Set up a server for people who want some realism.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Blackbird, Sep 9, 2014.

  1. Tuco

    That's all fine and dandy but we're still stuck in 1996 CTF Quake mode here, and the only way to get out of it is (manufacture, transportation, storage, and distribution) logistics. And nobody said every player has to take part in logistics, just the type of support players who like to play AMS, and throw down motion detectors. The grunts who like to "keep it simple" don't even have to know it exists.
  2. CipherNine

    You bring MMO critic cliches without bothering to understand what I'm actually saying.

    OK forget about Star Citizen. Do you think DICE used same combat model for Battlefield singleplayer and multiplayer or do you think they developed two different combat models from scratch?

    Now apply this line of reasoning to persistent world-instanced instead of singleplayer-multiplayer.
  3. Hatesphere

    what you are asking for requires considerable commitment from both the players and the programers. not only do you have to make the engine twice as complex to accomplish all these things, you also have to make it run well server side. On top of this you now have to hope you have attracted enough players to support the logistics side of the game for the non logistics side to have any fun. on top of that you have to make sure this new set of tools isn't just a license to troll.


    So how exactly do you propose designing a system that the majority of players somehow wont know exists but has a huge effect on quality of game play?
  4. Tuco

    It would take less. How many times has Indar bases been redesigned?
  5. Einharjar

    I whole heartedly agree. believe me. Arena style combat in a game with this much scale is horribly misplaced. But the issue stems from companies trying to make a buck their primary goal rather than making a game the best it can possibly be in its own niche and making a buck on the side.
    PS2 is so large in scale that new issues arise that otherwise would not happen in arena designs.

    They just have to realize that games like Planet Side are only going to attract on hold onto people whom are looking for that exact experiance (team work, combined armed, base capture, logistics, ect ect). PS1 even in its prime only attracted 75000 players. And yes some of that had to do with technology but im here to tell you thst connections didnt stop people from playing. Plenty of people had 56k modems. The devs quoted that in an interview.

    So SOE should not have changed the scope of PS2 to attept to attract masses of arena shooter players. They should have just realized that a bigger and more complex game will attract fewer and fewer players. The up side is, if you cater to that niche, those few players will all payout and be the most loyal: because you gave them exactly what they were looking for.


    And jjst to clarify, the resource revamp patches will bring logistics to the game. Players WILL have to drive in shipments of nanites and bases WILL have localized resource pools, rather than the current globalized pool you have now.

    That day is comming. Just wait a bit longer.
  6. Tuco

    Even arena shooters don't like being spawn camped 24/7. Simulating logistics would completely do away with spawn camping.

    And 1 player driving an ANT every 15 minutes is not logistics, it's Super Mario Brothers logistics. It's a cheesy gimmick that does nothing but infuriate players.
  7. Einharjar


    What the f__k does that even mean?

    Super Mario Brothers logistics?

    You mean we walk across free supplies just laying in the field for free all the time?

    Are you like, perpetually high?

    Do you not even see how WALMART deals with Logistics?

    Its called driving a truck full of fresh retail in EVERY SCHEDULED DELIVERY which at times is ALTERED DUE TO DEMAND (GASP! OMG! DEPTH)
    And WALMART is a REAAAALY bad example but even WALMART has more depth in logistics the ... Super... Mario... Bro... what the f__k...
  8. Typhoeus

    Wrong game man. Tell your friends to try out the Arma games. Sounds right up their alley.
  9. FBVanu

    There is no spawn camping or farming. Veterans do not get farmed.

    And if you want a more "realistic" game, let me have a tactical nuke, (400 Certs), so I can take out Indar
    with one little backpack...
    • Up x 1
  10. Flapatax

    Top kek. 9/10 OP.
  11. Tuco

    It's a gamey gimmick!
  12. Tyrant103

    I have a feeling you play BF4
  13. SpartanPsycho

  14. SpartanPsycho

    At least battlefield 3 was derpy and fun. battlefield 4 is derpy and unfun
  15. Jygal

    RANT INCOMING

    I'm sick and tired of people using "realism" as an excuse for suggestions like this. Nobody wants realism. Nobody. You think you do? All right, how about perma-death, being locked out of the game for days or months after a non-fatal injury, and week-long training courses before you can use any weapon other than the default pistol. Still want realism?

    No, you don't. You want realism if it improves your gameplay experience, and you otherwise don't. It's a game with tanks that appear out of nothing because nanites. I don't see you complaining about nanite spawning. Why? Because no one would play the game if you had to weld together your own tanks by hand, and do it all over again every time it was destroyed. Ridiculous? Yes. Realistic? Also yes. REALISM. DOESN'T. MATTER. Not in this game, not in most games.

    Whether the changes you suggest would actually improve gameplay is debatable (I think they wouldn't) but this garbage about realism is pathetic. It's just an attempt to somehow place the real world on the side of an otherwise weak argument.
    • Up x 2
  16. Bankrotas

    not realistic enough. Buy a new computer, new house and then we can talk realism.
    • Up x 1
  17. andy_m

    Brilliantly put. Thank you :)
  18. Ronin Oni

    LOL

    Most people play to be the commander of the logistics, not to be a peon.
  19. Saool

    Oh, and if you wanted to inject any form of realism into the PS2 scenario, then the first thing that would happen is people would stop killing. After all, they are just going to come back again.

    Instead, all weapons would become stun guns, tasers and other incapacitating weapons. Instead of killing your opponents, you take them out. Then someone comes along with the meat wagon and grabs all the living bodies and takes them to super prisons were they are kept in suspended animation. Unable to die and so unable to respawn.

    Pretty soon the whole planet just becomes a storage prison with an surviving side in control.
  20. Blackbird

    WOW the trolls .
    Don't remember posting anything about going to a hospital when shot or perma death .
    At no point did I imply I cant use a MBT . In fact I have Aurxiam in MBT
    Not trying to get a Insta Win Key . In fact I love farming this games excuse for tanks . That doesn't mean its right .

    What Im posting about is making a Tank a TANK . Not a Yugo with a potato gun mounted to the roof . You would need to spawn a another vehicle to counter the enemies vehicles or you would LOSE . As in there would be Tank battles . If infantry needed to take down a Tank it would take team work , multiple players working together . This game was to have tactics as it stands now and since the beginning we have to many One Man Armies !
    As it stands right now one LA with 25% of the tanks resource cost can easily destroy a tank ( Am I the only one finds that silly ? ) . When you hear people saying in Prox Chat " We need more people suiciding " as a battle strat , you KNOW there is a huge balancing issue . Now you either impose a death penalty of some kind or you can make a tank harder to take down .
    Everyone I know is sick of unloading their Mercies or Blueshifts into a HA chest and he still can aim , fire and hit you . Or some Medic running in front of a door way again while taking fire and throwing his grenade . This is where you need realism