2 years and it still feels like a(promising) beta.

Do you know games like War Thunder or World of Tanks? They are open beta and they will be open beta forever. Maybe Planetside is just this type of game?

So basically:

• You're too impatient to read the details.
• ...but you want the details.

It's like watching the world slowly edge further towards Idiocracy.

It has been a beta.

Still is to an extent, when the ps4 version arrives, I think we could then consider the game as a released title.

Hopefully the game does well on ps4, and the game generates good revenue to continue development, so us beta testers keep getting updates to the game release we helped fund.

I already claimed I just read the TL;DR and didn't bother reading that blasphemy of a text wall.

Nice rant.
I'd recommend it to the Devs.

You need to post this on Reddit, however.


- Lattice and other meta-focused updates have failed-

yes they have but that's only due to implementation. The Devs literally did not know what they were doing.
They said the promise was to help control battle flow.
However, Lattice is supposed to represent logistical corridors which means it's about "Progression" and not "Forcing two large Zergs to meet". SO, yes... it failed. Badly. They basically treated the lattice as a "DotA Lane" design to help funnel combat which is an utterly broken way of looking at and designing a lattice. The "funneling" of combat is only secondary to what a Lattice is used for.
As for "other meta-focused updates" I only know of 3 major ones. The Continental Lattice, the Base Lattice and the Resource Revamp. The latter, is very much incomplete and will add things like Localized Resource pools so that bases actually have VALUE and WORTH based on how much you can afford to pull from it. You'll also be required to restock it's pool should it run low in combat. This change is absolutely REQUIRED for a Lattice to work; and They've only just now realized that (or they were playing dumb before)

- Basic gameplay QoL has been neglected/suffered as a result-

The QoL of the game has been pretty much the same if not worse yet. I agree. I've noticed this too and it always comes down to them releasing these massive overhauls is huge incomplete buggy chunks that we have to suffer with for months on end before they are complete. Take the resource revamp for example. It's in phases. We're only in the first phase. Yet no one thought that it was NOT ok to release the first phase where the Resource Pool is still global and not localized. As a result, you had the massive MAX armies everywhere that made the game suck utter ball sacks for awhile. They should really consider using the test server for long term Pre-Live updates of upcoming revamps so that the live servers get a full, complete update when it's ready... not when they feel they need to feed table scraps to keep us playing... dried, rotten though still tastes remotely like cheese so-we-eat-it-anyway table scraps. Other than that, they have made better QoL changes FOR the casuals such as quicker respawns and ease of respawning (like the new respawn button at the death screen). As always, a death more meaningless than it was previously is welcomed as a QoL improvement... I think.

- Devs should go back to basics for awhile, get the "core gameplay" into a better state

This would've helped yes. They could've studied and respected the first title a lot more too but remember that while we bash these guys on a daily basis by thinking we can do their jobs better; over half of the reasoning behind this game's shoddy design is probably due to their Corporate Masters and nothing else. Yes, according to LinkedIN most of the devs (even Higby) do not have stellar experience that would seem applicable to ANY shooter, much less a MMO shooter; however I; the one who's usually a harsh critique of Higby and Co; doesn't have ****e in his resume either. But I have gone to school twice for game design, I did try. I was active in modding; I understand a lot of what Higby goes through from hearing from the horse's mouths themselves (other devs) over the years.

So when we look at this game and shake our heads; be critical. It means you care (so long as you're not just whining). All of us artists are super critical because of the passion we put behind projects like these. Just note, that the Dev team does deserve a lot of Benifit of the Doubt and that most of their issues may truly stem from ignorant management. It's a common problem plaguing the game industry.



All in all, good read. Post it on Reddit. The Devs will read it sooner possibly.

I do not agree with everything. For example, I think the aesthetic for PS2 is fine (obviously this is a highly subjective topic). The Vanu are kind'a... what the hell... but hey. They are alien-inspired and they show it. Even their designs (Not just in art) at times doesn't make sense. The Magrider has got to be the worst tank design I could think of - slow, no armor and a fixed cannon... sounds like it was stolen from the French in WW1. That's a pretty bad design.. but hey...

I also don't agree that the game should focus on casual.
We have so many games out there that are casual that the market is absolutely inflated. Casual is what got all these updates to even start changing the game in the first place. Everyone whined that the game had NOTHING going for it. It was just "Drop in, die, kill, drop out" as it pretty much still is. But it was like even BEFORE the lattice and we are STILL losing players because of it's casual-lack of depth issues.
Remember that this is an MMO and MMOs need to have sustenance of some kind to pay for themselves and elate players into the thinking this is their online home for years to come.
Other MMOs do this through a multitude of options on how to play - questing, achievements, grinding professions, unlocks, cosmetics, PVE, PVP, PVEVP, instanced/scenario Group PVE (ect ect).
PS2 is just like it's predecessor; it's entirely PVP and relies on Players solely for it's content. So you need to have systems in-place that still reward players with Progression, Depth and Investment to make the game last.
PS2's release saw NONE of this. That's why everyone started leaving. You needed a reason to stay when ever you died 500 times in a single session and saw the KDR shrink to .024. There wasn't one. It just a casual MASSIVELY multiplayer shooter that was a chaotic mess with no sense of direction.

Games like those don't last. This is why they have sequels every 2 years and not every 10 to 12 years (kudos to PS1 being online that long). Even MMOs that cater to casuals have to release an Expansion every couple of years to keep everyone fed. It's gotten so bad with WoW for example that Blizzard will purposely make these SWEEPING changes to renew the game; such as changing and adding new basic stats, overhauling skill trees, removing features. AND THEN they even point out during their Blizzcons and say "Yup, you guys whined about it so here you go! Funny thing is, you whined about not HAVING this very feature 3 years ago and no you want it gone".
Fortunately, WoW is sub based (it's not F2P and relies on Whales) and offers enough polish to keep Millions online so that they can afford their constant updating; but you as a designer should never have a game that feels so incomplete to players that it needs massive overhauls every few years in order to retain interest. PS2 is already in this boat and unlike Blizzard - it's obvious SOE cannot afford to maintain that level of performance.

So they need to buckle down, realize that large scale tactical shooters like PS1/PS2 are just not compatible with the masses and resort to making it a polished, smoothly designed niche game that caters to probably a market potential of 150,000 players max. It is what it is. Not every game is for everyone. Not every game can PLEASE everyone.
Its best to design the game with what it was intended to be and let the players come on their own. You'll get more loyal followers that way.

Good games are measure in Sales.

Great ones are measured by the legacy they left behind due to their longevity.



Cute dog btw.

Yes, that's what I just said. Which is why it's so hilarious that you wanted more details!

But but... humans complete eachother... gib more details.

Well said OP, I completely agree with you. The patronizing TL;DR comments show that those folks haven't even been playing long, nor really care about the game.

Sad to say, maybe that's what all the "Soon™" hype was really all about.

I just keep coming back to watch SoE squirm.

The game stopped being "promising" as a beta last year.

Graphics: Dated.....dated shadows, dated lighting, poor textures....looks cool at night but everybody else is doing the night thing well now too so, dated. Edit: Don't tell me this is "because MMO" I've stood in large battles making clips where I spin around and then I count people......never seen more than about 60...in massive battles I see even fewer people due to the 5 meter cutoff yet I get dated graphics and performance as if everything is rendering.

Performance: The most bi-polar levels of performance in any game I've ever played. Every time I come back to check it out my framerates are completely unrelated to what I experienced when I played the month before. How do they manage that? I hope they never make a car! This week 700 Horsepower, next week 27 Horsepower because we added a cupholder!

Gameplay(this won't make sense): It's like first they were thinking teamwork but then they were thinking BF3's OP vehicles were cool but then they thought handing out ammo shouldn't reward many points but then they thought vehicles were OP but then they made vehicles cheap but then flak was too mongoloid levels of strong but then flak was pissing in the wind. Are you confused? Pick something and stick with it SoE, this isn't a beta! Oh wait.

Content: We got a fair bit of content.....player count suggests it wasn't the right new content.

Future: Does this game really have a future? It's not even going to attempt cross-platform, it hasn't dealt with weak player retention and I just don't see SoE having a plan. At this point if I were them I'd milk PS4 PS2 revenue then when it tanks like the PC version just walk away.

The worst problem of pre-lattice PS2 was that you could hardly find anyone to shoot at, because Hex was basically Ghostcapside. Lattice, which the OP seems to despise, largely fixed that by funneling zergs into each other instead of allowing them to run rampant in circles chasing each other's tails.

I disagree with people who thinks that Lattice is bad because it "castrated strategy" and "promotes mindless zerging". The points aren't necessary incorrect, but are not as bad as they make it out to be. Hex-era "strategy" basically calls for the oh-so-great strategists to direct his platoon(s) away from enemy platoon(s) and ghostcap their way around the continent, because it's naturally the most efficient way of capping things: Why attack head-on when you can just split into two, capping two bases on the zerg's sides while they cap the one base that you're at? Why defend a territory when you can divert your platoon to capture 4 empty bases at once? It is very effective, yet makes for a truly boring gaming experience (with the posiible exception of the grand strategist wannabe), which Lattice fixed by sacrificing some strategic factors in favor of forcing larger forces into clashing with each other, which is the entire bloody point of an FPS.

And people on the forums wonder why the devs don't listen to them, lol.

Nice dog though.

This, although hopefully SOE will wake the **** up to the fact of what they have with PS2 and divert some more man power into the game before they kill the game with their ****** administrative decisions, who even wants to play another dayz clone...

I understand how "Potential" gets thrown around at a lot of games. Especially at peak of Hype, IE: release.
We're seeing that with Destiny and Archeage especially right now.... Spoiler Alert though: they don't have it either.


I NEVER thought this game had tons of untapped potential. The first day I logged into it, I said to myself, "Yep this is it.... this game already lived up to every ounce of potential it had" and it's been slowly losing more and more of it as Hexes like Skydock were given jumpads and Tech Plants were made into Easy-Flip MAX conventions.... but especially the Lattice change which was originally motivated by Planetside-Universe Ps1 vets & outfits but then had the complete opposite effect of only making the Zerg even more all-controlling.


Just adding a few more vehicles or alerts here and there isn't going to change that pattern.

Good read, very earnest discussion of what I think the majority of players expected in planetside.
Planetside 2 player expectations are quite high.

Posted on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/2g5bqy/2_years_and_it_still_feels_like_apromising_beta/

Downvoted pretty much immediately and obviously before anyone could read it. 2/3 of responses so far admitted to not even reading it so... :/ Maybe it needs a more reddit friendly, less negative title, but oh well. I have no karma to lose anyway.

As for our disagreements -

"We have so many games out there that are casual that the market is absolutely inflated."

I think PS2 stands out in its own way, maybe enough to overcome that. Most casual shooters are more lobby based with small levels.

"Remember that this is an MMO and MMOs need to have sustenance of some kind to pay for themselves and elate players into the thinking this is their online home for years to come.
Other MMOs do this through a multitude of options on how to play - questing, achievements, grinding professions, unlocks, cosmetics, PVE, PVP, PVEVP, instanced/scenario Group PVE (ect ect).
PS2 is just like it's predecessor; it's entirely PVP and relies on Players solely for it's content. So you need to have systems in-place that still reward players with Progression, Depth and Investment to make the game last."

I'd argue PS2 is not a normal MMO, and players aren't necessarily looking for the same things most popular MMOs have. Some certainly are, I can't speculate on how many though. It does have to make $, and maybe it has to rely on whales but I'm not sure that's true. It'd be interesting to see what'd happen if they tweaked the system to make it more appealing to spend smaller amounts of money on the game(which could potentially make it less punishing for new players).

" So they need to buckle down, realize that large scale tactical shooters like PS1/PS2 are just not compatible with the masses and resort to making it a polished, smoothly designed niche game that caters to probably a market potential of 150,000 players max. It is what it is. Not every game is for everyone. Not every game can PLEASE everyone.
Its best to design the game with what it was intended to be and let the players come on their own. You'll get more loyal followers that way."


I only somewhat agree. My main point is that priorities should be different, with smooth and engaging basic gameplay coming before larger scale strategy elements. Because without the former, the latter ends up not being fun anyway. We're playing the game as individual soldiers in most cases and spending most of our time playing an FPS above all, even if what class/vehicle we're using and where we're using is a more strategic one. And if the FPS elements are good enough, it doesn't rely on as niche of a player-base - some would play it for the strategy and lead, others would play it for FPS combat and follow or lone wolf it. Plus, to work as a large scale strategy it needs all the players it can get - currently it's in a depressing state outside weekends and peak hours.

Ill make this quick as im only on my phone.

1 - what i mean by casual is "fad" iinfused. We dont need it. It already tried. It failed. Is too big. Casual games are made to play for 15 minutes and throw away in terms of pace. They are often very polished in many cases, because they are not so complex. CoD for example is very easy basic, rewards reckless fast paced matches and yet is polished and stable enough to promote pro level competitive play. I can tell you now that PS2 is incapable of meeting that level. Its attempt at MLG was a sad enough reminder. Theyd literally have to make another game within PS2 to do it and they almost did with the Nexus. May still be as well. Thats exactly the direction that makes it casual. Compartmentalizes itself in the hopes of reaching more casual masses. And at that level, it cannot compete. There are far better shooters out there suited to twitch gameplay that are balanced and use more stable engines.

2 - no its not. That why ibsaid what i said. Its not normal, and thats why they need to suck it up and reaize its a niche gsme tbat will only attract a niche player base of around 150,000. There for, in order to do what other games sccomplish, it needs to find different and unique ways to provide the same results ALL gamers look for. Progression, Depth and Investment. You cant have any MMO last without that. If your not wanting to play a persistant world, where you progress tbrough it, experiance its variety through depth of play or seeing returns on time or skill invested than an MMO is probably not the best course. what other reason is there to host a perpetually active, living game if you cannot grow in it.
So i think i just didnt explain myself well enough and i apologize.

3 - the core game play is tactical shooter of which its actually not to shabby. Its stale because its just an average high budget shooter with no back drop to shine light on it. What makes PS2 stand out is its size. But if that all it has, it wont hold (its already not). Scale changes everything. You cannot just take CoD MW3 and give it a 64 sq km map and 1600 player limit and assume all will be well. Itd break the game.
To have scale, you need to have other mechanisms which hold the design Together. You need a MACRO GAME (what player here call meta). And without it, there is no point in the scale. Its just wasted space.
I say this because ironically PS2 suffers from the same type of symptoms mediocre RTSs do. No consequence in logistics, bases and points of no value. Its just bum rushing with masses and spam. The exsct symptom thst kills bad rts games. I know this is an FPS but it is so large thst many RTS values breed directly over. There is a critical limit on the size you make the game that begins to break into new ground eith new issues once yoy cross them. PS1 habdled its new scales just fine and knew thst it still needed more work. PS2 went backwords and is suffering everyday from it. The devs (or the corporate bosses) did not respect the scale of the design, and it shows.

Anyways, sorry about the reddit. At least you know people see it right away. All we can donis be honest and move on.... Or sit and brood like me... Lol

Thank you, sir. You`re summing it up pretty the way I feel yout it.