You aren't critical, most of the people you spit on are critical. All you do is spout your opinion and often seem to miss the entire purpose of certain features in the game or people's words in general.
because he's a terrible player with all of 30 hours played, but somehow understands every aspect of the game.
It should have the command tools of an RTS game, like Starcraft or CnC. It should have the persistency and immersion of an RPG, like Fallout or Skyrim. It should have the infantry game of ARMA. It should have the air game of War Thunder. It should have the tank game of World of Tanks.
You shouldn't have to find the purpose of something in a game. That means you can go around it, which means it's not really needed it just "might be cool". A game HAS to be cool by default when you play, you shouldn't have to make it cool by doing cheesy features or joining some special outfit, or any ******** like that.
Add the graphical improvements/ netcode etc to planetside 1 along with the infantry weapons along with the empire specific aircraft. Take the good parts of the Prowler and Vanguard and import them, PS2's mag has no redeeming features over the original, ditch the driver = main gunner on the tanks and make the driver have a secondary gun (aka basilisk etc) and give the main gun to the gunner. Improvements that Planetside 1 had Global lattice / map with 10 continents and about 6 caves NTU which meant that bases could go neutral if under siege for more than 3 hours, yes no more 10 minute fights but actual hours and not necessarily x hours trying to break into a bio farm, but with actual layers of progression to the fight. Stage 1 Getting to the base Stage 2 Getting the Tower Stage 3 Getting the Courtyard Stage 4 Getting into the lobby building / back door (ahh those happy days with a lasher waiting for the TR/NC in that corridor) Stage 5 Getting to the CC / Spawn room / generator Stage 6 Holding the hack for 10/15 minutes whilst the defenders can instantly cap the base back Relatively balanced but generally much much much better tank combat Ways to stop 1 empire from steam rolling as the further away from a warp gate means the longer the supply runs to top bases up would be and if that interlink with 20% NTU isn't topped up and a spec ops team is breaking almost everything there...
- Perhaps should you try to get a single toe outside of your "zergs only" gameplay (that's how you define the only "gameplay" you actually know. And you're the one talking about "cheezy") ? But take care, it's a wild life outside confortable zergs. - Perhaps should you wait for more than a single day of gameplay on a single character (with awful stats, by the way) before claiming what PS2 HAS to be and what others' opinions HAVE to be ? - Perhaps should you stop barking on all forum threads, while recycling others' opinions in order to make them as yours. Then throwing those arguments at others' face like your own basic truth? - Perhaps should you try to be a bit more polite with others, especially with more "qualified" / older contributors ? (I'm not even including me among those). - Perhaps should go deeper in the game than having a single Vanu character ? Perhaps should you try to unlock stuff, try to build your own gameplay, try to improve, try different factions, making yourself in a position where you'd be able to compare stats, weapons, vehicules, Factions gameplays and overall balance?... Perhaps should you try to play the game more than 1 single day before trying to express any opinion about it ? It may help. By the way, i'm happy to notice that you are still here, playing this "awful asymetrical" game. I thought you'd leave after telling us how this game was rubbish and how its Devs were totally unskilled.
Perhaps should you learn that "veteran players" doesn't mean **** and in the gaming industry there is no seniority, be it in playtime or contributions.
To be fair, "veteran players" have this thing called "brand loyalty". And players with "brand loyalty" are more likely to stick with a game even if there are some difficulties with it. Players who are more likely to stick with a game and make it to a certain BR are more likely to spend money on a F2P game. And in the gaming industry, players who spend money on a F2P game do indeed have "seniority" over players who do not contribute financial support to the game. I'm not saying that non-veteran players don't spend money on the game (I never played PS1 and I've spent a significant deal on PS2), but certainly there is a greater chance that a veteran player who loves the Planetside franchise might stick around longer than someone who has no connection to the IP.
No, vets are usually people who have played the game long enough to grasp the bigger picture. It's apparent from your posts that you aren't to that point yet. Not trying to be dismissive though, your insights are important as well. You bring insight into the new player experience, which is fundamental to the game's survival. The key is to give new players what they want while still offering a compelling experience for those with hundreds or thousands of hours invested. It's an important balance not to be taken lightly.
Brand loyalty would matter in an economy maybe 20 years ago, but the way you sell games to kids is giving them something temporary to love, then have them leave and you develop their next temporary enjoyment. This is due to this generations instant gratification, but still, you can't pick the consumers, so you have to stick with them. That's what PS2 fails at.
Planetside 1 was a game that came out in 2003... meaning that people who played that game played it 12 years ago. I think it's important to note that while generations might change, gamers themselves tend not to on an individual basis. A gamer from 2003 will probably have the same traits they had back then, so "brand loyalty" remains important. Particularly as unlike the youth of today, a gamer who is 12 years older has a bit more disposable income to spend. Arguably PS2 has failed because it didn't stick to its core fundamentals and instead tried to turn itself into a CoD/BF clone. This is a guaranteed losing strategy, because among the younger, instant-gratification types you'll never be able to wrest them from CoD/BF. You simply cannot out-CoD CoD. On the other hand PS2 alienated a significant portion of the player base which would have stuck with it, the "veteran players". All these people wanted was an improved PS1, with better graphics, slightly better balancing, and with the same deep gameplay mechanics. But they didn't get this, so a good portion of them probably left. So I would say PS2 failed because it tried to compete where it was not strong, and neglected its true strengths and potentials. That's a basic recipe for failure that happens a lot when a franchise or a company wants to "reinvent" itself to chase some other demographic. The final nail's not in the coffin yet though. With signs of increasing complexity (resource harvesting and logistics) there may still be a chance for PS2.
AKA every dev ever's dream game... Myself included. No lie, ask any game dev or designer, and he'll likely say something along these lines. I'm curious though, how would you balance the lack of direct unit control against player free will if you had that SC/CnC command system in PS2? Thats a big part of the trouble of blending FPS/RTS games; Where do you draw the line of control? Who do you give agency to, and who do you take it away from, or should you take it away it all? How would you enforce orders if at all? Would it really be any fun for a player to be entirely railroaded to every waypoint if the enforcement is too strict? In traditional RTS games, this is easy, it goes to the god player in control of the faction... So... Who is in control of VS...? TR? What about NC? I think thats a big reason we got the compromise of the leadership system we have now; to take a step towards the concept, while not falling down the rabbit hole.
None of that. While I disagree with a lot of what he says, thats no reason to go out of your way to bash him. No need to get this thread locked as well.
