Why play Planetside 2? I played, but I personally like BF3 more and I don't play that anymore...

because this is not like battlefield3 , but battlefield2 (witch was uncomparably better then BF3)

this game has team play, granted bf3 has bit better grafix, but look at crysis , that has even better grafix and what a load of garbage that was as multiplayer game

also in battlefield2 and 3 your limited to 64 players, and the number of unlocks are very very limited in battlefields... and that makes PS2 addictive even more then the team play by it self

and to top it of free2play games have frequent new content , boxed games do not or if you LUCKY maybe once in a year

The reason we are here is because of what the game is called, pretty much. You don't understand us "metagame people". But what you SHOULD understand is that this is PLANETSIDE 2, as such we expect it to be like planetside. We expect it to be an actual sequel. And what made Planetside great was that it wasn't JUST an FPS, it was a blend of RPG and FPS topped off with a strategic element. PS2 is nothing but an FPS, that's all it is, that's all it has to offer. It's missing the other two elements that made PS1 amazing and unique. Had sony made this game something else, called it "Battle Online" or something equally generic, made it not related to Planetside, you wouldn't be seeing these types of things. But since it uses the Planetside name you're going to get people demanding it be worthy of that name. If you don't like that, tough. It's Planetside, it needs to play like Planetside, it does not play like Planetside, thus we fight to make it like Planetside. Understand?

Battlefield 3 has suppression. Planetside 2 doesn't.

Done deal.

Seriously, BF3 isn´t a good game at all because it got COD´ed (ruined the old battlefield series)..... its just run, jump and spray without any tactical elements.
PS2 is more like the old battlefields (1942, bf2, 2142, etc) and should be compared to them and not with that piece of ***** bf3 (it got good graphics, but thats it).

BF3, I played the hell out of that game, then they started patching and progressively made that game worse and worse, I made it to lvl 89 and gave up on it. You think air was imbalanced in PS2, try bf3, it's a joke. Like many people, I left bf3 and played nothing for a while, because bf3 really got boring, I bought their "premium" and after the first two expansions, I haven't even played the final one they released.I won't buy another EA title and I won't buy another COD game, the cookie cutter crap they keep slapping new names on and re-releasing is so annoying. At least Ps2 is a little fresher.

I still have hopes for ps2 that they will iron out some of the many issues that are really game breaking at this point.
In actuality the last 2 nights I have had some pretty awesome battles on lesser bases, tonight at ti-alloys was a blast aside from the hackers who love to hide under the ground... (damn SOE needs to appoint some admins for these servers)

I also played MWO, they too felt the need to patch stupid crap into the game, and alienate a lot of their fan/player base. Maybe it's the new business model, release a game, if people are too happy something must be wrong, release a patch that ruins it and make them mad.

OP lost ALL credibility after he said he would rather play WarZ. LMAO - that POS never even made it to steam...oh wait..it did until they realized what a POS it was and removed it.

WarZ = how to rip off stupid people.

As big a disappointment BF3 was, a lot of its minor features were improvements to the FPS/Battlefield genre. Such as being able to set up LMG's using bipods on most surfaces. When the game allowed it (which was rare), it was epic playing my support to set up chinese LMG with a dot scope in a choke point and hold off hordes of infantry trying to take a point.

LMG's in PS2 sadly don't have anything like this.
PS2 needs depth. It will never beat BF3 or CoD. It needs tor re-add many of the PS1 RPG elements, with improvements and streamlining to truly seperate itself from BF3 & CoD, and offer something those games do not.

In my opinion, they should stop releasing dumb skull masks & spike helmets that look like rejected TF2 steam workshop hats. They should spend an entire month or two on pure optimization.

In a game like planetside 2 in its curretn stats you fix your own goal and you try to make it happen if your goal is capturing this or this base if you suceed you ahve win a match exactly like battlefield or some others game , if you fails even after hours and hours and peoples ragewuit or get pushback You have loose

hard to understand NO its not ,

meaningfull yes it is at some point at least as meaningfull as playing a BF3


We need a real ressources systhem a sythem thats make ressources hotspot to moove with extractor devices atached to it and maybe even some ressources transport kinda glorified capture the flag mode where you try to stole ennemy vehicules full of ressources and bring them back to your base etc..

This is why PS2 ROCKS. Bf2142 was the best of the series - BF3 is a joke in comparison.

When it comes to the resource system they should make it so ONLY facilities generate resources. This would be the PS2 equivalent of requiring a certain facility to get a certain vehicle. It wouldn't work as the game is now, but when we get continent locking and proper warpgates it can work. The ultimate goal would be to secure every facility on the map and starve out the opposition. It would massively hinder the enemies logistics since they would have to bring in vehicle support from other continents, thus slowing them down and allowing to push even further. We need more stuff like that to give us a REASON to fight. As it stands the only reason to fight is for the sake of fighting, mindless violence at it's best.

BF2142 was the best game in the series, but you'll note I never say 2142. I say 2143, aka the bastardized remake DICE will pump out in a year or two following the success of BF3. If PS2 was more like 2142 I would be a very happy man. But as it stands it's close enough to be associated with battlefield, but too far to be associated with the GOOD battlefields.

Op: Troll lo lo troll lo lo lol

This, this, this. PS2 is as close to a sequel to BF:2142 (the best BF by far) as we are going to get now that DICE have disappeared down the CoD ruination route with BF3 (which is a joke).

NO you re WRONG , there is some Amasing outpost to figth on that are more exiting and more different with many diferent aproach and strategies atached to those

Most main facility are exactly the sames , wich figthing over their will be a glorified background on each ones


Ressources as to moove from Hex to HEx randomly and each regions as to have a set of extractor atached to it the extractor could be destroy or repair so it give 2 way to cut down ressources and one way to have it for your own but it also create a meaningfull reson to defend the regions and to spread the figth in a good way over the regions itself

this is the way to go making only facility worth something will only create the (( trechplant )) issue

wich is BAD boring and repetitive

On amerish especially we almost never experience the real scales figth on some really amasing base / outpost design because those arent facility

so NO i do not agree with you

ressources as to depeate at some point from a regions and pop in another one randomly so you never know where but the missions sythem will set it all with ressources hotspot so everyones will know wich regions they need to have this or thats ressources and also it will lead to many epic and strategic deployements instead of having a stagnant figths

PS: warpgate lock is a 100 % BS thats simply ruined the servers and populations balance ruined any strategies and make everything a mindless zergs that moove foward till they lock the continents

Ps1 brainwashed ideas isnt the way to go a true meaning full ressources systhem will create more variety will alow us to explore and use 100 % of the maps instead of ghost caping many area and running the same path over and over and over

Bf vet here and i gotta say bf3 is a waste of money, biggest load of crap i have ever played. bf2142 was the best out of them all, you cant put planetside in the same box has bf they are two very different games. planetside 2 for me has given me a little hope about fps on a large scale. im really sick of the cod/bf3 style shoe box maps and dum down gameplay.

Simple, you play games to have fun.

I find it odd, and highly worrying that these days people seem to be more concerned about "incentive" to do this or that, rather than the simple question, "is it fun ?".
I need "incentive" to do things I wouldn't otherwise do because they are not fun (like working 40h a week for money IRL).

Why do you need "incentive" to play a game ?

Why do PEOPLE DO ANYTHING?

WHY LIVE?

Thanks for the deep existential question Jean Paul. I got nihilistic angst over my Ps2 playing all up in har now.

Are you real ?
Its a GAME, people play games to have FUN.
The meaning of the game is to have fun, idiot.

Yes. Agreed. I don't understand this obsession with unlocks, XP and progrssion. You play to play the game. I played BF1942 for years with no stats, no progression etc. The fun is in each one on one, each tank encounter, every different map etc etc. It's a sandbox - the fun never ends and no two encounters are ever the same.

While SOME outposts are cool, most of them are terrible. Just a few shacks and that's it. The fights need to be focused on key areas, otherwise you end up with a bunch of small skirmishes. The facilities should be the only things that give you resources, nothing else should give you resources. People would still fight at outposts, you think they wouldn't? How would they get to facilities if not through the outposts? They have to take those hexes in order to take the facilities. The outposts themselves don't need to yield rewards for there to be combat at them. XP for capturing/defending an outpost combined with the fact that you HAVE to take them in order to reach the facilities is enough.

Also continent locking is a REQUIREMENT for a proper metagame. As long as everyone controls an invulnerable foothold on every continent, there's no sense of connectivity. Each map is separate, it's own self-contained Team Death Match map. When the continents are connected through proper warpgates and each faction only has one home base, having the facilities play a major role will be crucial to a proper metagame. PS1 had a lot of time to learn these lessons, they should not be ignored. If you let players just have an infinite amount of vehicles, it results in "who's blob is blobbier". By drastically impacting a faction's ability to pull vehicles as they lose facilities, it forces them to pull vehicles from other continents if they want to keep fighting, this rewards the attackers for doing well and taking territory.

WarZ want to ride The DayZ wave, they took a f2p game and made it pay to play, are you kidding , or just trolling ? And BF3, there are more hacker then planetside 2 ever saw.