Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS - Page 6 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Explosions served daily.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

View Poll Results: If the scales tipped one way or the other, which would you pick?
FPS: The game should focus more on being fun to play as an individual. 18 27.69%
RTS: The game should focus more on expanding on player tact. 47 72.31%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-02-03, 11:29 PM   [Ignore Me] #76
Shade Millith
First Sergeant
 
Shade Millith's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS


Originally Posted by VioletZero View Post
Is it a first person shooter in a persistent world?

Or is it a strategy game where players play the individual units from a first person perspective?

Truthfully: It's both.
You know what I would LOVE to see?

Is outfit leaders get a RTS style view, in which they can do the whole "Select unit(s), move here" thing, exactly the same way an RTS works. Each player getting ordered gets a minimap icon/HUD icon showing where the commander wants them.

That would be kinda cool.
Shade Millith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-03, 11:59 PM   [Ignore Me] #77
MooK
Staff Sergeant
 
MooK's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS


Why can't there be a third option? Both? That's what PlanetSide is all about.
__________________
MooK is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-04, 02:15 AM   [Ignore Me] #78
Sirisian
Colonel
 
Sirisian's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS


Originally Posted by MooK View Post
Why can't there be a third option? Both? That's what PlanetSide is all about.
Seriously. But to be pedantic we can break down his explanations and find they mean very little and the distinctions he listed are not black and white.

Originally Posted by VioletZero View Post
FPS: People in the FPS camp believe that the enjoyment of individual players is paramount. The game wouldn't exist if players weren't having fun while playing. And the best way to accomplish that is to focus on the FPS aspects.
Summarized: If players by themselves are having fun then the game is fun for everyone. That is if we have player A and B and nothing bad that A does hurts player's B's experience and the converse is true then A and B both have fun.

Pretty basic, but this doesn't apply any constraints to A's fun. Do A and B have to be with a group to have this fun? Would being with a group require the system to be more fun than the solo experience?

The RTS explanation adds a constraint.
Originally Posted by VioletZero View Post
RTS: People in the RTS camp believe that, while the game is indeed an FPS, it should expand on its MMO aspect to provide a wide variety of tact and depth on a mass scale.
Summarized: While A and B can have fun by themselves they can also have fun with others in a group. This statement implies however that tactics can only be performed while in a group with others and implies that A and B would have a higher enjoyment with a group than by themselves.

An explanation of what these tactics are is left to the reader, but is assumed to mean focused fire and healing. However, in the FPS model that already exists as a choice and is commonly referred to as "zerg" tactics. That is uncoordinated symbiotic tactics that happen independent of a forced tactics system as assumed in the RTS explanation.

So what would the RTS tactic choices be that would be drastically different than the zerg choices? As an explanation healing happens within the zerg through natural compassion. Not allowing a medic to heal themselves would force cooperative teamwork. However, in a zerg environment it is already assumed players will heal others anyway as was seen in PS1. So the opposite in order to assume a purely individualistic FPS gameplay would be to assume that players can only heal themselves and do so for their own gain. This follows the FPS constraint of A doing no harm to B. However, applying that constraint to remove tactical healing of friendlies is an odd game design choice and fairly arbitrary.

So what would fall under this as an example. The most obvious is changing the time to kill (TTK) and treating it as a slider between FPS and the RTS definitions. Starting with a low TTK.
1) FPS: Player A benefits by killing enemies faster. Player B benefits from killing enemies faster. Does A's ability to kill enemies faster harm player B? Objectively friendly fire could mean A could team kill player B faster, but that is an edge case.
2) RTS: Player A is in group with C and E. They fight B with 3 scenarios comparing group vs solo tactics.
Scenario 1) B kills C and E by getting the upper hand using a grenade and quick reflexes. A kills B. E kills no one. Objectively B didn't use any team tactics but used solo tactics and A, C, and E didn't.
Scenario 2) A, C, and E work together and kill B. Tactics were used. B didn't use any successful solo tactics.
Scenario 3) Both use tactics and B kills C and A kills B. A, C, and E are rewarded with experience even though C died and E did nothing.

Then you have group vs group with similar scenarios and outcomes.

The opposite to this TTK is a high TTK.
1) FPS: Player A has no benefit against killing single players faster. B likewise. A's ability to kill enemies slower does not harm player B if both are playing by themselves.
2) RTS: Player A, C, and E fight player B. B does minimal damage to C and A, C, and E focus fire to kill B and are rewarded with experience. B is harmed by this as solo play would be discouraged.

This is the extreme spectrum so in the RTS model a group vs solo is more powerful as one would see in an RTS game.

However, A's and B's fun hinge on if A enjoys solo play or group play. So in a way all the poll is asking is if you like FPS solo player or RTS group play. An FPS solo player would prefer things like one-hit sniper rifles and grenades that kill multiple players taken to the extreme. An RTS group player would prefer snipers doing lower damage allowing them to heal their teammate and react. They would expect grenades to not instagib but allow players to react as a group and win against a single force or uncoordinated force.

I'd have to say RTS with the above definitions in that groups are greater than the whole. There's a catch though since you said "Note that these are not just extremes." so you're imaging an overlap that you fail to explain. What is overlapped between the two choices? Are group tactics only slightly better than solo tactics? You have the extreme left where solo players are just as good as a group and can go on killstreaks and the right where a solo player can't do anything by themselves. (Normally I refer to this as forced teamwork). The middle ground is where players benefit from skill and can kill 1 player for every 1 death. The solo player would not be rezzed. The group player would be rezzed effectively negating the impact of the solo player utilizing group tactics. But as mentioned the zerg works in mysterious ways and while players might assume they are by themselves suddenly they are rezzed. To assume that the FPS play style is possible without artificially placing constraints. such as you can only rez your squad mates, then it's impossible to picture a game that goes for the pure FPS player.

The middle ground promotes the 1 to 1 kill death that is present in PS1. That is the zerg with the most units are at an advantage even though the middle ground concept should say they aren't since rezzing in a group would offset the kill/death.

I guess if I had to choose then I'd say RTS. However, I want to say FPS in that if a solo player is given 100 choices of utilities then they could conceivably help the local group. Engineering for instance might place turrets for the kill while effectively helping a sniper from getting swarmed by infiltrators. That is an action that is fun for A (the engineer) is beneficial for B (the sniper) and goes beyond the clause of not doing harm. That is playing by yourself is fun, but your actions are inherently filling in the weakness of another player's class so they have fun.

That was actually one of the core ideas behind my fantasy implant thread to foster group relationships with FPS focused abilities. That is you have something you can use for yourself but can also use to help others. Same idea was present in my squad remote artillery thread which focused on the FPS scenario of player A having fun while the group (squad in this case) could also benefit. It seems like the devs are already going for a nice middle ground. The tank is a prime example. FPS indicates that A (the driver) will have fun with the main cannon and the gunner will have fun with the secondary gun. In theory it's a good concept to put into a wide range of choices so that they don't all focus only on the FPS player but can be used for the group as well.

Last edited by Sirisian; 2012-02-04 at 02:21 AM.
Sirisian is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-04, 04:03 AM   [Ignore Me] #79
DviddLeff
Lieutenant Colonel
 
DviddLeff's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS


Planetsides scale leads to strategy that few other FPS games can compare to.

That is its main selling point.

The FPS mechanics have to be right otherwise people will move on to smaller games that have better mechanics, as we have seen over the years when PS did not update itself to stay competitive.
__________________
DviddLeff is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-02-04, 10:55 AM   [Ignore Me] #80
Tasorin
Staff Sergeant
 
Tasorin's Avatar
 
Re: Planetside 2: FPS vs RTS


Originally Posted by Ailos View Post
You mean PS2 in its own genre?
Absolutely not.

What set PS aside from other MMOFPS style games both before it and after it is that it had the element of faction map control in a persistent world. There have been other MMO's out there which force a first person perspective in combat be it fantasy or shooter combat and had a persistent world. What they all lacked for the most part was the in depth element PS1 had in map control.

The other difference being is PS wasn't matched based other then being instanced by world. These two thing set it apart from every Tribes/Battlefield/Quake/CS style FPS out there.

The real sandbox MMO aspect be it FPS or RPG is what is the unique factor here.

Last edited by Tasorin; 2012-02-04 at 10:58 AM.
Tasorin is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.