of us who have played PS1 are used to the slow paced parts of the game but I can see it causing a negative effect for some people.

I'm sorry, but even if I loved playing PS1, having to wait 15 minutes for a hack to be complete was the most boring thing in the whole game to me.

But I agree with your point, though. You just chose a bad example

Anyway, I think the devs shouldn't have just cut out some parts of PS1 just to "speed up the game", or because they think outsiders won't like it.

Travel times were a big and somewhat interesting part of the game. You never knew when and where you could bump into ennemies and have to engage in a fight (or flee).
And it was just cool to travel as a tank column or mossies/reavers in formation.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

How quickly should people be getting back into a battle? As fast as the walk from the closest AMS, Tower, or base spawn room.

I don't need vision. It was already sorted out in PS1. Some of you are talking like it took FOREVER to get back into a battle. It did not. Unless your side was getting stomped, AS IT SHOULD BE. If your side is loosing, be better.

I want Planetside, not an endless spawn cycle. Removal of spawn locations is part of war games.

It was sorted out in PS1 just as well as PS1's gunplay was sorted out.

I was hoping you might use respawn timer numbers and such but since you didn't: I simply believe you are asking for a system that will result in mostly PS1 vets being the game population. Sure, there would be a lot of people trying it due to free 2 play, but people outside PS1 vets aren't really looking for every single spawn to be a 30 then 45 second respawn delay and then a walking distance after that.

That's not a better system.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It was sorted out in PS1 just as well as PS1's gunplay was sorted out.

I was hoping you might use respawn timer numbers and such but since you didn't: I simply believe you are asking for a system that will result in mostly PS1 vets being the game population. Sure, there would be a lot of people trying it due to free 2 play, but people outside PS1 vets aren't really looking for every single spawn to be a 30 then 45 second respawn delay and then a walking distance after that.

That's not a better system.

You should really stop making things up. Gun play/network tech for the day were the issue. Not the spawn system.

Originally Posted by Sabrak

I'm sorry, but even if I loved playing PS1, having to wait 15 minutes for a hack to be complete was the most boring thing in the whole game to me.

I really wish people would stop comparing the last few years of Plantside as a start point. When populations were optimal, and before they started introducing all the session based thinking. There was no such thing as standing around for 15 minutes, unless you were back hacking, and no one cared about the location, or a small group was allready on the way to slap you and your 5 friends out of the CC.

Seriously, if you only played with in the last 4 years of the game, please temper your feedback. You did not play Plantside, not they way it was meant to be played.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

You should really stop making things up. Gun play/network tech for the day were the issue. Not the spawn system.

Seriously, if you only played with in the last 4 years of the game, please temper your feedback. You did not play Plantside, not they way it was meant to be played.

Are you going to debate the issue by discussing actual thoughts on how long respawns should be and the actual time figures you want people to have to endure on getting back to the fight? Telling people that just because they didn't play Planetside in its early years their opinions are invalid, is just sidestepping the need to actually argue your point. And I'm certainly not making anything up.

[CutterJohn]

1. Please define how BF3 is any dumber than quake, unreal, CS, TF, etc. CoD gets the 'dumb' label because it generally devolved into campfests.
2. Do you realize how much PS1 stole from Tribes2?
3. PS1s 'core audience' is tiny.
4. PS was a meatgrinder. Forgotten Dagda already?
5. You'll still have travel. They want to get rid of the pointless stuff, like the HART/Sanctuary. Served no purpose other than to make you wait 5-10 minutes to get to a battle once you booted up the game. They could have easily popped you up to a global view and let you select a base to spawn at.

TL;DR: Things were awesome when I was a kid! The stuff the kids like now is bad, and they shouldn't like it!

[Baron]

on Squad Spawning:

From the bits of game play we've recently seen (thanks TB and Hamma) you can see a drop-pod as a means of spawning into battle. I'd say that THIS is how squad spawning will work and if that is the case, it is very fair...reasons:

1) only works outdoors
2) very visible (Gee, look at all those drop-pods falling from the sky and landing behind that building, I wonder what's over there)

[Pozidriv]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

You should really stop making things up. Gun play/network tech for the day were the issue. Not the spawn system.




Seriously, if you only played with in the last 4 years of the game, please temper your feedback. You did not play Plantside, not they way it was meant to be played.

Ad Hominem - Attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument. Less Ad Hominem and more refuting the central point of the subject please.

Personally id say we need more hardpoints for spawning (outposts and inside bases), this would be a good solution imo because they are known places. If they are held by the enemy you know where they are coming from and can adjust accordingly.

Also i think squad spawn is a viable mechanic, but it needs it's limitations. We have discussed many ways to tone it down, namely cooldown (can only spawn every x minutes), limited to outside only (possibly not inside base SOI) among others.

Btw, the patience of the average Joe has declined rapidly over the years. I somewhat remember reading an article how this has changed over time, if i remember correct the average time a person was willing to wait about 10-15 years ago was 12 minutes, today it was 1-2 minutes. Food for thought.

[MrKWalmsley]

Originally Posted by RadarX

Statements like this "maps very likely to be too small for 2000 players " however I'm going to ask you to wait for Beta. It just won't be true, but you'll see that in time.

You are speaking with certainty there, have you even had a 2000 player test yet? Otherwise I would advise for sake of consistence you having as much scepticism of your own claims as you are asking this person to have of theirs.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

TL;DR: Things were awesome when I was a kid! The stuff the kids like now is bad, and they shouldn't like it!

Not at all. Quite the opposite.

Session based shooters are not war games. They are Battle ( Single ) games. There is a distinction here that must be kept.

Denial of supplies or reinforcements are part of war games. Death means next to nothing in most session based shooters, other than perhaps pride.

Planetsides system had two parts. Time to reinforcement, and location of those reinforcements. They were controlled, locational, known points of contest. With exception of the AMS, that was the wild card.

Session based shooters are designed, increasingly so, to remove interdependence on others, and keep people "in the fight". That's GREAT for a game that lasts 30 minutes, and resets. That's DETRIMENTAL to a war game.

Things like spawn on squad members facilitate this "spawn cycle" system aimed at keeping people in the front lines at all times. Circumventing any effort by the opposition to impeded the reinforcements or access to spawn locations. In War games, you can't magically appear on the front lines, that breaks every single war game in existence, including chess. ( Queen to E-8 bitches! )

Now you may say "Well what about the HART Mr.B!". Well son, the HART was not an independent spawn system with time based on the individual user. It was a cross faction reinforcement timer.

Now, in PS1, if you had a 5 minute walk ahead of you, YOUR EMPIRE IS FAILING THE BATTLE. Someone is not Taking towers, someone is not placing AMS's, Someone is not hacking Vec Terminals. This is not a flaw, this is not something that is a bad thing to happen. This battle is likely over. Of course if you are able to overcome it, the more excitement and worth that comeback. This opens up the possibility for that one AMS driver to change the entire battle. This creates epic moments. This is a war game.

Removing this dynamic so that some users do not loose, even in minor battles ( Of the mind, or the battlefield ), is, well its "silly".

Do not get me started on spawning with full gear. Yet another logistic removed from game play to facilitate more session based thinking.

Materiel logistics and troop movements are keystone to war games.

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

1. Please define how BF3 is any dumber than quake, unreal, CS, TF, etc. CoD gets the 'dumb' label because it generally devolved into campfests.
2. Do you realize how much PS1 stole from Tribes2?
3. PS1s 'core audience' is tiny.
4. PS was a meatgrinder. Forgotten Dagda already?
5. You'll still have travel. They want to get rid of the pointless stuff, like the HART/Sanctuary. Served no purpose other than to make you wait 5-10 minutes to get to a battle once you booted up the game. They could have easily popped you up to a global view and let you select a base to spawn at.

TL;DR: Things were awesome when I was a kid! The stuff the kids like now is bad, and they shouldn't like it!

You are putting words in my mouth.

The titles you list are fantastic games with their own identity. I have loved each one of them over the years. No where did i say they were dumb. However, that said, They are not Planetside. Nor would I ask that TF2 be changed to be more like Planetside.

#2 Ps Is part of the Tribes line, so yes, yes I do. Stole? That's not the word you are looking for.
#3 Irrelevant. PS1 Main problems were the subscription, the gun play due to sacrifices made for the large scale. Not the mechanics, nor its design as a war game.
#4 Only for the zerg.
#5 I am aware of that, it was not part of my point. You are wrong about the HARTs purpose, And they did have instant action.


This spawn system was exemplified in Section:8. While it was fine for the most part in that game, because it was a single battle, and it rest. There were ZERO front lines, no pushes, no breaking lines. It was simply avoid and leap frog all War like fronts. Instead of organized attacks, flanking ETC.. You got Chaos and combatants from all sides, something not a component of a war game.

The problem I currently have is not with the modernization, that's fine. Its the dilution of the war game to more session based thinking.

[laelgon]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

TL;DR: Things were awesome when I was a kid! The stuff the kids like now is bad, and they shouldn't like it!

This pretty much sums up every argument here. I get that some people liked the way things were, but they need to understand that's not where the larger audience is now.

[Serpent]

Though I don't agree with some points, BF3 does definitely allow for drop-shotting, spray and pray, run and gun, etc.

PS2's combat actually has some pretty mediated TTK for infantry, as far as I can tell, the shield is the only real thing that protects the player. Health (if you look at a few videos) gets melted within 3 or 4 bullets.

What they're doing is fine, because this is the future, and games in the future shouldn't be dictated by today's standards by what the OP wants, which from I can tell is...2 hit kills. (That may not be what you want at all, you may just want something different)

Shields are shields, whether or not people like it. If they only take 2 bullets extra, is there any point whatsoever in having them? Machine guns will be extremely powerful, because damage won't matter, just how fast the bullets hit the shield (IF we make the shield have such low protection so that TTK is "realistic.")

[Ieyasu]

Originally Posted by laelgon

This pretty much sums up every argument here. I get that some people liked the way things were, but they need to understand that's not where the larger audience is now.

I couldnt agree with you more on this and have been saying basicly the same thing for awhile now.

I dont say it to be rude, but if the PS2 devs could have 2 choices in front of them; choice A is that 20% of the BF and COD Players of the world come and check out planetside and stay for a time and 0% of old Planetside Players play, or choice B where 0% of BF and COD Players check out Planetside 2 and 100% of old Planetside Players come back. Theyre going to choose A everytime.

Devs arent making Planetside 2 to give old Planetside Vets a trip down memory lane. Theyre making the game for SOE in an effort to turn a profit. Part of that plan is to put out a top quality product that has already been sat down and thought out by a team of people who know what it takes to make a large scale game. By their own admission they are drawing heavily from modern day fps games that have mechanics within that have proven to be quite popular already as evidenced by the tens of millions of copies said franchises have sold over the past few years. I hate to be the bearer of news to some people, but the dev team isnt about to change their already plotted course to accomidate some unknown posters wild and often times unfounded speculation on the game they havent even played for 1 minutes time.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Squad spawning could be seen as such, because it removes the absolute necessity of the AMS, but at this point it seems rather pessimistic to me. We don't know how this feature will open up other strategic possibilities.

It did in BF2 or BF2142, so why would anyone think that it wouldn't in this case?