Planetside 2 is a major disappointment - Page 5

Figment · 2012-10-17, 04:46 AM

Originally Posted by FatherJack

The system from PS1 was heavily flawed in regards to teamplay. I was playing PS2 last night and in the middle of a fight I needed a medic in my squad to heal and revive. I needed an engineer to drop ammo packs. They in turn relied on me to blow up tanks. This is something that did not happen in PS1 past the first month. In PS1 I could take a med gun, I could repair tanks, I could bring a sniper rifle as well as an AV weapon. This allowed for great flexibility as a single player, I could almost do everything as infantry.

A class based system is much easier to balance. In an MMO players like progression, in PS1 this progression was done in the form of BR. Now the more people who hit your maximum cap means that you eventually have to raise the cap to keep players feeling like they are getting somewhere. This means more players becoming jack of all trades, not really needing the assistance of others.

Also as Hamma said PS1 was not a great financial success. It had enough players to keep the servers running but thats about it. Player numbers dropped considerably the first month after release, we then saw the servers drop from 5 to 1 over the years. So its quite understandable why they did not want to reskin PS1.

You make it sound as a bad thing. PS1's flexibility (BEFORE BR40) was one of dependence in independency, but not overdependence. PS2 took the dependency thing way too far. This is not about actual balance, this is about rock-paper-scissors balance, where you're not allowed to compete at all. If you rely on a single HA in a group of three, then you can just /suicide if you see more than one tank or your HA dies, or your engi dies while the HA runs out of rockets after the first volley. That's not teamwork, that's slaughter. If you can even beat the one tank with your group: if the HA misses (which with dumbfire is absolutely more than common, particularly against Magriders) then no, teamplay fails.

In PS1, your TEAM, note the word TEAM, could help each other take out those bigger threats in a large variety of ways: they could all grab AV [IF CERTED], someone could disable the approaching tanks with EMP, giving the others more time, someone could have placed a minefield [IF CERTED] to provide an alternative means of killing, all could at least damage with machine gun fire even if ineffective, someone could use a Rocklet instead [IF CERTED], someone could use a Falcon instead [IF CERTED], someone could grab (you) a vehicle to fight back [IF CERTED], someone could try and jack the vehicle once stationary [IF CERTED]. But at least you could always do something! Currently, EVERYONE can grab you a vehicle, but nobody wants to get in as they'll just get their own: the internal vehicle teamwork element is all but gone. Everyone is looking at others to do a job, while everyone knows that if you want to have something done right, you do it yourself. You can't expect others to always step in where you can't. Knowing you have no means of doing anything in a game once alone makes a player feel helpless. That is a horrendous thing to do to a player.

What's so stupid about PS2 is that they inflict severe role restrictions on the weakest and least mobile of units (infantry), while providing utter independence to the strongest and most mobile of units (vehicles, MBTs in particular). It's the world turned upside down. The advantage of infantry has always been flexibility. That advantage is gone and shifted to MBTs. That's why you currently see people mass solo supposed multicrew tanks everywhere. With it, inter-vehicle balance is gone.

THAT is teamwork as well. It's just not sitting back and waiting for the other guy to beat them because you can't do anything to help. THAT is NOT team play. That is called boring and overdependence, since if your one buddy fails, your entire TEAM fails.

Hooray? Not really. What does this mean? You can't play the game in small groups at all. Even groups of 5, which were very common in PlanetSide are basically told to join a bigger group or get screwed if they encounter a bigger team. I'm sorry, but I don't think this game can be succesful if lone and small group players are being outed. Why?

Because every NEW player is a LONE player. You can't keep them in without forcing them into random squads? They'll leave if they get ganked time and again by numbers without being able to hold their own or play smart to outsmart the larger group.

Sure, PlanetSide is intended to be played primarily as a group effort: squad - platoon - outfit - empire. But before squad comes loner. In PS1 groups of 1-3 players could make a difference, making you feel like the Hero of the Conglomerate. And we're not even per definition talking about a 100/1 K/D. I don't give a rats arse about K/D and happily went with negative K/Ds in order to make that damn difference. I'm talking about having a fighting chance. I'm talking about being able to turn the tide by doing something that disables the enemy or enables your side to turn a fight around. Currently, a single player is a drop in the bucket, sure you might be the one that makes it spill over, but you and others won't actually know that was you. That reduces the satisfaction the game provides tremendously.

Don't come to me with the argument "you should join a good outfit". I LEAD a good outfit. Each of us as individuals can hold their own in their own expertise. As a group, we work well together. However, since we're not a zergfit, we're not able to mass the numbers that make the real difference in PlanetSide 2. Sheer numbers of armour and troops overwhelms you with ease, since everything can get bypassed from 6 directions. You need huge numbers to even hold a single building in PS2 and tbh, that's utter shite.

I'm not asking for PS1, with just 3 entrances to a base. But I am asking for positions where you can multiply smaller numbers by focusing fire and covering fire. That's inexistent right now due to base design and you continuously get shot in the rear. Since the TTK is so low, there's nothing you can do about that either by proper positioning and by the second respawn, you're already spawncamped by a large tank group with no way to hit them first because of the outside angle and explosion radius and TTK being far superior to yours after a respawn.

That makes the game simply boring, because there IS no contest. This game is designed to make zergfits win without breaking a sweat. If that's how you want to play great.

But let me tell you now that more and more of my outfit members can't be bothered to login because there's just no point.

Base design as is, is very poor. Nobody here is asking for carbon copies of PS1, I certainly am not asking for the return of Interlinks in particular. However, I do expect these things:

Force multipliers (more select amount of choke points, more entrances than PS1, less than PS2)
Solid defense perimeter (walls without gaps everywhere if you can already jump over them everywhere)
Lines of defense, meaning you have an outer defense and inner defense and then another inner defense ring (or two) for bigger bases. The removal of Galaxy spawn made the outer defense ring an option.
Defenders being able to deny attackers access to control points, generators and spawn control units, rather than attackers denying defenders even to get out of the spawnroom. That means that your spawn should be connected directly to these things and not separated by the frontline and lines of fire constantly. Outpost design is particularly bad and I'd easily take any camped PS1 tower over camped PS2 outposts, despite of the already meh-design of the PS1 tower (too chokey). Why? Because the PS2 outpost cannot be defended at all unless you outnumber the enemy.
Passive defenses where you can use area denial tools to create your own funnels and cover at least some of your flanks: valid minefields

You can say all you want that PS2 is a different game, that doesn't mean it doesn't need these things or can't have room for these things. Everyone knows they can. Everyone also knows that a class system is NOT a selling point on which they decided to try a game or keep playing it. However, what it can be, is a put-off. Class systems, especially stringent ones, really put me off games. Especially multiplayer games. To make sure people can play, there should be some overlap possible at all times.

To make a class system work for me, classes should have enhanced abilities in a field, probably some exclusive abilities, but not only exclusive abilities in a field and then no abilities outside of that field. Of course specific classes have restrictions for balance sake and role suitability. A cloaker should not carry AV launchers, but they should have access to mines, even if they can't carry as many as others could.

There's never been anything wrong with being able to lay minefields, suddenly instead of say halving the amount of mines you can place due to there being more people in game, the amount is decimated and it is made completely impossible to use mines because minefields only work in quantity (a bullet, being aimed, is based on quantity and quality, a mine is passive and cannot relocate, thus relies solely on quantity).

Those are random and arbitrary, baseless changes. If you want to claim PS2 is a better game than PS1, you can do that, but only on individual elements. In many respects, PS1 still outbalances and outthinks and outplays PS2. Why? Because PS1 is a refined game. PS2 is riddled with child deceases.

The problem is, the patient (and part of its bloodcells) often doesn't know its sick and is ignorant of existing cures and just blames any issues on "novelty". Sorry, but novelty is not an excuse to ignore past lessons.

PredatorFour · 2012-10-17, 05:11 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

You know why? Because PlanetSide 1 was not a success for SOE. They are a business, it needs to be successful. Smed LOVES PlanetSide 1 but he knows (and most of us know) that PlanetSide 1 in a new skin will NOT be popular for many years and have the player numbers they want.

Things like the class system are items that are needed to make the game more mainstream.

No game matches what PlanetSide 2 can do in terms of scale and tactics even though it has the "Same features" as another game.

More meta game item are coming as Matt said tonight. Vaginal Silicosis will not solve anything and calling PlanetSide 2 Battlefield or COD is narrow sighted and you probably wouldnt have liked the game unless it was cookie cutter from PS1.

Thing is, making it more mainstream is potentially making it outdated in 2/3 years. If it was more unique it could maybe inspire future games/franchises so that they copy Planetside and not the other way round.

What happens when the next Battlefield game comes out with more players, a new revised class system that beats its rivals,etc.. This might not be so far away and could make PS look dated. PS 1 had the inventory system, how many shooters had that?

I think being unique is better in the long term than simply going mainstream and having a big hoorar for 2/3 years.

Baneblade · 2012-10-17, 06:51 AM

This thread is funny.

Valcron · 2012-10-17, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

You know why? Because PlanetSide 1 was not a success for SOE. They are a business, it needs to be successful. Smed LOVES PlanetSide 1 but he knows (and most of us know) that PlanetSide 1 in a new skin will NOT be popular for many years and have the player numbers they want.

Things like the class system are items that are needed to make the game more mainstream.

No game matches what PlanetSide 2 can do in terms of scale and tactics even though it has the "Same features" as another game.

More meta game item are coming as Matt said tonight. Vaginal Silicosis will not solve anything and calling PlanetSide 2 Battlefield or COD is narrow sighted and you probably wouldnt have liked the game unless it was cookie cutter from PS1.

Listen Hamma, I know Planetside is essentially your life and you'd never dare talk bad about PS2 especially with the watchful eye of SOE around. But you cannot sit here and even remotely say that this is what you had in mind when you signed up to play this game. The differences between this and battlefield are somewhat minimal. Just bigger maps and a better graphics engine. I wish you would actually let yourself be critical for once in your Planetside career, I would have a little more respect for your opinions in the long run.

Valcron · 2012-10-17, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Thing is, making it more mainstream is potentially making it outdated in 2/3 years. If it was more unique it could maybe inspire future games/franchises so that they copy Planetside and not the other way round.

What happens when the next Battlefield game comes out with more players, a new revised class system that beats its rivals,etc.. This might not be so far away and could make PS look dated. PS 1 had the inventory system, how many shooters had that?

I think being unique is better in the long term than simply going mainstream and having a big hoorar for 2/3 years.

SOE doesn't usually innovate with games, they follow. (Everquest is the exception, this was innovated no doubt). They have more failed projects than successful projects. They needed to make something safe this time to try and capture the battlefield crowd as well. I should have been smarter this time around, Smed is leading the project essentially- mostly anything he's touched recently has gone to shit. Including SWG

Valcron · 2012-10-17, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

You make it sound as a bad thing. PS1's flexibility (BEFORE BR40) was one of dependence in independency, but not overdependence. PS2 took the dependency thing way too far. This is not about actual balance, this is about rock-paper-scissors balance, where you're not allowed to compete at all. If you rely on a single HA in a group of three, then you can just /suicide if you see more than one tank or your HA dies, or your engi dies while the HA runs out of rockets after the first volley. That's not teamwork, that's slaughter. If you can even beat the one tank with your group: if the HA misses (which with dumbfire is absolutely more than common, particularly against Magriders) then no, teamplay fails.

In PS1, your TEAM, note the word TEAM, could help each other take out those bigger threats in a large variety of ways: they could all grab AV [IF CERTED], someone could disable the approaching tanks with EMP, giving the others more time, someone could have placed a minefield [IF CERTED] to provide an alternative means of killing, all could at least damage with machine gun fire even if ineffective, someone could use a Rocklet instead [IF CERTED], someone could use a Falcon instead [IF CERTED], someone could grab (you) a vehicle to fight back [IF CERTED], someone could try and jack the vehicle once stationary [IF CERTED]. But at least you could always do something! Currently, EVERYONE can grab you a vehicle, but nobody wants to get in as they'll just get their own: the internal vehicle teamwork element is all but gone. Everyone is looking at others to do a job, while everyone knows that if you want to have something done right, you do it yourself. You can't expect others to always step in where you can't. Knowing you have no means of doing anything in a game once alone makes a player feel helpless. That is a horrendous thing to do to a player.

What's so stupid about PS2 is that they inflict severe role restrictions on the weakest and least mobile of units (infantry), while providing utter independence to the strongest and most mobile of units (vehicles, MBTs in particular). It's the world turned upside down. The advantage of infantry has always been flexibility. That advantage is gone and shifted to MBTs. That's why you currently see people mass solo supposed multicrew tanks everywhere. With it, inter-vehicle balance is gone.

THAT is teamwork as well. It's just not sitting back and waiting for the other guy to beat them because you can't do anything to help. THAT is NOT team play. That is called boring and overdependence, since if your one buddy fails, your entire TEAM fails.

Hooray? Not really. What does this mean? You can't play the game in small groups at all. Even groups of 5, which were very common in PlanetSide are basically told to join a bigger group or get screwed if they encounter a bigger team. I'm sorry, but I don't think this game can be succesful if lone and small group players are being outed. Why?

Because every NEW player is a LONE player. You can't keep them in without forcing them into random squads? They'll leave if they get ganked time and again by numbers without being able to hold their own or play smart to outsmart the larger group.

Sure, PlanetSide is intended to be played primarily as a group effort: squad - platoon - outfit - empire. But before squad comes loner. In PS1 groups of 1-3 players could make a difference, making you feel like the Hero of the Conglomerate. And we're not even per definition talking about a 100/1 K/D. I don't give a rats arse about K/D and happily went with negative K/Ds in order to make that damn difference. I'm talking about having a fighting chance. I'm talking about being able to turn the tide by doing something that disables the enemy or enables your side to turn a fight around. Currently, a single player is a drop in the bucket, sure you might be the one that makes it spill over, but you and others won't actually know that was you. That reduces the satisfaction the game provides tremendously.

Don't come to me with the argument "you should join a good outfit". I LEAD a good outfit. Each of us as individuals can hold their own in their own expertise. As a group, we work well together. However, since we're not a zergfit, we're not able to mass the numbers that make the real difference in PlanetSide 2. Sheer numbers of armour and troops overwhelms you with ease, since everything can get bypassed from 6 directions. You need huge numbers to even hold a single building in PS2 and tbh, that's utter shite.

I'm not asking for PS1, with just 3 entrances to a base. But I am asking for positions where you can multiply smaller numbers by focusing fire and covering fire. That's inexistent right now due to base design and you continuously get shot in the rear. Since the TTK is so low, there's nothing you can do about that either by proper positioning and by the second respawn, you're already spawncamped by a large tank group with no way to hit them first because of the outside angle and explosion radius and TTK being far superior to yours after a respawn.

That makes the game simply boring, because there IS no contest. This game is designed to make zergfits win without breaking a sweat. If that's how you want to play great.

But let me tell you now that more and more of my outfit members can't be bothered to login because there's just no point.

Base design as is, is very poor. Nobody here is asking for carbon copies of PS1, I certainly am not asking for the return of Interlinks in particular. However, I do expect these things:

Force multipliers (more select amount of choke points, more entrances than PS1, less than PS2)
Solid defense perimeter (walls without gaps everywhere if you can already jump over them everywhere)
Lines of defense, meaning you have an outer defense and inner defense and then another inner defense ring (or two) for bigger bases. The removal of Galaxy spawn made the outer defense ring an option.
Defenders being able to deny attackers access to control points, generators and spawn control units, rather than attackers denying defenders even to get out of the spawnroom. That means that your spawn should be connected directly to these things and not separated by the frontline and lines of fire constantly. Outpost design is particularly bad and I'd easily take any camped PS1 tower over camped PS2 outposts, despite of the already meh-design of the PS1 tower (too chokey). Why? Because the PS2 outpost cannot be defended at all unless you outnumber the enemy.
Passive defenses where you can use area denial tools to create your own funnels and cover at least some of your flanks: valid minefields

You can say all you want that PS2 is a different game, that doesn't mean it doesn't need these things or can't have room for these things. Everyone knows they can. Everyone also knows that a class system is NOT a selling point on which they decided to try a game or keep playing it. However, what it can be, is a put-off. Class systems, especially stringent ones, really put me off games. Especially multiplayer games. To make sure people can play, there should be some overlap possible at all times.

To make a class system work for me, classes should have enhanced abilities in a field, probably some exclusive abilities, but not only exclusive abilities in a field and then no abilities outside of that field. Of course specific classes have restrictions for balance sake and role suitability. A cloaker should not carry AV launchers, but they should have access to mines, even if they can't carry as many as others could.

There's never been anything wrong with being able to lay minefields, suddenly instead of say halving the amount of mines you can place due to there being more people in game, the amount is decimated and it is made completely impossible to use mines because minefields only work in quantity (a bullet, being aimed, is based on quantity and quality, a mine is passive and cannot relocate, thus relies solely on quantity).

Those are random and arbitrary, baseless changes. If you want to claim PS2 is a better game than PS1, you can do that, but only on individual elements. In many respects, PS1 still outbalances and outthinks and outplays PS2. Why? Because PS1 is a refined game. PS2 is riddled with child deceases.

The problem is, the patient (and part of its bloodcells) often doesn't know its sick and is ignorant of existing cures and just blames any issues on "novelty". Sorry, but novelty is not an excuse to ignore past lessons.

This post was spot on.

Gatekeeper · 2012-10-17, 08:53 AM

I completely agree with Figment's big post above. Well put.

PS1 is full of really smart design choices, and PS2 seems to have all but ignored them without really thinking about _why_ those things worked the way they did.

It's not just a matter of "wah wah wah PS2 is different to PS1!" - PS1 worked the way it did for a reason, and in most regards its mechanics worked well. If you're going to change those tried and tested mechanics, you need to be pretty sure that the new concept is going to work better - and not just that it works well in a regular small-scale FPS, but sure that it's going to work in an MMOFPS.

dl;dr - if it aint broke, don't try to fix it.

Rat · 2012-10-17, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

Thing is, making it more mainstream is potentially making it outdated in 2/3 years. If it was more unique it could maybe inspire future games/franchises so that they copy Planetside and not the other way round.

What happens when the next Battlefield game comes out with more players, a new revised class system that beats its rivals,etc.. This might not be so far away and could make PS look dated. PS 1 had the inventory system, how many shooters had that?

I think being unique is better in the long term than simply going mainstream and having a big hoorar for 2/3 years.

Gotta remember that once the game launches it will continue to be developed, Schmed has said himself that right now they are just trying to develope the core shooter part of the game, lets not forget about future content, I think thats where the uniqueness will come in.

Mox · 2012-10-17, 09:14 AM

The problem is atm that ps2 is nothing really special. It is just another online shooter.
Ps1 on the other hand was really special at its time. So let us think about what were the unique selling propositions of ps1. I would say the following three major points:

1) the massive scale of battles
2) the persistence of the world
3) mmo style character development

Now we have to ask what is wrong with ps2 regarding these aspects scince we agree that these Aspects have still a potential to make ps2 successfull game.

1) in the last months of beta there were just a few battles that can be called massive or epic. Most time they were medium sized skirmish battle or no battles at all (ghost captures). The problem is that the pkayers are still spread over the whole continent. Therefore ps2 need the proper mechanics to lead the players to the epic battles.

2) The persistence of the world of ps2 is a fact. Nevertheless persistence is meaningless atm since there are no metagame elements in the game atm. Futhermore intercontinental warefare is important to make the persistence meaningfull.

3) regarding charakter development ps2 already do a.good job imo.

Baneblade · 2012-10-17, 09:21 AM

The things that killed PS1 were very simple:

CSHD

Almost no 'serious' fps gamer can abide CSHD.

BFRs

It was silly from concept to fruition to bring these things to PS1.

P2P

FPS gamers are not used to subscription model games. The idea of paying for the ability to do what they can do free in any other game is an automatic turn off.

The Reserves program proved that PS1 could have been a raving success just by being F2P from the get go. BFRs proved immediately to be a game killer, but SOE never reneges on a mistake and would rather crush their existing player base under the jackboot heel. CSHD was allegedly a necessary evil integral to the way things worked ten years ago.

All PS2 had to do was be a graphical upgrade of PS1, without CSHD, BFRs, and be F2P to be SOE's star franchise.

**Malorn** · 2012-10-17, 09:32 AM

There's another more subtle and far more brutal killer of PS1 - steep learning curve. How many players picked up the game, got confused, and logged off before giving it a chance? We may never know, but things like inventory management, having to figure out how to get out of sanc to get to the fight (which required figuring out where to go on the map), not knowing how the capture mechanics worked or the spawn mechanics.

PS has a lot of concepts to teach players and the more complex the basic parts of the game become (including things like inventory management and certs), the harder it is for a new player to pick up, have fun, and see the real enjoyment of the game.

I spent hours teaching new players about PS1, each new player usually took a good 30 minutes just to give them a tutorial before they even got into the fighting. That's the hump they had to get over before they got to experience what PlanetSide was about and start to enjoy it. It's not EVE Online but it certainly was higher in the curve than most games.

Some of these things vets like about PS1 that aren't in PS2 are gone for a reason, and I'd wager the biggest reason is because it was confusing as hell for a new player to figure out and ultimately not worth the price of admission.

Gatekeeper · 2012-10-17, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

There's another more subtle and far more brutal killer of PS1 - steep learning curve.

I was about to post that

The steep learning curve of PS1 was definitely a big problem - but I'm not sure that requires things like inventory to be removed completely. Some kind of system of default loadouts, styled roughly as classes but allowing players the option to customise them or create their own would have pleased both new players and PS1 vets.

Also despite all its changes, PS2 still has a pretty steep learning curve - so as it stands they're risking alienating the PS1 hardcore, while still being too complex for casual players to bother with.

FortySe7en · 2012-10-17, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Some of these things vets like about PS1 that aren't in PS2 are gone for a reason, and I'd wager the biggest reason is because it was confusing as hell for a new player to figure out and ultimately not worth the price of admission.

Bingo. I think that point was brought up a few weeks ago as well. No matter what happens, you are still going to have to constantly fight with that small amount (50,000?) playerbase that thinks this should be PS1 revamped.

I've actually been quite pleased with the way the dev team has been listening to people and constantly moving things around to try and make the flow of battle a bit quicker. Keep up the good work.

Originally Posted by Figment

Don't come to me with the argument "you should join a good outfit". I LEAD a good outfit. Each of us as individuals can hold their own in their own expertise. As a group, we work well together. However, since we're not a zergfit, we're not able to mass the numbers that make the real difference in PlanetSide 2.

Then you don't lead a good outfit. I've held plenty of places and pushed plenty of bases joining a random SQUAD (thats 12 people with no zerg to follow) and been able to successfully take and defend objectives. Sure the zerg makes it easier, but its not impossible with a 1-2 squad size element.

You just gotta keep at it!

**Malorn** · 2012-10-17, 09:59 AM

There are loadouts, but they dont appear to be working. I have yet to get more than one loadout.

Hamma · 2012-10-17, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by Valcron

Listen Hamma, I know Planetside is essentially your life and you'd never dare talk bad about PS2 especially with the watchful eye of SOE around. But you cannot sit here and even remotely say that this is what you had in mind when you signed up to play this game. The differences between this and battlefield are somewhat minimal. Just bigger maps and a better graphics engine. I wish you would actually let yourself be critical for once in your Planetside career, I would have a little more respect for your opinions in the long run.

Generic comment about how I am in SOEs pocket.

I'm a realist. Accuse me of whatever you want but vets will quit or adapt its your choosing. I want this game to be a success for years to come and in my opinion it's an awesome game.

Does it have its flaws? Yep. Is it going to be a major fail because its not PlanetSide 1 in a new engine? Nope.