Quit planetside 2 after 20 hours - or a look of a new player at the game

For number 1. Its not pay to win. That default gun is just as good as any other weapon, the only exception being the pistols (but then, that's a secondary weapon, not your primary weapon) The ONLY difference in the vast majority of the weapons are their fire-rates and accuracy. Sure some do more damage per shot, but at the trade of fire-rate. So a weapon that does 30 more damage than your starting weapon, will also fire 30% slower than your starting weapon, meaning in the end they do the same damage, just in different 'bursts'. The only real thing that suffers from 'lack of defaults' are the MAX's. They honestly should have come with BOTH arms able to use the default AI and AV weapons, not one of each

For number 2. You say its pointless because you have only played games with a 'end-game' goal. Do this and the match ends. Planetside does not HAVE a ending, there is no 'match over, everyone start back at your starting points'. The 'point' to Planetside is the capturing of territory. Your 'end of match' is when the facility your currently fighting at is captured or lost. The entire game doesn't end at that point, but that 'match' so-to-speak, does.

In planetside 1, the 'goal' was to sanctuary lock the other team. Well, in Planetside 2, we don't HAVE sanctuary's yet... so we have to settle for the 'little' wins.

Number 3, i will agree with you on. The Spawn-Outhouses have been possibly one of the Biggest problems with Planetside 2. Why they decided to take the defendable, secured, un-vehicle camp-able, spawn rooms that were INSIDE facilities in Plentside 1, and turn them into Out-houses that are Exposed, easily camp-able, and undefendable, i will never know. And the dev that was responsible for that idea needs to be hit over the head with a shovel, taken out back, and buried upside down in a fire-ant mound.


As for number 4. You can thank the Lattice for that. It forces everyone into 2 or 3 battles because there is no were else they CAN go. The purely open hex system had problems yes, but there were easy fixes for MOST of those problems, they just didnt do it, Instead they decided to trash the entire system and force people back into the lattice system from PS1.

Why did SoE release the game IF not even the mechanics are finished.

Is PS2 still in beta ? are we testing for PS4 launch ?

Technically, the game is not pay2win, but in actual practice, it is. Where the rubber meets the road, having a better weapon than your enemy ensures your success. One cannot argue that a SMG-less infiltrator is not as effective as one who does. The gameplay is like night and day. When one enemy has an SMG and the other does not; its clear. Shotguns also show this, as well as more powerful pistols available.
So those who don't pay can certainly earn them with Certs, but until they do, they are disadvantaged. So technical vs 'applied' has to be recognized.
My MAX was not as effective at AA until I 'purchased' my second burster. In fact, the MAX felt gimped and purposeless until I did so.
My ESF on one faction has lolpods and increased nose gun, the other doesnt. The one that doesn't is FAR less effective than the one 'paid'.
It is clear to everyone that paying outright for weapons or CERT boosts to buy it that way is pay2win.

The main reason why I subbed is because I didn't want to wait 3 months to buy my burster, in order to feel somewhat effective, and the constant 'tug' to spend more SC is always there.
All i want to do in a game is compete; I don't want to have to purchase, earn or otherwise 'cert up' anything.
At the least, PS2 is 'Pay2Compete'.
In the end, one must pay to keep up at some point, and remain competitive. If new weapons weren't any different than the stock ones, people wouldn' buy them. If shotguns didn't give some advantage, people wouldn't buy them.

Doesnt mean this can't change... there is somethign to be said to having the 'end of a round' thing, even if it is in a MMO.
Reset the map, and let everyone start again, everything inbetween becoming neutral.
Why think it won't work if it hasn't been tried yet? Cap the continent, assign the awards, everyone pats each other on the back, everythign resets, and its game on.

on these 2 points we agree. the lattice has only taken away options for playstyles of different players, and concentrated all the fights into walled biolabs of bloody team deathmatch, where all that happens is that you run around shooting other people in the back of the head, while being shot in the back of the head yourself. Boring stuff.

Yes, PS2 is effectively still in beta. Many core gameplay features are either only partially implemented or haven't even been developed.

Someone is talking down the default weaponry? Does he just suck, or does he really not know any better?

Apparently. He says he's old, so it could be a little bit of both.

many of the games you've mentioned still follow the same basic principle that when pitted against one another players are considered equal from a game point of view and it is only the individuals choices which sets them apart.

League of Legends uses a gating system in order to accommodate and accustom newer players with choices and options available to them, however even then when set against another, individuals with excessive amounts of time or money put into the game are not by default better off then those that don't.

WoW and GW2 some what don't count because they are traditional MMORPG's, which follow a different set of rules and balance problems with in themselves and do not care about the individual 1 on 1 balance that a traditional FPS style game follows... ie, in WoW a Warrior class still won't stand much of a chance against Magic classes with Control abilities.

The commander in Natural Selection can drop abilities and utilities to those in his team, it is just individual resources allow them more personalized choices in what they are or how they are outfitted.

and wow, that is a Real stretch with that counter strike point... but.. you're still kinda wrong there too. Players that 'join in' in counter strike games start with $2500, and will join the game dead waiting for the next round to actually join in play, of which they will obtain $2400-2600 depending on win/loss, giving them about $5000 for the next round which is actually what the average player in the game has to spend per round.



when it comes down to it, this game is PlayToWin where you can replay 'Play' with "Pay'.
players that dedicate more time or money to the game are mathematically better then those that don't.
...not better through some contrived means such as knowing the map or how the mechanics work.

Because SoE has been producing low quarterly earnings for the past year or two, resulting in the accelerated development and release of several Original IP's to help ease the minds of the investors and generate some cash flow and try and really prove that oE is still worthy of S.

... if you didn't really understand that... as of late Sony have been considering segmenting the company into smaller chunks to help alleviate the problems of lower then expected annual earnings from the company as a whole. one of the suggestions involves effectively putting 'Online Entertainment' in its own little bucket because many think that it is actually a determent to the company as a whole, considering that they generate more cash flow through Hardware then they do through Software...

What with 'Bullet Run' flopping hard forcing SoE to refund a number of subscribed players, Planetside 2 having population, performance, and balance issues, and the risky venture of Everquest Next in the near future in an already overly saturated MMO market... it isn't hard to see why some are having second thoughts

So your new to the game stepped into it. Didn't really learn the flow of things. Got mad and went here to rant and give suggestions...sort of....

There is no real pay to win in this game. All things that can be bought can also be certed into. If you have a good day you will get those certs really fast. All things bought that are actual weapons are only side grades specialising into play styles. Thus they hold no real advantage against the starter weapons.

While boosts can increase your exp gain it still wont do much unless you get into battle and put some back into it. Mostly just helpful to the Casual players to catch up.

Vanu infiltrator basic gun is a 3 shot kill 2 on the head. you have bad aim considering it's Semi automatic
MAX is not a tank it's an exo suit. Basic setup is not as good as 2 AI or 2 AV but still good enough to do lots of damage if you don't go rambo on stuff.
The basic ESF weapon requires a lot of Patience and while described as an all-rounder weapon it needs a buff against ground units considering the Armour update <.< against air it's still viable.

The basic weapons are good enough to get you going for the other toys. But low patience and CoD mind wont get you far... seriously instead of whining like a kid that didn't get ice cream. Get into a squad and learn the game with patience. It is an MMO under development. As are all MMO*S
And it's not a simple arcade so deal with the challenge!

You may want to let all of the people with shotguns and SMGs know that because they constantly die to my lowly starter gun, the Orion. Apparently, they didn't get the memo and don't know that they are supposed to be consistently beating me with their superior P2W weapons.... Also, every single one of those weapons can be bought with certs so its not P2W at all. I have bought some things but the majority of items were gained from certs.

And this is one of the problems with gamers now. They want all of the best stuff in a game immediately instead of earning it. Do you guys ever play MMORPGs? If so, it must drive you nuts that you can't have all the cool high level loot until you are actually.,.. you know... high level?

You CAN compete even with all of the default stuff. You just have to put some effort into it.

People but these things because they THINK it will give them an advantage. A good gamer can use any weapon and still easily beat most other players.

That list of games contains a bunch of games I find boring and dont play. I dont understand why people think likening PS2 to lobby shooters is a good thing. I stopped having interest in games where the battles dont effect anything a long time ago.

You dont need map control or alerts in this game because getting weapons is based off XP not capturing territory.

what i don't understand is peoples constant usage of the word 'metagame'...

Metagaming is using out-of-game information which you shouldn't have access to, in order to help decide in-game decisions. it is loosely considered cheating because it's effectively like peeking at some one else's hand in Poker.

but here every one throws it around as if it means 'Middle' game

I was only stating that I personally knew some people who were going to completely avoid a game because of the service platform, which was an action taken independent of the quality of the game or other factors. If this can be true, then other differentiating factors based upon factors outside the game itself could be possible as well. Not stating that any of this IS the case. Simply that it CAN BE. Shadow of a doubt, as it were.

It can't be black and white thinking when I'm simply saying "the possibility exists". I am not claiming to have any proof about it, but showing how one aspect of a platform can feed into another platform. Like I probably would have finished Batman: Arkham City if it weren't for other games and friends playing other games. Now that is still a relation to the tied in game: if it were good enough, the platform's other aspects wouldn't influence someone's decision, but it can possibly affect the more "on the fence" people.

Free to play tends to also give the feeling that a game doesn't have greater value and you might be less likely to move on from a game. If you put 2 years into WoW, you might equate your character's value at $15 * 24. That might make some continue playing, but if you haven't invested a cent in PS2, for example, maybe there wouldn't be as big of a draw. Then again if someone were paying, perhaps that would be a bigger reason to cut your losses. Depends on the person playing, I suppose.

I never said it was hurting them, either. I'm just saying that differences in distribution platform can account for both differences in abandonment, but also differences in adoption. That same mechanism of "friends playing" could draw people into playing. Features could draw them in. It's a canvas at the very least for them to put themselves on display. Some people who got it through Steam might have gotten it otherwise through some other platform, but that would be as subjective as anything else I've said, and would have to be analyzed by some really keen analysts to even get a hint of that being the case.

Like I said, I have proof of nothing and am stating really nothing. Just saying "it could easily be different for a number of reasons from numbers from any other distribution platform"

I do agree that guns and cosmetics are hideously expensive. Game doesent reward squad or platoonleading in any way.

On the constant "PS2 Is dying" I dont agree on, if you believe the forums then every game has been dying since their launch .. hell even WOW was dying all the way from vanilla.

While true, you can get a level 30 versus a level 1 if a level 1 joins a level 30 in a group and then gets into a game. Not common, but still possible. However even though you get approximate levels of player, could be vastly different investments of time. Those investments of time equate to being able to buy some things, but you could have vastly different qualities of points invested in runes, or some more premium characters (ie more expensive) with new abilities that are probably a bit over the top until they are vetted and balanced versus the tried and true (and very balanced, theoretically) characters that are much cheaper. In the end it doesn't become that big of a disparity though because it is easy to get 5 on 5, or 3 on 3. Getting 1000 on 1000 on 1000 means that micro levels of balance are likely to become greater discrepancies. And in PS2, you can go and "buy" the Baron buff (Weee Harasser!)

I'm sure some Warriors would take issue with that, especially the Prot Warriors that stun and interrupt ranged caster classes until they cry. Certainly there are aspects that are dissimilar, but buying say a MBT in PS2 could be roughly equivalent to placing a Ballista in GW2. A MAX with buying a War Golem (or whatever it is called). If you put more money or time into GW2, you can buy more Ballistae or Golems, and on the micro level overwhelm those that have barely put any time in. Differing gear levels from time spent buying, crafting, or earning can be roughly analogous between the two.

I was referring more to the Khara, at least in NS1. I can't remember exacly how the resources are spent in NS2.

I don't think that Counterstrike (the original) worked that way way back when. I'm glad they did something to bridge the gap, but the difference of a few thousand could make as big of a difference as having a few extra gizmos stuck onto your primary weapon. In PS2 I largely view my SC purchases as giving me more flexibility, not more power in one aspect of that flexibility.

If this game is pay to win, I must REALLY suck at it. I've paid and still don't rock a huge KD ratio or SPM. I've paid and still get shot dead by level 1-15s before I can blink.

Oh wait, I don't suck in it, I just get shot by people with roughly the same weapons as I have

Your post is pointless oh much as much as those thumbs upping it. The statistics are very real, whether a majority of us use steam or not, but the fact it went from 29,000 steam players down to 7,000 is enough to worry SOE

Ok, prove it. Show me your facts or statistics as juxtaposed to a game which you don't consider to be in the process of "dying".

First off the majority of PS2 players don't use steam to play PS2, second they did lower the cert prices on several guns, you can now get guns for as low as 100 or 250 certs (and they are just as good as the 1000 cert weapons). I agree that prices should be lower (like.. 3 or 4 dollars for a gun, instead of 7.) because then I would buy triple as much as I do now, people don't believe it but having lower prices will cause more people to spend more money and it would benefit SOE more, the max price of 7 dollars should indeed be lowered.

Should change MMO to mean 'Marginally Multiplayer Online' in this game's case. Lol @ people that still play tbh. The best thing that could happen is for this game to die quickly so that SOE get the message and get their act together. The original Planetside was never this dire...

Personally I lol at the people who keep coming back to this forum to make out they are smarter than everyone else for getting out whilst the ship was still sinking, month after month.

Hell we are coming up on a year anniversary of the games immanent death pretty soon.

Game's not dying. I'm sorry you and several other people seem dissatisfied with it. I wish you the best of luck in whatever Large scale FPS you play next... oh wait. This is the only one isunt it.

Well whatever, have fun playing, whatever it is you end up playing. Funny feeling the fact so many prophets of doom still hang around here is there likely to come back every new major content patch. So, maybe we might see you again on miller next month bombardier ol pal? Moaning about outfits again too I hope.



Anyway the games biggest numbers issues relate directly to performance. That's always been the issue, since November. Probably why they are doing a pretty much complete re-write of the game engines to try and address this. How numbers will play out when this occurs is anyones guess. My bet it they go up quite significantly.