I'm sure many of you already seen this but..

[cellinaire]

Originally Posted by AnamNantom

Here's the thing, it's not a constant thing. I've seen the sky clear up and fought rather sunny battles. I'm questioning if many of you have seen the clear spots.

We want weather effects and we want them to make a distinct impact on gameplay. Right?

When they make thunderstorms a reality, it will be a beautiful thing to see. What about the rare Hurricane or tornado?

Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that when I was attacking the central techplant on Esamir, the sky was rather clear. My brain cells. Hurts.

But is it still continent-wise, not localized?

[Figment]

Originally Posted by cellinaire

Oh, my bad. I completely forgot that when I was attacking the central techplant on Esamir, the sky was rather clear. My brain cells. Hurts.

But is it still continent-wise, not localized?

I'm not entirely sure how or if they've made it dynamic, since I've only fought on Esa twice so far (twice with the NC completely dominating both sides, even with 48% pop, the battle over Mani costs both VS and TR all other terrain, where the NC are already advantaged in terms of reach over the south, anyway).

It is possible the fog moves, or that they've already changed the settings, because the first time I couldn't see a thing, whereas the second time it was more like a slightly poorer visibility to Indar. Either way, I really do hope they're not dropping the idea of poor visibility (of course it would be nice if it was worked out better).

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Just...make...sanctuaries....

Get rid of footholds altogether...


All they do is make it easier for AFKers to soak up resources and take up spots that active players could be using to fight.

Yupe this is the only way that the AFK situation is going to be fixed and it made sense with the global domination meta game and was enjoyed by most players in PS1. There is no reason for it not to be in PS2. We need Sancs. And I would be fine with making them attackable as well. Just make it impossible for the attacks with really good AI defences like the bases had in PS1 just way better.

[EVILoHOMER]

And yet millions play play and get addicted to COD because there is a constant progression and most of the population quit Planetside within the first year because they were bored of the lack of progression. It wasn't enough to just have the same gameplay over and over again, people wanted to be able to advance their character. I mean even SOE added more BR levels so people could continue to do so...

You say I have no idea but clearly you don't know what keeps people around :S

[Figment]

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

And yet millions play play and get addicted to COD because there is a constant progression and most of the population quit Planetside within the first year because they were bored of the lack of progression. It wasn't enough to just have the same gameplay over and over again, people wanted to be able to advance their character. I mean even SOE added more BR levels so people could continue to do so...

You say I have no idea but clearly you don't know what keeps people around :S

Yeah, you really have no idea.


Try this thread on why the player base ACTUALLY demised:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ight=debunking

HINT: Progression wasn't the problem. (Poorly implemented) NEW CONTENT WAS.

As for your millions play CoD comment: You honestly purchased CoD because you knew in advance you could get a new scope on a rifle?

You really got all that excited about the prospect of getting an extra grip? Do you even know how long CoD players play CoD after the initial purchase, or do you simply presume that because there's been x million sales, that CoD players keep playing CoD for 10 years? Which they don't?

Maybe, just maybe, CoD doesn't have sufficient actual game content? Maybe, CoD sells primarily on the single player mode and many people don't even care for the multiplayer progression model at all? Because I can tell you that of the 25 people in my RL environment I know to have played CoD, NONE play anymore, NONE want to even play the 4 player deathmatch anymore and NONE ever played it online. And you know what? Of the people I played directly, (about 6 one day a week at first), only 3 were interested in adding any attachments to their rifles and making changes beyond the initial one: Me, my brother and one friend. And the ones we got were only the ones we wanted and the ones we got by accident. In fact, my brother and that friend each only used two or three weapons in total out of all the weapons available in game. I'm the only one who used shotguns or akimbo and experimented with different things. The others just used standard setups and didn't even bother to personalise at all. The far more casual players who never really played FPS games anyway didn't care one bit. The amount of players that plays to unlock every single thing in CoD is incredibly small.


The most important thing of multiplayer CoD is that you can quickly replay matches and try to defeat your peers. The lack of options at low battle rank is an annoyance first and foremost, but the overwhelming amount of options at higher ranks is an incredibly fuzzy, overconvoluted and uninteresting scenario to most players. Of all the PS2 scopes, I'm only interested in two per gun, tops. I don't care one bit about the remainder and the sole reason I'd unlock them is because I could, not because I'd want to. I wouldn't play at all if that'd be the reason to play.

You completely confuse cause and effect. The automated effect of long term playing a game is to unlock stuff. The cause of long term play is not unlocking stuff. Some games have made the objective unlocking stuff by making it a huge selling point focus, but they forgot to actually provide game play in the meantime, which is the actual selling point. HENCE WHY SO MANY GAMERS HAVE BEEN DISAPPOINTED WITH COD AND BF OVER THE LATEST INCARNATIONS: developing spin-off fluff became more important than the actual game play, because that was the only thing these developers in their tunnel vision knew to differentiate with anymore.

You really should try looking outside of your frame or reference and get to know the perspectives of other peoples before you make assumptions about them.

[GuyFawkes]

Originally Posted by Mastachief

So essentially each empire gets a home continent, seen that in some game before can't remember the name of the game though...........

Though with only 3 continents i don't see how this will solve anything, it may even worsen the situation.

Well, we have Indar and Esamir, Amerish is on its way, been so for a bit. And Searhus is also been unveiled as work in progress. 3 could be problematical, but once the 4th is here it should mix things up a tad.

I hope they add in a 4th warpgate to each continent. With each continent being square, it makes sense to have the 4th corner useable in a tactical way. I dislike the squareness personally, if you are going to use any shape I would have thought a hex would fit in , but I'd prefer the old style if I had a choice.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by PA Editorial

I like the persistence of the world and 40+ people gathered in one battle is something to see, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that it all felt very pointless. Why are we fighting? To protect a base so that we can more efficiently protect another base? My experience with the beta combined with Isaac’s response leaves me feeling there’s nothing more to this game than killing for the sake of killing and, while there’s nothing wrong with that design, Planetside 2 is entering a crowded market. Even the idea of a persistent world map isn’t as novel as it once was. Planetside 2 is also going to face stiff competition from other free to play multiplayer games that seem so prevalent these days.

I understand the concern some people are having about PS2 and i agree that there should be more to a game than just running around taking bases for the sake of having them, most people feel that beating the other guys isn't enough of a reason to keep playing a game for years... but unlocking weapons/attachments is an even weaker reason. It's like Figment said, they're not the cause for people to stay, they're just an effect.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Figment

aneurism

I frequently disagree with you, but you've never been more right.