Losing hope in PS2's potential.

Procedurally generated = bland (in my experience). Give me one planet with a lot of care and consideration put into it's design over a quintilion minecraft worlds any day of the week.

I still am playing the game freelancer from 2000.
Will I still be playing planetside2 in 2026, I doubt it..

Jesus, how old are you? 0.o

Age has nothing to do with it, unfortunately.

So sad man.

It's not that sad. It will bring me long-awaited relief, and maybe I'll finally get some ******* sleep.

Still, I'm not dead yet, and there's still some /yell to abuse. All is good in the world. Except for all those things that are bad.

That's good to hear

Gaming were different back then. Most of the stuff we played were "our first." For me no MMO will ever measure up to Everquest 1. Other feel the same about PS1 or Guild Wars. Same with FPS games, and I still got back to the original Counter-Strike or Quake1. When you speak with younger generations they do not speak of RPGs which were iconic for us back in the day(Fallout series, System Shock1-2, or forgotten realm's games like Baldur's gate) but will probably look back with a fond nostalgia to games such a Mass Effect or Skyrim.

I do understand the disappointment of those who played PS1 with PS2. PS1 was more of a proper MMORPFPS in its progression and depth, while PS2 focus on being more of a twitch shooter on a large scale while have little to none of the depth of PS1. SOE needs to refine the membership benefits(and fast) and impliment a proper resource system with importance given to each and every base(so each lane becomes less of "where should be push today?" and more "We need this benefit/resource!).

Currently, no matter what you do to the resource system, boosts to resources will upset the balance, which might in turn label PS2 as P2W. Even though the win-state is more of a long term thing(alerts, cont caps, etc).

PS1 didn't have an end-game because of content for max rank players. PS1 had an end-game because the base game was satisfying enough for people to play the game for many years. This game is burning, and every update they release is just fanning the flames. The more they build it up, the harder it will be to put out. And it will eventually reach a melting point.

Honestly, I don't think there are enough cosmetics. I feel like they need to shift focus away from camos for a moment and focus on armor types. 2 years in, and a fine scholarly gentleman in Player Studio has finally managed to submit a helmet that greatly resembles one of the PS1 TR helmets. It took 2 years. And there's still no armors that really scratch that itch for me either. The anniversary armor is the best so far in terms of coverage and color, IMO. I really hate TR's current look. Rather than being red, black, and ultra oppressive, they look like ugly copper, grey medieval knights in swimming pool helmets. The armor in PS2 just seems totally without purpose. PS1's armor actually looked and functioned as futuristic exosuits.

I feel like my quote in my signiture is pretty accurate about PS2.

*Heavy breathing*

Must....not.....link.....SONG....

Okay, screw it, hate me if you want....NVM can't find it, probably for the best.

On this point I think PS1 players have missed the point of resources. There is absolutely nothing magical about limiting how many vehicles are on the battlefield based on whether the player has it certed or not. You can get the same result by limiting through resources.


Example:

Cert Method: 20% of the population can pull MBTs, 100% ability to repeatedly pull based on average 5 minute life time = average 20% MBTs on the map constantly.

Resource Method: 100% of the population can pull MBTs, 100% resources back every 25 minutes, average 5 minute life time per 25 minutes (1/5 up time) = average 20% MBTs on the map constantly

That's assuming literally everyone wants to pull MBTs.


Apart from the lack of depth, the simple reason the current system isn't working is because everyone has so many resources. It's like looking at a version of PS1's system but with so many certs you could take almost everything at once and then concluding there's no way for it to work.


They're both systems designed to limit availability, we just happen to be swimming in resources so there isn't the scarcity necessary to make it work.

The problem with the resource system is that it limits availability for everybody. PS1's cert system limits only the people who make the choice to be limited, in exchange for more power elsewhere. I'll take the latter any day.

YES. THANK YOU. SOMEONE WHO GETS IT.

To be clear, I'm being frank here and don't mean to pick a fight. You're not the only one to support the cert system. My point was to disprove the idea that PS1's system of creating scarcity was the best thing since sliced cheese.

You've moved the goal posts, now accepting that it can limit players where before you emphatically said that it couldn't. Okay, the fact that it limits everyone is a bit of a downside but so was the fact that PS1's system forced you to play whatever you chose until you could re-cert (how often was that, daily?). Looks like equal problems with both to me.

I think the best solution would be somewhere in-between PS2's flexibility and PS1's dedicated roles. Essentially, the game would support a small number of dedicated tankers, for example, but your ability to pull tanks would be severely reduced if all the players with flexible play-styles suddenly decided to grab tanks at the same time (or a PL ordered them to).

SOE would have to add in some more complexity but it's all in the realm of possibility. Like changing prices based on how many vehicles are pulled - something I'm pretty sure they mentioned once. I could probably come up with a rough system in a few days but it would be entirely useless since we don''t even have the foundations of the Resource Revamp yet.

You never spell out what you think the "core broken foundation" actually is. The closest you ever come to actually saying what is bothering you are these side-swipes:

What is the alternative? Arbitrarily locking people out of content? Even PS1 had the ability to re-cert, or swap avatars. I can see it being very frustrating to players to build a system in which you have no option to combat the enemies' tactics. "Well, the enemy has pulled a bunch of ESFs, but I spent my limited resources on being a light assault and tank driver, so I have no way to combat them." In fact, PS1 ended up raising the cert cap for that very reason.

That's completely false. I rarely redeploy and I always have a fight to be in. Generally, when I login I just go to the place it picks for me and just start fighting. Win or lose, I go from one base to the next. Either I catch a ride from a passing AMS or I spawn a vehicle of my own. Redeploy-side is a product of players who can't stand to lose, and only play for farming.

Where do you get that? There's nothing stopping an intercontinental lattice from happening.

The ONLY major challenge to a meaningful resource system is the danger of putting empires on a "slippery slope" from which they cannot escape. This is why the "Resource Revamp Phase 1" was enacted in the first place. The Phase 1 prevents warp-locked empires from being resource starved as well. The obvious solution is a logistics system which chokes resources from the winning empire the farther they get from their own warpgate.

I guess the thing that bugs me about your post is that it's this long gloom-and-doom rant without any insight into what you think should be done. It's "all problems, no solutions."

The resource system limits chainpulls, but it doesn't limit access. My point was that as long as everybody has access, spam can and will happen. I do agree that a cross between the cert and resource system would be the best solution; allow players to choose something they're dedicated towards that they can only switch every so often, and they'll get large resource discounts in that area. It's a simple concept that supports differing playstyles.

The key problem is spam, which is fine; if the players allow it to be. The problem with tank zergs and air squads is that you can't do anything against them without a tank zerg or air squad of your own. On Emerald, this problem runs wild. NC and VS will spam vehicles for days, while TR will keep foot zerging for the most part. It's frustrating because there's nothing I can do about it as an individual player. Due to high resource costs, pulling an MBT of my own to combat a tank zerg is just not worthwhile from a cost/benefit standpoint. I like PS1's approach to this, because there is no cost to pulling vehicles. If you pull a tank to kill an enemy tank and get blown up, it's no big deal at all.

People just expect too much of PS2.

It's a shooter meant for immediate and constant action. When you start talking about meta, you're talking about a totally different game on a totally different map with a totally different design behind it from the ground up. The basic combat engine could stay the same but the entire world and all world mechanics would require a completely new game that ends up with a completely different feel.


Some of you should go try Battleground Europe (the game formerly known as World War 2 Online). It's basically what you think you want -- an MMOFPS with a strategic meta-game behind it. But it's more of a simulation. You might find yourself camping out for literally hours with no action, because you really want to defend an important area that, once lost, may be lost forever. You just can't have Planetside style 10 minute base caps in a game meant to have week-by-week strategic meta. We'd make base caps take 2 hours in order to better work with the strategic meta and I bet that most of you complaining about the lack of meta would instead complain that "capping takes too long and is too boring".

Yeah, well, that's what you get.

EVE has fantastic meta. EVE is also, frequently, one of the most hideously boring games ever made. It's a side-effect of having a really deep meta: someone has to guard this warpgate because we can't risk letting enemies just come through because in a deep meta game, that has long-lasting consequences. Welcome to boredom, population: you.

I would love to see a deep game with a Planetside engine but you need to realize you'd lose most of what you probably find to be fun in this game. I think it's really more like "Intense Action or Deep Meta: pick one". PS2 is intense action, which necessitates a shallow meta.

If you think you know how to make an intense action game that also has a deep meta, then you're probably sitting on a $100 million idea or better (or your idea is woefully flawed, but you can't see it).

I came to this game to play anything but shoot-dudes-in-really-cramped-maps. Whether that be fighting for stretches of land or sky on foot or in a vehicle, I just wanted to enjoy the open space which the game has plenty of. However, the trivialization of vehicles both attack and transport, constant spam of gimmicky weapon designs, and the lack of any meaningful meta left a stale taste in my mouth, and I just stopped coming back. The game feels the same no matter how many times you play it, and I just got sick of it after a year and a half.