Things from beta I'm actually NOT too concerned with.

[Figment]

Alright so you often see me post and express concerns about fundamental systems in PS2. These fundamental systems tend to affect the meta-game and core design philosophy for the game play experience mostly.

Meaning I'm concerned with:

• Anything related to tactical diversity and options: main issues are mobile spawnpoints, available units and their custmizability, including the class system
• Anything related to battle flow: (backup) spawnpoints, base design (particularly walls) overall map design and routes, conquest systems, control point capture methods
• Interface: lots of things that can be improved still, even if they're not always equally important, but more convenient or could be done smarter or faster. Particularly important to me is information management on both a strategic game and outfit/squad management level.
• Manpower balance and group setup: incentives and options for solo vs team play in particular. This includes vehicle and gunner controls, or solo vs multicrew vehicle and the class system (too close to the standard RPG healer/dps/controller/etc system and too far removed from sandbox FPS). Hence the creativity you can have with individual player and class capacities are very important to me.

The issues above are those issues that IMO still need fundamental changes, where one has to guard for complacency or apathy and therefore too easy acceptance of already implemented systems. It's just software. It can always change.


However, I tend to stay away from a few other issues. These issues are things I do feel need attention, but will be attended to over time anyway.

These include:

• Weapon balance: I leave that to ForumSide and will only give indication feedback. The community will keep complaining about any exploitive or unfair weapon issues till it's pretty decent. This includes vehicle weapons where manpower issues are already fair. This also includes what specific certifications will be available to which weapons (for instance, will all sights remain available to each rifle?).
• Acquisition cost: I'm not that interested in something I don't see affect the game much. I might chip in on important systems like the cost of AA guns, but in general I think it's fine.
• Performance: I can give feedback on what my rig does, but I can't really tell how to improve it.
• Graphics (are IMO fine)
• Small bugs (reporting those in game, no need to go to the forums for)
• Vehicle handling performance: like being overly sensitive to control input, gravity, etc - other people will comment on these and they'll notice this the moment they use one. This will change for the better regardless of my input. If in due time there are still some small issues that haven't been addressed yet, I'll chip in.
• Gunplay and weapon handling: How this feels is better left to players with more expertise on weapon handling.
• Interface: Came across quite a few spelling, grammar errors and placeholders. I'm sure those will be sorted eventually.

All in all the bottom half of the issues will be things that will be fine anyway. All in all the game will be playable. The main problem for me is, that without changes in the upper half, the game will become predictable and stale and unlike PS1, only suited to larger player groups. MMO games should cater to solists, teamplayers and all various forms of gameplay within the genre of the MMO to really attract all those potential players. To narrow down variety in combat too much or make certain rules too strict may bring in the largest share of the market, for some time, but will likely result in distantiating or boring other groups over time.

Hence it is so important that for instance a fundamental change in conquest mechanics has recently been made and that multiple systems are tested to see which systems the players are most comfortable with. To say in advance that core systems can't change at all or to outright dismiss critique on core systems is not a good thing. However, critique in the latter section is things that are truly "it's in beta" issues. Unfortunately, actual deliberate design choices are often cited as "it's in beta" too.

[Raka Maru]

Fig, I agree with you in your OP.

Here are my additions to real concerns.

The footholds, always end up as a 3way death match that meet in the middle. Hope this changes with more continents. Maybe allow empire to eventually move their foothold. It seems the closer territories are being back hacked always and the defenders feel the need to recap as home turf. Thus the colors stay the same in that region. I feel home continents are needed. Even after the foothold rotation, same thing just different colors.

Weapon, class balance will resolve itself as you said. I think the FPS issues have gone a long way towards improvement. I was able to fight in the crown for hours without lag today. So stability will get fixed too.

I'm also concerned about the "big outfit" play. Many give solutions about game play, such as get 4 AA maxes to take care of the overpowered aircav. Thinking like this can result in more imbalance. No offense to whoever said that, I just remember reading it somewhere.

A lot of us have small teams or go solo. It needs to be balanced in a micro level first, before it is balanced in squad, outfit, empire level. The Galaxy as spawn is a big issue that meets the needs of big outfits and Zerg, but not specops teams. The Devs need to think about us too. I don't have a dozen people to protect a galaxy ship with air cav, etc...

Soooo, basically I ask the Devs to think on these things. Some decisions have a huge impact. Like the main PS2 trailer with NC as hero Rambos and TR cannon fodder topped off with weird busty VS Stealther chicks.

Good fun and bantering aside, but now overpopulated NC factions. Not fun for anyone.

Hopefully these big issues can be overcome if the Devs think ahead to the future.

[Hamma]

I have real concerns about the footholds as well.. time will tell on that though. Good post Fig!

[ringring]

As we've often said the three-way footholds are the step-child of only having a limited number of continents.

The fact that the devs have said that the continents are 'hand-crafted' and lauch would only include three to me indicates that creating new continents is a lengthy and time consuming business.

The more recent fact that Smedley has suggested that they may launch with only two continents indicates that the creation is even more time consuming than first thought.

This comes back to the question 'why are we fighting'? For me we are fighting not for resources, they are only a stepping stone to allow you to fight, we are fighting for land and territory domination. With footholds, I don't see it.


pshaw! We've been over this enough, but it's all still true.

[Dagron]

Some people just like to worry about the sky falling... I agree 100% with the OP.

[dsi]

Originally Posted by ringring

As we've often said the three-way footholds are the step-child of only having a limited number of continents.

The fact that the devs have said that the continents are 'hand-crafted' and lauch would only include three to me indicates that creating new continents is a lengthy and time consuming business.

The more recent fact that Smedley has suggested that they may launch with only two continents indicates that the creation is even more time consuming than first thought.

This comes back to the question 'why are we fighting'? For me we are fighting not for resources, they are only a stepping stone to allow you to fight, we are fighting for land and territory domination. With footholds, I don't see it.


pshaw! We've been over this enough, but it's all still true.

Yeah, we need a real sanc. It wouldn't need to be nearly as detailed or big as fighting conts either... (PS1's sanc was pointlessly big)

[texico]

I wish something like this was stickied. When it's all jumbled together in convo's then important critique gets diluted.

All those kind of things in the second list are almost things that will be ironed out over time as part of normal game feedback. Talking about the balance issues of weapons is a kind of post-release discussion that can maybe lead to an eventual patch. Unless it's game-breaking, it's just superficial detail that the devs probably change pretty simply once it's established that somethings wrong.

Here in Beta, what's crucial is that core game mechanics (like the stuff in that first list) are correct to create the best game.