Why Planetside 2 has been steadily losing players

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

The biggest issue with Planetside 2, as I see it, is that it is fucking repetitive. There is no variety to anything- there are no lasting affects to anything.

On a micro-scale, all battles start the same, flow the same, and end the same.There's very little real organization to any fight, even with organized outfits, most battles basically devolve into CoD/Halo style arena-shooters but with tons of players. Battles are very rarely evenly fought, either being straight roll-overs from overwhelming attackers, or repetitive meat-grinders (Biolabs) where your life expectancy after spawn is about 5 seconds. There is no destructible terrain, and most of the bases have the same general design, which makes them boring to look at after awhile.

On a macro-scale, there is no sense of lasting accomplishment after playing for awhile- and nothing you do is actually persistent. Play for a couple hours, take 80% of the map? By the time you wake up the next day, the map will be completely different- all that progress will probably be lost. I spent three hours defending the Octagon from the NC and VS a few weeks ago, and had a hell of a time. Woke up 5 hours later and it was of course taken, with the TR nearly warpgated. Sigh.

The sad part is that so many people are hoping that the continental-lattice will change that. It won't. The continental-lattice only comes into play when you capture a continent. How long does that usually take, though? 6 or 7 hours of straight play? The majority of players in this game probably play for only an hour or two a day, so they won't even experience that reward. So the territory gains stay relatively the same.

TL;DR: Planetside 2 suffers from the map looking different everyday but the situation always staying the same.

Someone gets it. The issue though is creating mechanics to create what you want is complicated. I've tried to create relatively "simple" models for micro and macro changes for players, but the devs usually view them as too complicated. They've kind of designed themselves into a corner and are looking for small changes to solve large issues. (That said I listed some mechanics that line up with what you're saying in regards to base layouts and allowing more permanent changes to the map).

Originally Posted by Babyfark McGeez

I think the most important thing to get new people into this and others back is to finally add hossin and thus, as i stated it countless times, finally put the planetside into planetside with intercontinental warfare.
[...]
Optimization would be second on my list.

I can play on Hossin fine, but I've heard for some people they get performance issues even with no one around. I'd be very worried if I was SOE to just release such a complex map and have complaints that people can't play on it because of performance issues. That and the advantages on Hossin when running on the lowest graphics settings are insane. It's like a totally different game. (More obvious in certain areas with players running around and especially when flying).

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Wahooo

The more I see games that advertise FPS/MMO or MMO-Shooter the more I think maybe it is just a niche market that will never make it.

That's quite a statement. PS1 was the leader of the pack for MMOFPS and it was released in 2003. Nothing has come close to it since. Technology took a backseat to gameplay in PS1. The opposite is true for PS2.

[Qwan]

I really think that SOE should drop the MMOFPS tag for this game, maybe call it a CFPS or Consistant First Person Shooter. I say this because if you look at the way leveling is set up along with certs its more like a BF or CoD online set up. The game has nothing to do with leveling because with a swip of the visa or master card, BR1 your just as formitable as the BR100, minus most of the side grades because those can only be bought with certs. But when you put a MMO tag on this game it attracts MMO gamers who get a little disapointed when they see that rank means nothing in this game. So I think they should drop MMOFPS and just call it a CFPS this way it better describes the game type, now Planetside 1 was a MMOFPS, you leveled your charactor, spent the certs were you wanted them, medic, infiltrator, heavy, armor, air and even mixed them a little, BR and CR ment somthing. I think most MMO players see the MMOFPS tag, download, log in and play and see that the MMO aspect is not realy a big factor. Its more of a consistant first person shooter which, is fun but after a while gets tedious and repetitious, the fact that there is no actual timed or goal oriented matches makes it consistant.

Whats going to make PS2 stand out:
1. The addition of Hossin, the fourth continent
2. Giving more rewards for Levels (maybe unlock certain equipment)
3. Bring back Command Rank, give the leaders a reason to want to lead.

But Im really hoping Hossin will, which looks awesome by the way, will help bring back some of the regulars. I like the islands idea, gives commanders options, as far as avenues of approach, and tactical advantages. Also having home continents will help alot with the meta game, I for see Hossin is going to be a blood bath. Ill probably start playing more myself when it comes out.

P.S. I got selected for ESO Beta Awwwwwsssooommmeee.

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Qwan

I really think that SOE should drop the MMOFPS tag for this game, maybe call it a CFPS or Consistant First Person Shooter. I say this because if you look at the way leveling is set up along with certs its more like a BF or CoD online set up. The game has nothing to do with leveling because with a swip of the visa or master card, BR1 your just as formitable as the BR100, minus most of the side grades because those can only be bought with certs. But when you put a MMO tag on this game it attracts MMO gamers who get a little disapointed when they see that rank means nothing in this game. So I think they should drop MMOFPS and just call it a CFPS this way it better describes the game type, now Planetside 1 was a MMOFPS, you leveled your charactor, spent the certs were you wanted them, medic, infiltrator, heavy, armor, air and even mixed them a little, BR and CR ment somthing. I think most MMO players see the MMOFPS tag, download, log in and play and see that the MMO aspect is not realy a big factor. Its more of a consistant first person shooter which, is fun but after a while gets tedious and repetitious, the fact that there is no actual timed or goal oriented matches makes it consistant.

Whats going to make PS2 stand out:
1. The addition of Hossin, the fourth continent
2. Giving more rewards for Levels (maybe unlock certain equipment)
3. Bring back Command Rank, give the leaders a reason to want to lead.

But Im really hoping Hossin will, which looks awesome by the way, will help bring back some of the regulars. I like the islands idea, gives commanders options, as far as avenues of approach, and tactical advantages. Also having home continents will help alot with the meta game, I for see Hossin is going to be a blood bath. Ill probably start playing more myself when it comes out.

P.S. I got selected for ESO Beta Awwwwwsssooommmeee.

Qwan you are getting mmo and rpg confused here. Ps2 is most definitely a mmo.

[Roderick]

One poster hit the nail on the head for the reason why I play less PS 2 and more Battlefield 3. Boredom.

Why am I bored?

- Lack of sustained fights at bases.

- Spawn rooms of certain bases are still camped by vehicle spam. PlanetSide 1 did not have this issue. The spawn room was protected inside the base away from any vehicle interaction, hence committing to true infantry competitiveness.

- No real drive to promote teamwork to reach a goal. I find PlanetSide 2 more of a farm and K/D driven game. Why capture bases for crap rewards when I can gain more experience being a lone wolf farming infantry, ground vehicles, or ESF's for the best experience rewards? [Change this system to make base captures give a nice chunk of experience and also give a nice reward to players for the defense of a base from capture]

- Spawn room design promotes farming and no drive for the player to exit. [maybe change the experience gain to 0 if firing from within the spawn room to make the player leave the safe area]

I could go on and on, but I am sure we have all read this stuff before.

PlanetSide 1 lasted nearly 10 years. I do not see PlanetSide 2 lasting 5 at this rate. Something needs to change and not just optimization.

[Carbon Copied]

The echo of "this is just team deathmatch" there's very little of what either previous players know as "Planetside" and what was sold in some of the hype leading to release to anyone wanting to take it up. There's no over arching goal, nothing to keep me in game for more than a couple of hours or so; about as long as your generic map per map franchise shooter. This is an MMO, I should want to invest time in the game; its my way to relax but I shouldn't be forced into doing the same repetitive bullshit that isn't what an MMO is about - there should be the option in this supposed "sandbox" to be in the thick of it as much as continuing to contribute while taking a "break" from that side of the game.

When continental and BI linking goes live it's going to be chaos as the bases are not designed (still) to support or accomodate the number of players that will be descending on them; lattice is proving this already even in it's infancy - they can barely support them in a meaningful fight as it currently is (even the redesigned ones). Yet a wall of silence and lack of achknowledgement on these issues ensues. Instead we get "new toys" which I know they need to release but it just feels like an attempt to distract with a new shiny in the meantime.

I saw an advertisement page for PS2 and it's "deep character advancement"; I've yet to see anything deep or meaningfull, I can't extensivley tailor my loadouts/"inventory" in any way shape or form but save for limited to preset "buffs" and limitations. Lacklustre character/class progression and customization.

Model variety is (for a modern game) exceptionally poor, instead we're making do with lazy one-size fits all bolt ons and drip fed cosmetics in what feels like an attempt to make things look different... just not really.

Optimzation is needed but I would like to know how they're going to take advantage of these overhead gains in fixing some if not all of the above.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Qwan you are getting mmo and rpg confused here. Ps2 is most definitely a mmo.

I think i disagree here. The MMO side has a persistent world connotation to it. That's what makes it different from other online games. This is really more of a MoBA in its current state. There are 3 instanced arenas. The reason i say this is that although the instance never ends, there's mutliple instances per server. i.e. continents. There's 3 instances you can choose to play that have no direct interaction. The battle on one cont doesn't affect the other conts. Other than to drain the winning faction's pop from the other conts. e.g. TR is wining on Indar, most TR go to Indar.

Its simply an issue of scale that differentiates this from other online FPS games. There's no PS1 greatness.

PS2 messed up in not transitioning a few core components of PS1 over. A few of these being:

1) limited certification - no universal soldiers- yes BR40 killed that on PS1 but that was after pops went too low. PS2 opens that up from the beginning, thus elimintating any connection to building "your soldier", you're simply an avatar that can do nearly anything and drive anything at BR1. And more if you pay cash.

2) Sphere of Influence - limitations that gave defenders an advantage so that the attackers couldn't just roll up to the door and spawn infinite soldiers. Sound familiar? NDZ is the current way they're trying to do this. Some like some dont, but the point is before it made defensive gameplay near pointless until NDZ was implemented.

3) TTK is much too short for sustained battle. And spawns are too quick to deter people from consistent suicide runs. Make dying a pain. Live a little longer and make returning from the dead progressively longer too. This spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn is mindnumbingly zergish. You want people to stop cert farming, make it take longer to kill the opposition.

4) Some classes are not fully developed. The support classes are not robust enough to be traditional classes. There's simply not enough to do with infils and medics to make it fun to play. Yea it's good, often easy, exp hacking and healing (especially healing), but that's damn boring.

5) Base design is shit. There's no barriers at all and it's all too open. There's no indoor fights in the bowels of a base. Its an arena design and built for e-sports. Where were your funnest fights in PS1? Towers, Tunnels and Bridges. Chokepoints where slaughter could happen. When a LA can jetpack over the tiny building and run right in the backdoor and shoot you in your backdoor, you eliminate these chokepoints that are so damn fun. There are no battles in this game, just a skirmish here and there. A mini-zerg at every base you take.

6) Well you get the point, there's a lot of design for PS2 that went somehow contradictory to the things that made the first and best MMOFSP great.

[kubacheski]

oops

[PredatorFour]

Originally Posted by kubacheski

PS2 messed up in not transitioning a few core components of PS1 over. A few of these being:

1) limited certification - no universal soldiers- yes BR40 killed that on PS1 but that was after pops went too low. PS2 opens that up from the beginning, thus elimintating any connection to building "your soldier", you're simply an avatar that can do nearly anything and drive anything at BR1. And more if you pay cash.

This reason alone was enough to convince me Higgles never even played PS..

He claimed the class system from battlefield was better because you didn't get 'universal soldiers' like in PS 1. As pointed out above, universal soldiers only came into it with BR 40. When it topped at BR 25 you had to recert to change your playstyle and you couldn't do everything like you can in PS 2. I also find that reasoning highly ironic.

[Wahooo]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Qwan you are getting mmo and rpg confused here. Ps2 is most definitely a mmo.

MMO and RPG end up being synonymous in many peoples eyes. The utter downfall of Global Agenda was the MMO tag because when people went there for the MMO tag they expected RPG elements. They ended up being the vocal ones and the game moved in that direction, lost the competitive PVP players it was initially designed around, never had enough MMO content to make the RPG types happy and died.

The MMO tag SHOULD mean something, but it just has a different practical meaning and is a bad thing for a game like this frankly. I don't know what should be there instead but simply to too many people MMO=RPG elements.

[SolLeks]

Originally Posted by PredatorFour

This reason alone was enough to convince me Higgles never even played PS..

He claimed the class system from battlefield was better because you didn't get 'universal soldiers' like in PS 1. As pointed out above, universal soldiers only came into it with BR 40. When it topped at BR 25 you had to recert to change your playstyle and you couldn't do everything like you can in PS 2. I also find that reasoning highly ironic.

yep, I have always hated the cert system in PS2.

Certs now are just meaningless once you get past BR50. by then you will have had enough to cert out a class or 2 and a vehicle. after that its just filling in the other classes you play sometimes and leaving thousands of certs in your cert bar because you just don't care.

There are a lot of things from PS1 that should have made it into PS2 but did not because higgles wanted this game to be 'different'.

I understand wanting different, but if you make the game with a 2 at the end of the title, you should take the core things from the game of the same name without the 2 and then make other things different from there, not start 100% fresh other than the fact that you know you have 3 empire logos.

[Varsam]

Originally Posted by kubacheski

That's quite a statement. PS1 was the leader of the pack for MMOFPS and it was released in 2003. Nothing has come close to it since. Technology took a backseat to gameplay in PS1. The opposite is true for PS2.

Saying PS1 was "leader of the pack" for MMOFPS' is like saying I am the best at being Varsam. Sure, it's true, but it was really the only one of its kind, so winning by default doesn't say much. Also, even if it was the premier MMOFPS back then, it was never anything more than a niche title to begin with. Back then people thought it was just ahead of its time, but now I'm thinking that the experiences it has to offer doesn't cater to the wide number of people we think it does.

[typhaon]

I think the failure to develop an endgame beyond what you get in every other FPS has really taken the shine off of PS2.

[Rivenshield]

It's the same game it was a year ago, with many bugs squashed and the lattice added to two-thirds of the terrain we fight on, and no real incentive to fight anywhere except Indar. Base alerts are a joke -- no one even responds to them anymore. No way to achieve final victory. No sanctuaries. No intercontinental lattice. No rotating warp gates. No cooldown times for empire-swapping, for fuck's sake. And Smed is going to shove this half-baked mess at the ADS console crowd in November...? That's going to spike the franchise once and for all.

HEY. SMED. RETARD. YOUR SHRUNKEN DEV TEAM NEEDS ANOTHER SIX MONTHS. SIX MONTHS, YOU DUMB SHIT. SIX MONTHS *MINIMUM*. DO YOU HABEEB IT? Or are you going to run this IP into the ground like you did SWG?

[snafus]

Total War: Rome 2