Do planetside players have legit concerns or do they just hate to evolve? - Page 3

Atheosim · 2012-05-17, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Brusi

I think that the PS forum community is still large enough for there to never be a unanimous agreement on anything. I think labelling the entire community as backward or contrary is pretty stupid.

Yeah, I honestly think it's plainly comedic that anybody would accuse the entirety of the present PS community as being anti-change bittervets. Plain old humor.

Bags · 2012-05-17, 11:43 PM

Are classes really an evolution of planetside 1's cert system?

Retrograde · 2012-05-18, 01:05 AM

I do have concerns about PS2. Serious concerns. Planetside (for a brief moment) was the best game I ever played by far. To this day, some aspects have never been duplicated by any game in any genre.

My concern stems from the fact that, to me, SOE never "got" what was great about the game. They systematically removed the amazing stuff and kept the things that were painfully bad. It wasn't like I simply disagreed with their decisions. It was like SOE and I were playing totally different games.

I think many of the common threads focus on a few areas of concern that seem to crop up in different ways. Here's my .02. These are what I thought made PS great, and what people get upset about in most threads.

1. Sacrifice - the core of PS was that you had to make trade offs.
Your choices had real strengths and weaknesses. You gave something up to fly, for example.

2. Teamwork - You really needed a team to succeed. Everyone had a distinct role to play. You needed other players and they needed you. See point #1.

3. Flexibility - You had a blank canvas to build your own experience. You made the game fit you, not the other way around. This is why people are concerned about classes and pre-defined play.

4. Contrast - People liked their empire because of the differences, not in spite of them. This caused SOE pain because people cried foul. SOE grossly overreacted to every issue without fail. The team seems to have a good bead on this, but we have to see in beta.

5. Strategy - In most FPS games, there's no real "tactics" layer. It's always painfully obvious how the designer wants you to play the map. SOE ignored the strategy element completely, like it did not even exist. It's all about having tools (and perks) to get larger groups to work together.

Anyhow, other than a few areas, I think the current team has a good bead on the concerns. Now we just need to relax until beta and see what happens.

EVILoHOMER · 2012-05-18, 01:54 AM

If we've learnt anything from the past of the MMO genre is that you shouldn't always listen to what the forums are saying. SWG was ruined a long time before The NGE/CU thanx to forum whiners, the same goes for WoW and EQ etc. The trick is to filter through the noise and to look at what the stats are telling you. I mean I loved SWTORs class balance at launch, it was so amazingly balance apart from a few things like Sage/Sorcs having one too many CCs and Warriors not having a CC at low level. Oh look all the forum whiners moaning about their class balance because they suck at PVP and just don't want to learn how to play properly. That's backed up when you see actual good players owning with the same class they're saying is under powered lol.

SOE needs to take Planetside 2 in the direction they feel will please the most people but still staying true to what made Planetside so great. If that involves having kill cams because every other modern FPS has them, then so be it. If it involves having jump pads so we can have these amazing base designs instead of the boring broken ones from the original game, then great. If involves having a traditional class based structure instead of a skill based one, then great. The cert system from Planetside was flawed, it wasn't what made the game great and class systems like WoW had so much more diversity than SWGs skill system ever did.

I just want SOE to have a good mix of players in beta, not just dedicating it to Planetside fans because they will ruin the game and try to make it a game for some small niche. Planetside was great back in the day but has any one tried to play it recently? It's just really bad and dated lol.

EVILoHOMER · 2012-05-18, 01:57 AM

I will have to add while it is great having group based mechanics and allowing people to work as a team, you cannot base Planetside 2 around that. The fact is most people will be playing solo, you need to make the game playable for people who just like to go it alone. If you make it too much where teamwork wins, then people will be put off from the game. There is nothing worse than losing because your team sucks, even though you're a great player. So you need to be able to win even if your team is losing, which is why the game needs personal goals as well as the overall team ones.

That is why achievements and perks have become such a major part of the modern day FPS.

Snipefrag · 2012-05-18, 03:41 AM

For me personally i don't see this as a problem, good solid debate will make this game better. There have been many things which have come out into the community, the devs have listened to what we have had to say and changed the game for the better. There will always be people screaming at the periphery about certain things that THEY want to stay the same, but its not about satisfying them. Its about making a game that can appeal to as many of us as possible.. And personally I think they are doing that very, very well.

LONGFELLA KOJ · 2012-05-18, 03:50 AM

I think there is too much time being wasted on making the Rook and Knight look really really cool when the strategy of Chess is what makes people wanna play it overall.

Right now after I watched Total Biskts video I think to myself Wow! That's awesome, it's not really Planetside, but it's awesome! But then I think, maybe what it's missing is US! The Planetside community. That's what makes it the game it is.

Few points.

Graphics look amazing. Thing is, the graphics aren't what core planetside players care about. It's game play. I think anything that attacks the mechanics of PS1 -which has proven to work and be fun - Is going to make people go crazy. Although having such amazing looking graphics will make the game 1000X better, it's usually the people who complain about graphics as to why a game sucks, are the ones we are all ok with leaving anyway.

The new things like Jetpacks and demo packs are cool But I just read 8 years of people complaining about flying MAXS... now the smallest quickest guy flies instead?!?!?!?

They are making maps that supports thousands of players at once. This generation of players switch games ever 3-6 months. Then it'll be back to me beating ZeroEnigma up to cap a base for 2 hours. An empty map surrounding us. a HUUUUUUGE empty map.

Don't get me wrong. I think it looks great. I am excited to play it. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There are 2 kinds of players in Planetside. Chess and Checkers players. The checkers player will come in, enjoy it for a few, rant and rave how cool it is until the next new Mass effect or Halo or Gears of war comes along and then they will be gone. oooh Shiney! The Chess player will come in, learn the game, learn new ways to win. Learn every move and piece. Then when when it comes to the fights, they will manipulate the game like no one will be ready for. U think U MAD now BRO. Just wait.

The problem is, when the checkers player comes back once the shine is off of the new HALO, the Chess player is waiting. And they will scare off the casual gamer from ever wanting to come back with a checkmate that cannot be stopped.

There is no right answer here.

Touching on what evilpig said. I disagree. The players want more than just the Planetside Theme. Putting a Vanu Symbol on a guy with a gun doesn't make it Planetside.

To the OP. Stop getting all worked up over some people's opinions that happen to disagree with yours. This is a forum. That's what it's for. Debate and deliberation. To weigh out all aspects of what's current and can be changed.

Right now I'm excited for Planetside 2. I think Higby and Tray are doing a great job and they seem to care about preserving the Planetside world. I just hope they leave Planetside 1 on if it bombs.

ringring · 2012-05-18, 04:14 AM

The thrust of the OP is frankly silly.

For anyone ps2 innovation there will be some 'vets' who say 'cool', some who say 'seriously uncool' and some who are in the 'don't mind' camp.

For another innovation the same camps will exist but with a different distribution.

Allow people to have opinions please.

Satexios · 2012-05-18, 04:18 AM

They are making maps that supports thousands of players at once. This generation of players switch games ever 3-6 months. Then it'll be back to me beating ZeroEnigma up to cap a base for 2 hours. An empty map surrounding us. a HUUUUUUGE empty map.

I disagree with this entire statement because of a few things:
1) PS1 had barriers, required subscription kept the population low because MMO or MMOFPS weren't that known or popular yet.
2) Creditcard requirement, Americans have them Europeans avoid them and have other payment options. Which was the second barrier. Also the people who wanted to play didn't get their parents CC.
3) PC and Internet. Most people have reasonable rigs with reasonable internet to play, back in the day of PS1 not everyone was so lucky.

You can say this generation changes games every 3-6 months but it also means that the people who played other games will now join PS2, by that theory

From that point of view PS2 will have enough players to keep the game going and fun. However the moment they start to slack with bad updates, not banning hackers or bad customer service (EA with SWTOR) the game will fall like a brick.

Good customer service = Customer Retention

LONGFELLA KOJ · 2012-05-18, 04:32 AM

Originally Posted by Satexios

I disagree with this entire statement because of a few things:
1) PS1 had barriers, required subscription kept the population low because MMO or MMOFPS weren't that known or popular yet.
2) Creditcard requirement, Americans have them Europeans avoid them and have other payment options. Which was the second barrier. Also the people who wanted to play didn't get their parents CC.
3) PC and Internet. Most people have reasonable rigs with reasonable internet to play, back in the day of PS1 not everyone was so lucky.

You can say this generation changes games every 3-6 months but it also means that the people who played other games will now join PS2, by that theory

From that point of view PS2 will have enough players to keep the game going and fun. However the moment they start to slack with bad updates, not banning hackers or bad customer service (EA with SWTOR) the game will fall like a brick.

Good customer service = Customer Retention

You have a valid point about the free play vs subscription. Let's hope that does tip the scale. Let's hope it also doesn't create a hacking nightmare on an epic scale.

But you know and I know the average gamer attention span is completely different now than how it was is 2003. Things tend to have very short shelf lives now adays. The years and years of EverQuest, EVE, Planetside and Wow are now legend. Will anything ever recapture that magic?

Figment · 2012-05-18, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by Dreamcast

and I never called people fanboys Im just saying they overexagerate and some people want Planetside 1 with all is flaws but with better graphics.

The thing is that the moment someone makes a single comparison to PS1 - anywhere and on anything - a certain group of people will automatically counter this with one of these:

- "You just want it to be like PS1"
- "You are probably afraid of change"
- "This is a different game you can't compare it with PS1". Yet comparing to "modern" games and what "modern players want" can be done consistently, of course. In fact, change is often "supported"
- "It was probably flawed"
- "The devs know what they are doing"
- "It's an improvement because it has changed"

I just don't understand the people that try to stop any comparison with PS1 on an individual game trait and gameplay basis. Comparing to ANYTHING ELSE is fine, as long as you don't compare it to the first since they fear you'd conserve something which suddenly would stop PS2 from being a new game or something.

I don't get it. Comparing a sequel with its predecessor or using knowledge and experience from the game closest to PS2 is weird, how?

You are one of these people Dreamcast. You immediately categorise people as "you want PS1 with better graphics" the very moment they critique PS2 and refer to PS1 on whatever level. That makes you a big fanboy tbh. You will jump to the defense of PS2 and try to put down and away anyone refering to PS1 as some sort of extreme conservative. Regardless if they are talking about one, five or ten gameplay elements out of a few hundred.

Mechzz · 2012-05-18, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by LONGFELLA KOJ

But you know and I know the average gamer attention span is completely different now than how it was is 2003. Things tend to have very short shelf lives now adays.

I actually don't agree with this, surprisingly enough! My kids will still go and play CoD: World at War because it has better online than some other versions. There are still plenty of players in BF:BC2 and other "older" iterations in those big franchises. And WoW speaks for itself in terms of player numbers and longevity. Other games die because people don't want to play them. To paraphrase a sports saying: "If they're good enough they're young enough"

If SOE give peeps what they want, then PS2 will live for a long time indeed.

Bluecewe · 2012-05-18, 05:19 AM

Whenever a sequel is made, fans of the original title will always come out in force in some attempt to minimize evolution as much as possible. In some cases scepticism is valid, though in most cases it sadly comes down to some people believing too strongly in proven concepts, giving rise to the phrase; "If it isn't broken, don't fix it".

The truth of the matter is that most players who post on forums do so to relieve anger at developers, or to reminisce at how awesome past experiences were. Forum posters are usually a very small portion of the actual player base of a game, and in many cases sadly represent a somewhat one-sided view on certain topics.

Thus the period in which a game has been announced but has not been released will be a tense time for all observers with vested interests in that game. In the end of the day we simply have to hope that the developers are making the right decisions and that some posters opt to write in a constructive manner, as those same angry posters often fail to do so.

Snipefrag · 2012-05-18, 06:31 AM

The reason games have had a short shelf life recently is because there has been NO innovation amongst the big publishers. They have just kept churning out the safe games, its been boring, repetitive BS.

SWTOR? WoW Clone, BF3? No different from 10 or so previous titles besides graphics. Mass Effect 3? Skyrim? Max Payne? FIFA? Diablo 3. Maybe its the pressures of the industry but most of them seem to have lost their balls, good on SOE for trying something less conventional. Hopefully it pays off.

Warborn · 2012-05-18, 07:29 AM

Lots of the people here are Planetside 1 weirdos. It's not an accurate depiction of actual Planetside players. Most PS1 players liked the game but realized it also fucked up about 98% of what it tried to do. It was fun essentially in spite itself. So for us people, Planetside 2 making many changes is a good thing, as it indicates the developers don't themselves have their heads up their asses, pining for the days of Planetside 1 shit with a new paintjob at most.

In other words, don't sweat it. The developers I don't think take the people here too seriously. Their business is making games, ours is... not. The idea of them kowtowing to the whimsies of the Asperger cases of Planetside Universe, or any other fansite for that matter, doesn't hold any water I'd think.

Originally Posted by elfailo

When developers and marketeers use terms like "evolve", they usually mean devolve.

"Devolve" isn't a real thing. Evolve doesn't mean it's getting better, it just means it's changing. They're using the term correctly.