Whats wrong with Planetside 2

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Ned, Jul 2, 2013.

  1. Ned



    A collection of my thoughts on the main problems this game suffers, the main things I address are

    > gameplay
    > the business model
    > and faction balance


    I covered the main issues that stick out to me the most, but I want to know what you guys think are the problems in this game, the big ones, not the small ones, although the small ones could be discussed

    Please say what your biggest concerns are, and how you would fix these

    if you agree with the points I make, or not and why, and how you would fix the addressed issues


    Hope you enjoy it!
    • Up x 10
  2. Robes

    Please quit aiming directly at the head if youre getting body shots instead.. please..

    Also, first.
  3. Ned


    Wasn't my best sniping, just some rehashed footage for the intro, but the point of the video was about the commentary, not gameplay
    • Up x 1
  4. Cowabunga

    Buisness Model:
    Interesting point of view - But I do not agree on your views about their business model. SOE has separate teams working on aesthetics and game play features - They do not pull resources from each other, so your point is mute. That has been confirmed by the devs themselves. If you argument the opposite you are just grasping at straws and to be honest, you have no way of proving it.

    I'm quite happy that the game is "free" since a lot of the people I know playing would never have picked this title up if it was a one time purchase. I think it's quite brave of SOE to try this business model out and I'm glad PS2 has been chosen to carry it. There is no excuse not to try the game out and you can easily play the game effectively as a free player ( A lot of my outfit members are free players ) Since the game works around team play and organised operation. This will allow players with less decked out kits still fill vital roles in larger operations.

    Balance:
    I agree on faction balance when it comes to balance through diversity. It's more interesting to face an enemy and then requiring you to adapt to do so effectively. Instead of game-play that just requires you to "Kill the blue guys" or "Kill the purple guys", then emphasise the fact that empires are different. This would then result in "Oh no it's the NC, watch out for their hard hitting weapons and heavy armoured units" or "Oh noes it's the VS, watch out for their accurate weapons and mobile vehicles". This would create more dynamic and keep factions on their toes when they face different empires.


    Doing an awkward mirror balance attempt while still trying to keep faction traits does not work. Rather make the other empires VERY different. If you like a specific empire for their traits, then roll that empire and don't start ******** that your empire does not have the exact same tools! :)
    • Up x 3
  5. VSDerp

    i could've swore that was a head shot ! my god i couldn't watch the rest of the video!
  6. Ned




    That may be true but I still feel like the F2P model stagnates the gameplay because you are either forced to spend a lot of time time, or money to unlock things, if it had been a pay at the start with unlockable items (Via use of things and a smaller time investment), the gameplay would have been more interesting as more people would be able to specialise in their roles and not have to stick a tonne of time in to get what they want, because its a F2P model its more dependent on the gameplay to keep people here, since the gameplay wasnt there for a lot of people, we had a big loss in population which in turn meant that we had to have server merges and a smaller consumer base


    Dont get me wrong, I think F2P model has its benefits, but in the long run I feel like a game with a one time payment or subscription is a much better deal for players and developers, there is already a subscription in game, they could switch to a subscription system with the possibility of not even having to buy a box, and I would be far more happy with that than the F2P model, I dont think the F2P model is bad, I just feel that paying for the game is better for developers and consumers
  7. Ned



    I think they were headshots but a lot of the NC were running full nanoweave, also engineer turret shields are meh,

    please try to watch the rest though, Id love to hear your thoughts on it, the snipings just for the first couple of minutes to gently introduce my audience for what is to come
    • Up x 1
  8. Pikachu

    I really don't want a sharp segregation between infantry, vehicle and aircraft combat. :(

    Replacing current NS vehicles with all different ones sounds like a lot of work and difficult balance. I would be happy if they could just have some minor stat difference, a unique weapon and maybe a unique cert.
  9. Cowabunga


    Most modern shooters have a lifespan of about six months (give or take) before their sequel comes out to replace them, making the previous game worthless. This is an MMO that requires constant funding. If SOE forces people into a subscription it would create a strange problem. Firstly it would give PS2 the same niche role that the previous PS game had, thus limiting the player base to a surtain crowd. Namely the MMO crowd that also likes FPS games. Secondly; a lot of FPS players are not accustomed to MMOs or subscription based games. Why should they pay money every month for a game they already paid for? This brings me back to my first statement of most modern shooters lifespan.

    The free model creates an excellent foundation for all types of players. By letting everyone try out the game and from there let them figure out how they want to pay for the game. Your standard load out is quite viable and will let you fill almost any role in a platoon. I agree that the grind can be long to get your next shiny weapon but the point still stands; this game is meant to be played over years and not, like most shooters, die out in six months time.
  10. Ned



    I see your point, as I said it was probably my weakest point on the game, however you hit one of the nails on the head, this game is aimed at the FPS market, when it doesn't necessarily have to be, to make the game more FPS friendly a lot of elements were sacrificed, which not only made the F2P model pretty much required for the game but also helped to the "Dumbing down" of it, for me at least, in any future planetside games that are made, Id like to see a bigger emphasis on stratergy, the FPS elements do work and should stay, at least most of them, but the game is a bit more of a mindless TDM than a merging of an FPS and a stratergy game
  11. VSDerp

    i am i was just joking :D your videos are good.
  12. [HH]Mered4

    Well, OP.

    Interesting. Quite interesting.

    I sort of agree with the *let's separate Sky Ground and Pinatas*....But only to a point.

    I think bases should be somewhere between those displayed in PS1 (COMPLETELY infantry) and those we have now (quite open, easily spammable.) With the addition of a few interesting features for the metagame for vehicles to take part in, as well as infantry, we could have some good strategy.

    Good Points all around

    PS: I haven't finished the ENTIRE video yet....I'll do so later when I have time. :)
  13. usages wnbgrintooth

    I like the idea of F2P...I honestly would have never tried this game if I had to pay for it to start...now I am a paying member...If it was not free to start I would never be here now.

    I have to say I enjoy the combined arm part of the game and seldom have a problem with it...but your ideas were interesting and I have often thought planes should be fighting each other more...and vehicles more focused on each other so parts of what you say is interesting but I think that would create an uproar like nothing ever heard before. I play an Inf so can not do anything really to vehicles so might enjoy it more :) but I still think the combined arms is a big part that should remain...just needs more tweaking.

    I hate to say but the faction balance I think the only way to really fix is to put a pop cap on each continent...when a faction hits that level...say 35% no one else from that faction can log in until someone logs out...
  14. cfnz

    I can't watch the video at the moment to get a better idea of your rationale on this but it just seems to be a matter of personal preference. I've seen plenty of people state that if they could obtain everything or at least all they wanted quickly and easily they'd probably quit at that point, i.e. it's the progression that keeps them playing. A lot depends on how long you intend to play for, if you're only going to be around for a short time, faster progression is better. The game is designed to be around for years and iirc that's part of why we have the system we have. Each to their own though, you can never please everyone. If you'd asked me seven months ago which system I'd prefer, I'd probably have said the up front payment, although in reality I may never have played PS2 if I wasn't able to try it for free first. Now, I'm not so sure which model I'd prefer, (I can at least say I do not play subscription based games though).

    As an aside, how much of the video relates to snipers and nanoweave?

    Me either. Some of my favourite battles have been open field ones where infantry, tanks and air have all been involved.
  15. KnightCole

    Biggest problem with PS2? The whiny playerbase.............me included :p

    The game overall is just fine. If players would quit crying and soE would quit nerfing and buffing and changing all sorts of weird *** things this game would be awesome.

    I really do wish there was aforum where true players who are serious about making the game better could go and SoE would take in their ideas to the game as they see fit.

    This whining about AA being good, or its UP, or now they buffed AA so pilots cry then ground cries when they buff Air and then air gets nerfed.....ugh. Then SoE adds in a new rocket that blows up a few people, they come crying on the forums, SoE nerfs it......
  16. Jeralamo

    I liked what you had to say about the faction balance. But if you do everything you said...example TR are the only ones to get fast firing weapons, well then they will be the best in close quarters which is where most combat takes place in the game. thats just an example but i think thats why they started giving similar weapons to each of the factions like NC have some high RoF weapons.

    maybe a better example is NC being better at long range like you said with snipers. Then NC just has to stay back and kite the TR and the TR rage quit from being sniped to death. (Remember in beta when only NC had bolt action rifles?)
  17. Alexandrix

    Enjoyed the video and hearing your views.thanks.I didn't quite jive with some of your opinions on the matter,but a lot of it I did.

    Gameplay -
    Not much to comment on here for me really.I will say this.I HATE the way all these new game developers are ranting and raving over this esport/MLG garbage.Make the game for the GAMERS,not the mlg noscope360 crowd.It's a small subsect of the gaming community , why should a game be catered around it?

    Business model -
    I despise the Free2Pay model.I have since it's inception,and I'm even more abhorrent to it now that it seems to be taking over as the majority of online models.This model always taints the game.always.The game is built around the stupid cash shops.It's obvious the game was built to make you use the cash shop to advance in a timely manner.I can either grind certs for a week (and the same currency "certs" are used to buy both weapons AND character/vehicle upgrade WHAT THE F*CK???).....or hey look! I can toss $5 at the screen and get it now (while also saving my precious certs for character/vehicle upgrades) ! which do you think most people are going to do? if the cash shop only had cosmetics,we wouldn't have such a grind just to unlock weapons or whatever.Planetside 2 should have a been a buy 2 play with a cosmetic shop (like guild wars 2,which has a very nice model that doesn't intrude on the game play) , or a straight up subscription model.Either of those would have made me much,much happier.

    Balance -
    I completely agree on the factions not being different enough.I so wish the factions had more personality.As it is,they are all more or less the same faction with slightly different colors (the camo system degrades this even more....and some small differences in a couple of weapons/vehicles.They need to make the factions truly distinct from one another,with a distinctly different flavor.Do away the majority of this common pool stuff and replace it with faction specific stuff.Stuff that's actually different but balanced in it's differences.
  18. Robes

    Yes, its always the players fault a game is being run into the ground.
  19. Lampenfieber

    What is your objective? capture/conquer something or just stay at a point shooting?

    They remove the estrategy with this lattice system, we are asking a solution for back-cap and they come with this time thing, we have to wait until finish a damm clock, and the last one? they nerf alots of things and destroy the Armor of the game.

    Higsby go to see statstics and thing they need to change something, but when they do this, they nerf the talented people who know how to play more tham the others, so why play planetside 2?

    Because of bang-bang ONLY.

    The thing of the game, about estrategy stays on galaxy drop, they kill the tank collums, the max crash and the shotguns, now they buff the air and buff some aspects of anti-air...

    This game have no propouse anymore... they build some maps for MGL and wait for something, like outfit vs outfit but with simple tactics like... go from A to B and shoot... How to do it, there is no secret anymore the squad/platoon leader have only to follow the fancy camos and the armor with camos like almost "shoot me please im here", because the talent is gone and to me alot of people who i know and know about the game are stopping or just come to alerts to get certs and logoff waiting for someone who actualy know something about massive game, because to me Higsby dont know what he is doing.

    This is the first game i play who they nerf more tham 2x a same thing, because they want to do something about a holy balance of the game but the basics, about popultion balance, they even talk about it. They are building new shields for some places who dont need, because they want to do something for a thing, who dont need a change...

    IF i am a dev i start to recycle this damm weapons, start to think about cert reset and server transfer, also think about this system time, ridiculous you have a platoon in a place to cap a place and have to wait a damm clock because NOBODY complaing about something and a damm statistic show who is loosing give up.

    Sorry my bad english, i spend alot of money in this game and is really frustrating see designers destroying it for camos and changes who are not priority. Like MGL, they think now we have pro teams? who know how to play is leaving... they really thing MGL gonna bring good players back?
  20. Hatamoto

    This whole ps2 for MGL is a joke, the writing is on the wall and Higby cant seem to read it .. or wont because its a personal pet project
    • Up x 1