ANT will be the death of PS2

how soon will ANT get nerfed?
how the sh"t can you nerf somthing like that?

The question isn't whether the point is all that matters. Obviously, in the current state of the game the only things that matter are the capture point and the spawn point. Gal-dropping directly on the point is the most effective way to capture a base, redeploy-hopping into the spawn room with a giant zerg is the most effective way to re-secure a base, and spawn camping is the most effective way to hold a base against a resecure attempt. This is well known.

The question is whether that state of affairs is a good thing. I for one say no, and see the introduction of base-building as one step towards changing that situation. Other things that will help are reducing the prevalence of spawn rooms so that we don't have to spend so much time camping them, and revamping the capture system to encourage fighting over the entire area instead of racing to cram more people into a 5mx5m room than your enemy.

I think it's unfortunate that they've chosen to add more content, rather than fix what is already in the game. It's already a bloated mess when it. Don't get me wrong, I like the ANT concept, but the game needs to be fixed before adding more stuff that is probably going to be broken. It's like they are p imping out a rundown old station wagon, and expecting people to not see if for what it really is because it has big subwoofers and a PS4.

I wasn't aware the game was broken or bloated.

If DBG listening to everyone's idea on how to "fix the game", we'd look at something like this:

I assume this is a response to my post where I said exactly that.

In Monopoly you have a clear-cut sign of victory. The game ends, one player has all the money. Chess has one player win as well etc.
In FPS games you usually have a clear-cut victory as well. One team has won through the most points and skill, the match ends, players are divided again in (usually) two groups and they go at it again in maps that are designed to give each as much as possible the same advantages and disadvantages. It's balanced as much as they can. You can see how did the most for that victory by checking the points and stats of the players.

PS2 doesn't have that. Matches don't end, there's no way to see clearly who did the most. That player with the most points? He could have done nothing but sit on a hill and throw HE rounds and infantry, while there's a player with 4 kills and 20 deaths that actually broke the stalemate and actually secured the victory. Then there's the fact that fights are almost guaranteed to be skewed as one team is more likely to have a superior position or numbers. And then there's the fact that while you were taking one base, you also lost another somewhere else on the map. And there's the fact that players have little individuality. Capturing a point is a team effort, blowing up a generator is "first come first serve" but still means that a team usually has to protect it. There are no flags to carry, no things to blow up solo except maybe some tanks which are easily replaced. Rarely is a single player responsible for victory.

And that's the problem, victory in PS2 is divided across everyone in the team. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, you can't point to an event where an individual did something that won it. There's only a few solitary instances with heavy teamplay where small squads or outfits can create a win, but even then it's a group effort. Victories aren't visible to others, blow up the Sunderer? Well no one is going to know, even the enemy rarely knows who blew it up. Secure a decisive victory by destroying half a vehicle Zerg? Well no one will know, even the players who got killed by you will have forgotten your name by the time they spawn again.

But chess and monopoly can just as easily be viewed as a series of battles that restart and are done over and over again. I guess you can have your stats, same as PS2. I played UT a lot and the thing about that game was that sure it was an arena, it had a clear winner and loser per round, but it was just anonymous faces on the internet and no sooner did a match end, the next one started. And nobody really cared who did what there either. PS2, sure you may not get recognition from the masses for what you accomplished there either. But it's more likely that some little corner of the player base will comprehend it and give you a little pat on the back. How many chess games are won and lost daily and nobody cares? Ultimately you play any game because it entertains YOU. Who cares if someone else knows what you did or not.

Yes exactly, and PS2 doesn't have that, which is my point.

And at the end you saw who had the most points and fought the hardest, which was kind of the point for many players. Which makes your following point mute:

Yes they did.

And part of that recognition is in statistics and accomplishments. If you can't feel like the accomplishment is yours or even noticed, even if you were the most important person of the entire battle, then you will dislike it.

PS2 has a solid shooting core, but too little variation in the approach and tactics. That's what I'm saying.

Just hit your tab button after a fight if you want a score of a given fight. Or Dasanfall if you want your game given the full prostate exam. You are sitting there arguing that someone can't feel a sense of accomplishment in this video game. Just because you can't doesn't mean nobody else can. Or you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which seems to be this forums main sport. Especially odd use of time for those that complain about futility.

... How can a BR100 be so utterly clueless?

Two things:
1: I already mentioned how those stats are completely useless
2: The region stats have been broken since launch, they rarely ever show anything even remotely close to the actual scores.

Which does nothing for the immediate game experience.

I'm sitting here explaining why there's less feeling of accomplishment in the game, and that this accomplishment becomes unrewarding soon.

Or you are completely misreading what I'm writing down? I never said that there's no accomplishment!

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

I've played this game a lot longer than I've played monopoly or chess. And maybe you should put some effort into finding ways to gain a feeling of accomplishment or take up another hobby that you do find more fulfilling. I see people really finding great enjoyment and reward in hobbies I think are a waste of time. But whatever floats their boat. They likely think the same about mine.

Yeah well, that's just like, psychology man. You can take a guess what the general population will think of something, and if you look at the forums you can also see that this isn't just my opinion. I explain why and how people leave this game, even though it has all the trademarks to stay unique and engaging for years to come.

Or, or, you can use psychology to determine what people enjoy (which is often different from what they say they want) and then use that in the game as the absence of those things can often lead to boring games that people leave. Things like, oh I don't know, all the things I already named?

I don't really think the forums are a good indicator of anything. They have been "nerf this, nerf that" and every other critique under the sun since I started playing. People stating their opinion as fact and arguing about it for eternity. If DBG used the forums as a model, then they could only conclude that a game without a point is exactly what people do want. If I read your post and said "This guy! This is the market I want my game to attract!" then I would think I would need to design a completely pointless game. Maybe the exit screen would say "dude, totally solid opinion. Keep it up!" so you would be eager to log on the next day for the same 'reward'.

Hmm, why would that be? Could it be that people encounter something they want or dislike and then voice those likes/dislikes on the forums? That this is an indication that they want something changed? An indication that they want something else than the current status quo?
You can analyze this and then add stuff or change stuff to see if players enjoy it more, but be careful not to do exactly what your players ask as most of the time they have no idea what the consequences of their changes are.

I don't think you have any idea what you just said here, read it over.

If switching to ps4 is anything to go by

Membership and xp boosts

lol. Just because you didn't get it doesn't mean a person doesn't know what they said. But people with a complaint make the most noise. So no, the forum chatter doesn't necessarily relate to what the playerbase as a whole thinks about any given topic. Thats why DGB has their own data they look at to make balance decisions rather than simply listen to the most loud and obnoxious.

Even still the climb to BR100 should provide enough experience to know ANT isn't a P2W system.

It's not even "just more guns" ffs!

Thanks for recapping the things I said with one tiny change! However your conclusion is completely off, which I've pointed out a few times already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Just naming it doesn't mean it's true. In fact I've not been selecting myself in groups, I've even conceded to changes that I think are not necessary at all. Think about the Heavy, I think that it was fine with 750 health, but that the problem was somewhere else in how useful Heavies are in almost every situation compared to the other classes. But with so many players against it something had to change, because a game is supposed to be fun. Balance is secondary to fun.

Also, isn't that Pirbi doing exactly the same? He's selecting himself by an invisible group that doesn't post on the forums and claiming that this is a larger group with people who are content. He's not just using a biased sample he's using a completely made-up sample! He's got no proof and twisted logic to back it up. He claims that people who enjoy the game don't go to the forums for instance, even though people who join forums are simply a different kind of player compared to others who usually don't join the forums of games whether they like it or not. For the forum people if they enjoy the game you'll see requests for new stuff and new game mechanics. If people dislike the game, you'll see requests for changes to existing stuff, possibly by adding new stuff but with the intent for changing something that's already in-game in their favor.