Losing hope in PS2's potential.

Planetside 2 doesn't even really create that Planetside experience......

Which is why I omit the "2".

Uhg, replying inside a quote...really? To make things easy for you so I don't have to clean up your mess again, I will number my responses. Just reply outside the quotes and use the numbers.

1. Again, HOW does it turn them on their heads? You give no specifics on this. You know, I recognize that PS2 has some inherent core system problems, but I make real suggestions that can fix those problems without "turning everything on its heads". Here's an example:

[Suggestion] How to End Spawn Camping, Spawn Heroes, and Alamo Stand-Offs

2. You call THAT "working"? You seem to forget that players were only allowed to unlearn one thing at a time and had a six hour timer. If you wanted to free up more than a few certs, then you were looking at a whole day of waiting for a timer to expire. That is simply NOT going to fly in today's world. In the course of a single play session, I'll easily rotate through 3 or 4 classes. There's simply no way to give players that kind of flexibility with the old system.

I am sick to death of the "think of the children!" argument (championing the plight of the New Player). I recently started several alts after hitting BR100 on my main. The gear is not what hurts new players, it's the learning curve. I can kill streak again and again with with a toon fresh out of the tutorial. So don't give me that crap. It's a bogus argument. The PS2 devs have done an outstanding job of flattening out the progression system and giving new players all the tools they need to survive and excel.

3. If 96+ vs 96+ isn't "your cup of tea", then boy are you in the wrong place. There are PLENTY of games out there that offer the 12v12 infantry only experience. And frankly, they do it better. Planetside is where you come to get the MASSIVE WARFARE fix. Nothing else does what Planetside does. But conversly, Planetside doesn't do what THEY do. If you want a strict 24v24 match over a limited area with no surprises, then I recommend Battlefield 2142. That is an excellent "knock off" of Planetside with "controlled environment" you're looking for.

4. The maps are limited because the team went back and rebuilt the game TWICE. Now that they've gotten the core game hammered out and the PS4 launch on the doorstep, we're going to be seeing a lot more progress in the form of new continents. People act like "This is it. They've carved it in stone." and that's just not true. I would not be surprised if we saw Searhus by August.

I don't know what you mean by "all warpgates are created equal".

Warpgate ownership is a better alternative to Sanctuaries. I've been saying this since beta. Sanctuaries were wasted server capacity.

Who's to say the devs don't have the ability to tilt the pop advantage towards the home team? You could even go one better and make the pop limits dynamic so that the home continent always has a place for that factions players by remove spawn options for enemy players if the slot is needed for the home team.

5. You are very wrong there. Many player want this game to function like an RTS. I don't think you give the players or the devs enough credit. There are MANY instances where people complain about resource over-abundance. Those players would welcome a dwindling resource system based on distance from your warpgate. Such a system would pave the way for ANT runs and other logistics.

6. If you'll remember, Planetside 1 was a ball of bandaids. And you seem to think that is what the devs should be aiming at. I've listened to the same streams you have. I'm excited about what Higby was talking about. And he was just spit-balling ideas. People need to allow the devs (not just Higby) to throw ideas out and get feedback without acting like it's Moses coming down off the mountain with a couple of stone tablets in his hands. You know what I get out of those streams? They obvious joy and passion for this game that the devs have. They are working to make a game worth playing. Frankly, I think they've done an amazing job so far and unlike you, I am extremely optimistic about where Planetside is going.

At the risk of getting banned again, I will say that I think the biggest problem is that the players are a bit spoiled. They take this amazing thing for granted. SOE and the Planetside team are doing what nobody else is even attempting to do. They are actually DOING it. We can play this thing RIGHT NOW. Nobody else is even trying. That is an amazing thing, and people need to remember that.

Dude..... Your last X days, weeks, months of life, and still here on these forums. You should be petting penguins at a zoo, or something cool like that.

It's much easier than copy/pasting paragraphs or constantly scrolling up.

1. The progression system (directives, certs) is permanently focused on getting kills. You can put the 1-5% XP gain that comes from playing the objective on a pedestal, but you can't say it's actually relevant to gameplay.

1.5 The strategic gameplay is round-based. It's a grand scale session shooter, and a session shooter will never have a "metagame". The entire game is built on the session shooter model. The directive system encourages you hop from fight to fight playing for kills without any regard for objectives, and the cert system encourages the same.

1.75 I literally have a folder containing a ton of gameplay mechanic ideas thrown up in MSPaint. I've already come up with half a million crazy ideas to make this game better. Few, if any of them would actually play out well if implemented. The optimism just isn't there anymore.

2. Most of the certs in PS1 follow a tree. You just had to unlearn the pre-requisites instead of the higher level certs, and then you would get most of your points back at once. Even if you had, say Data Corruption certed, you could just forget Hacker and that's it, you get the certs from hacker, advanced hacker, expert hacker, etc. And you could always just create different characters for specific roles, if need be. This is how I handle my PS2 alts. Doubly so for PS1.

2. As for flexibility, we'll have to disagree there. I probably spend 80% of my playtime as a heavy. I have little reason to play any other class other than to auraxium a specific weapon. I rarely even switch to engineer when I pull vehicles these days. As for new player experience, I definitely will disagree with you there. I'm not fond of having to invest most of my certs with new characters into upgrading default gear to adequacy. I don't like being able to directly upgrade equipment in a game where there's already so much junk to unlock. Sidegrades are one thing that I can get behind, but I just don't think the cert tree system does any good. Would be much better if utilities/tools didn't have a "rank1-4/1-6" and it was all on the same level from the get-go. I hate switching from my BR100 to my BR20 and feeling less powerful across the board despite using all the same equipment.

3. I like to enjoy my time with the game. This means the game needs to be playable. 96+ fights are not playable. That's when the frames drop to 30 and below, I as a player can't do anything meaningful in that fight, and the base I am fighting at is way over carrying capacity. 24v24 and 36v36 are optimal fights in PS2, depending on the base. Once it gets bigger than that, I'm out. I can't enjoy the game if I can't aim and everything I do is pointless. I play PS2 for my territory-based PVP FPS fix. I stopped needing the size fix years ago. And if the game is going to force me to grind kills on infantry weapons to progress the way I want to, then I certainly am going to hate it when there are force multipliers everywhere getting in the way of that.

For the record, Battlefield and CoD are not my cup of tea. I prefer shooters like Crysis Wars or Star Wars Battlefront, games where you have big maps and specific strategic locations to fight over, and it's the fun of the core gameplay that keeps you coming back and not obligations to some cumulative progression system.


4. PS2's gameplay is focused on fighting in the continents rather than between the continents. Things wouldn't exactly be great if they suddenly switched that around without any other changes. Every map is built around the three-way system. That system would not play well under intercontinental lattice. And, their current setup flat out will not work. They either need to remove a continent from the game, add another warpgate to each home continent, or move the home base from a warpgate on your home continent to the central base on your home continent. If they don't, then warpgates will not function as they need to function for proper inter-continental play to work. As things are planned now, having access to one warpgate gives you access to four other warpgates, when it should only be one other warpgate.

On the subject of new continents, it doesn't matter. Back before Hossin came out, everybody thought that Hossin's release would "save the game". We all know how that played out. It doesn't matter how many continents they add. It's just adding more maps into the rotation. The novelty will die fast.

5. Those players lack awareness of the game they're playing. RTS elements and FPS elements will not blend perfectly. Resources work in RTSs because you're controlling AI, and you are using it against other AI. Resources will never play out well in a PVP FPS setting. ANTs would harm PS2 far more than it would ever help it. As another player put it, the vast majority of the playerbase isn't interested in playing euro truck simulator. Economics and logistics aren't relevant to the meta of a fast-paced shooter. If it were ARMA maybe, but not here.

6. I don't think the devs should be aiming at anything. This game isn't going anywhere as far as I'm concerned. Bring on the Planetside 3. I'm just pointing out that bandaids is what they're doing and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. While I enjoy tuning into streams and hearing all the great ideas they have for the game, I've been following this game religiously since day 1. I've seen where it always goes. They'll decide on something they want to do with the game, and either never do it, or give us a half-baked version of it a year and a half later and never touch it again, then move on to the next thing. I've had nothing but optimism for this game for two years, and I've just about run out. The monotony has finally started getting to me.

I wouldn't quite start throwing around "consumer entitlement" just yet. If there were alternatives to Planetside 2, I wouldn't be here spending all this time on these giant walls of text. It's because of the high expectations and large emotional investment that so many of us are becoming disillusioned with the game.

It's almost 4 AM soon over here. I need a break.

I've lived more in twenty years than most people have in sixty, I'm in no rush.

The relative peace and quiet is nice.

Besides, forumside is a goldmine of lulz. A lulzmine if you will.

2 cents from me..

PS2 is running with DirectX 9 (!), SOE´s engine LightForge is missing the implements of mantle. Wonder why, because Sony´s console playstation 4 is running with lots of AMD (graphical components)). Most graphic engines are having implemented mantle or their devs are busy to implement it. - Mantle = modern, open, dynamic. DirectX = old, filled with patents and copyrights, static.

And btw.. I am using Nvidia. But even i know that mantle is the better solution. Today and in future.

Issues of PS2´s future are easily discussed and decided at reddit, a third party joke. They know each other and with ease some objects are changed at current preference.

"Uhh, i am JackHack, well known Reddit, Facebook and Twitch hipster-zar. At the Moment i am flying and ESF in PS2. It´s cool but the ESF is too lame. Buff it please. And the AA is too strong if they shoot at me, nerf it please. My 111 followers will push my wishes because i am their outfit leader" -- "Ahh, you can do some promotion for us. Yes, we will buff and nerf that for you, ok, ok. Please, stay with PS2 and do what you want at your will. We are so happy to see a hipster-zar playing our stuff.

Maybe it could be called lobbyism but i call it corruption. A corrupted game. Here are the forums, not at Reddit or Facebook. Maybe i am old-fashioned but that is what i think. And feel.

Some very thoughtful posts in this thread where the poster has really considered what is wrong with this title, yet most of it is far too deep and thoughtful.

The fundamental problem with this title is that when the developers sat down x years ago they omitted one crucially vital component of their planning - a game.

That is it. That there is no game. A video game with no game. A video game with masses of vehicles, aircraft, more weapons than you can count over 4 continents and hundreds of players all at once. With no reason.

No spawn tickets, no round end, no capture the flag points, no resource benefit to owning a base, no real resource benefit to locking a continent that most players would notice. Nothing.

And that they have always sold it as being the successor to chess that will make that look like noughts and crosses, which in itself has caused so many confused and disillusioned players.

And that 2 1/2 years later there still is no game or reason.

They failed at the game designing stage, they omitted it, missed it, didn't understand it, whatever you want to call it. That is it and for 30 months they have done everything they can not to put any game in, maybe even spending vast amounts of effort to avoid it past what it would have taken to achieve.

That is it - there is no game and it fails to meet it's most basic and vital reason to exist. And it has done since the first line of code was written.

i wish they went ahead with planetside next which was meant to be an update for planetside 1

if they put the shooting mechanisms from ps2 (the way infantry and vehicles shoot their weapons which was pretty crappy in ps1) into the gameplay and everything else of planetside 1 it would have been an awesome game

ps2 has the shooting mechanics done nicely (in comparison to ps1) but just about everything else is just a shadow of how good ps1 was

Many people suggest to look from publisher's point of view, well lets try that. Main PS2 population sits on 5 servers with 8k players limit each. Even at 2xXP weekend we never see all 4 continents full, so project has only what 100-20 thousands regular players and some passersby? From publisher's POV, big MMO with so tiny population is total failure. Average MMO from big company can barely live at 100k+ players. Moderate success claims start at like half a million.

So from business POV all these SOE decisions are bad, from players POV they are bad, maybe they really are just bad and we can stop think of excuses for SOE?

While I agree on most of what you said, I think I'll be in retirement if not already dead and buried by the time we'll see new continents. 1 year has passed between Hossin announcement and the first implementation. Battle Islands appeared in a video months ago and then they have been mothballed. No one knows if they will ever be implemented.

Seriously we gotta get used to the idea it will be Esamir / Hossin / Indar / Amerish for long long time.

Said that I also lowered my expectations about Planetside 2 like doombro did, but for different reasons. My main concern is that in order to catch most of youngest players SOE screwed the depth of the Planetside franchise to make the game easier to lean, but also brutally less smart. Planetside 1 wasn't just about farming and zerging, you could really feel that coordination and good organization mattered. In PS2 they just matter less. A lot less actually.
This game does not reward planning and strategic thinking and clearly it's not in devs minds to make it such. Probably it has never been. Then many important features are not completed after 2 years and many have been removed from the roadmap. BTW: we don't even have a roadmap for the coming months.

Think about it... they never imlemented intercontinental lattice, they simplified resources system twice but then they postponed the rest and we don't know when (and IF) it will ever come. The created the backbone of mission system that has never been implemented (forgotten again like domeshields, max flamethrowers, ES buggies, battle islands, drones and tons of other things). Last but not least they release a redeploy system that screws good fights and make transport vehicles almost useless.

PS2 it's still a good shooter, but it will never be better than it is now.

Just because some players say they are bad it does not mean all players think the same. Then if that's really bad for business this is something only the SOE's top manangement knows.
If you want my 50cents, considered what they did with Star Wars Galaxies, they have very little idea of what is good for business and how to make good games.

New continents wouldnt help anyway, current 4 are too similar and future ones will be same. I dont see map designer suddenly making huge gaps between fortress-like bases, each with important function.

Yes, not all think they are bad, only those hordes who quitted and a noticeable portion of those who stayed. Which makes them majority, i guess.
SWG was changed in same direction as WoW - everybody is a hero, life is easy - which makes perfect sense economically. Their mistake was changing established game with opposite principles instead of making new one.

I think you're wrong there in thinking that ps1 didn't have intense action, it did. What it didn't have was intense and constant action (unless perhaps you were the type of player who went looking for it maybe, ie didn't defend hacks but moved straigh-away to the next base).

The way I have summarised it previously, ps1 = quick slow quick slow - whereas ps2 = quick quick quick quick. Some people can't take the slow, some people think quick all the time is too much.

In terms of what I expected from ps2 it would be the same type of game as ps1 with differences in the way things were done. I'd imagine people who are looking towards a BF5 would have an expectation of what kind of game they're going to get and within certain bounds they'd get it.

Honestly, after playing PS1 for a good 10-15 hours straight a few weeks ago, the gunplay really grew on me. It reminds me a lot of Star Wars Battlefront, except it has a bit more freedom of movement and a longer time to kill. And SWBF is a fantastic game. The weapon models, animations, visual/sound effects are all excellent. I think if PS1 had better UI (especially those hitmarkers), a lot more control customization (raw mouse input for christ's sake), and some restrictions to ADAD, it would easily top PS2 in terms of combat. I loved how every encounter felt important. In PS2 it just constantly feels like you're wading through cannon fodder, never facing any real challenges.

yeah right....
Someone who leads a rich and full life doesn't need to come here for "lulz". The drama here is poor compared to other mmo communities and non existent compared to real life.

I think this game has had its day. Alot of players will just move on to other games and get into them, but i think the constant changing of the mechanics of the game has caused alot of people to get simply fed up. Its not cool when you spend 1000 certs on a weapon which then gets redesigned completely or nerfed to the point of it being not worth the 1000 certs anymore thats just not good for business overall.

Another thing is that the server pop is getting rather unbalanced these days. Right now on Miller its 38% NC and just 28% TR world pop, its a huge difference in this game when you are outnumbered, yet the compensation is rather minimal. Regardless of what the cont you are fighting on because of the low pop other factions will take advantage of this as like i said outnumbering the other side is a major thing in this game, so you are mostly forced to fight at a major disadvantage whilst getting just a small reward for doing so? this for me generally leads to frustrating gameplay in terms of getting absolutely stomped romped base after as base because my faction cant fight 2 factions who want to stomp you back to the warpgate whilst you don't have the manpower to stop them.//

This then creates a reaction within the playerbase that alot of the players will again get fedup of constantly fighting at a handicap and getting very little for doing so and will move onto another faction if they have an account. Which just makes the whole problem even worse. There needs to be more incentive for players to remain or switch factions to fight on a low pop faction ie more bonus.

Well, I think that's what people mean when there's no "meta" -- no overarching game.

There's still a game in the sense of a traditional shooter.
TF2: capture all the points, round over.
PS2: capture all the points, base capture over.

It's just that TF2 starts over on a new map with a new round whereas in PS2 you stay in the game and drive to the next "round". So PS2 is no worse than TF2 or any other shooter in terms of "having a game". It has plenty of game. It has more than TF2. What it doesn't have is the same thing TF2 doesn't have, which is meta-game.


....and actually even that's not totally true. Capturing a base does have some strategic meaning. It's just very fleeting. You can go to lunch and come back to a different map. Nothing you do survives overnight. There's a meta, but it's very, very small. Still more than TF2 (and is part of why I play PS2 and not TF2) but that's not saying much.


The problem just isn't fixable, though, and I don't think they should try. If they want an MMOFPS with a meta-game, they need to hit the drawing board and build a totally new game. It can probably use the PS2 combat and graphics engine but world design would have to be radically different.

PS2 is round-based on a strategic scale. Once an alert pops up, you're forced to leave that continent after two hours, and you can't do anything about it until it rolls back into the server's "map rotation". Continent locking and alerts really deprive the game of its persistence aspect.

Never lived a rich and full life, my life is/was actually pretty dismal on reflection. The definition of ill-spent youth. But I did have the "privilege" of having many experiences few others do, experiences I'd rather not live through again or wish on anyone else. It was pretty wearying to be frank. Now I'm content to use the internet for amusement and fade away in peace. Pretty relaxing actually.


Forumside is easily one of the more toxic and unsupportive fanbases I've seen though, and I've seen Sonic and Eve Online at their worst (Sonic Heroes and Incarna, lololol). This is probably one of the least constructive official forums ever. Talking in game over /yell is also fun.

And I take it you were not present for BCP, Dramattherson or the World Series events?