OH NO NO NO NO....

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by raffa2, Nov 17, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. raffa2

  2. Demigan

    Aside from the picture, the statement below is old news and from what I can gather not exactly credible. If I recall correctly the announcement made some nonsensical statements alongside.
  3. GamerGuardian22

    I swear i hope this is fake battle royale is trash and is not what Planetside 3 should be
    • Up x 2
  4. iller

    What are you talking about?.... Planetside2 has ALWAYS been a Battle Royal game at its fundamental level.
    That's been it's biggest problem. It's the reason the community has always been such Shyte

    The reason that many Planetside1 players had issues with this game's fundamentally FLAWED team system (/w mindless Zergs & antisocial Loners not following tactical logic) is that it's always inherently been a Battle Royal shooter HUSK with *some* vehicle elements tacked on to the side. It's the main reason it was always so hard to balance the two against eachother as well

    Look at the fundamental INCENTIVES, people
    Players aren't urged to play the tactical Objectives with battle lines & breaching like real MMORPGs have.
    They're pathologically conditioned to play the last-man-standing ambushing Kill-streak farmer for K/D or Directives


    Content Wise??... It's NOT a real time strategy game in ANY cooperative sense or even a "good" Tank Sim. 2/3's of its content is entirely devoted being a BAD infantry shooter that tried too hard to be Call of Duty and Counterstrike. ...which now days is indistinguishable from Battle Royal games. The only difference is that people here on these forums just never NOTICED IT.

    ...But it's always been there staring people in the face. Us long range snipers who camped the hill sides were aware of it. The mechanics were practically identical infact... If we died? It was High Stakes b/c we had to reload back into deployment aircraft and parachute out or spend the next several minutes slowly ground pounding it back out to our camp site. And what about the Zones closing off??....Well they MOVE... and we have to MOVE with them to the next hex if we want a target rich environment. This has always been the case for lots of niche support & lonewolf roles in this game. The infantry Tryhards who ONLY play the tight corridor bullet-hose FPS-on-Rails shooter sections of the game (AKA: "Redeployside") never noticed it but all the rest of us have been aware of it ever since the Rose Tinted goggles that TotalBiscuit brought most of us in with in 2012 Wore off.


    ...the only thing that's really changed in all this time was Construction being added which made it less PUBG and a bit more FortNitey (but not entirely b/c there's these stupid half-mile wide giant red NoDeploy zones around EVERY f****ng base which makes most construction efforts entirely futile)
    • Up x 1
  5. Campagne

    No, it's not and has never been.

    PS2 is a territory-based team deathmatch game, simple as that. Battle Royal games are typically somewhat short and temporary with single-man to small teams with permadeath and randomly acquired loot, or so at least most are.

    PS2 is not even close to that.
    • Up x 5
  6. iller

    You just said the exact same CONCEPTS that I just laid out. (except you snipped them all out of the post and ignored them).

    You literally just said "N u h U h h !" ... that's your entire response!

    The problem YOU HAVE is that Battle Royal itself is a concept (& a buzzword) and a poorly defined one at that just like MOBAs always were.... They're a nuance on a theme of the FPS genre. But all of the same elements that drive everyone's playing habits in PS2 are right there staring you in the f*****g face plain as day!
  7. SmittyJensen

    What do you mean by "antisocial Loners not following tactical logic" ?

    Because your post has a lot of situations mentioned that I'd consider asocial loners not following tactical logic... such as long range snipers who camp the hills.. infantry 'tryhards' who only play the tight corridor bullet-hose fps-on-rails shooter sections of the game, construction fans, etc..

    I do a lot of loner play in the game, mainly because I have yet to find a group of players that actual play solid combat tactics. I play on Emerald TR side... we have 69AR who just roam in giant armor packs with no goal but riding around and AODR who drop a butt ton of people onto a base and spazz jump across map and back. I've ran with both squads many times and left with a lot less rewarding play than actually just going it alone.

    Meanwhile some of us 'asocial longers not following tactical logic' actually flank enemy forces and attack the flow of enemies into our base (killing the sunderers). Not looking to boost k/d, not looking for huge kill sprees to make the killboard look hot, not looking to complete the directives per se, but just looking to the main objective of holding territory while (hopefully) taking more territory.

    It is actually the big squads I find that don't play objectives.. they are the ones that play like it's team deathmatch and want to rack up kills. At least, in my experiences.

    BTW I played PS1 too and think I could never go back to that game... even with updated models and textures, as it was far far deeper but was really set up for RPG fans to geek out on versus a more widely palatable type of play that PS2 offers. I just don't see enough people wanting to play that type of game today...
  8. iller

    I have no real objection to this view right now, infact I think I agree with all of it :confused:
    ...very well reasoned, sir
    • Up x 1
  9. Campagne

    Not in the least. PS2 is objectively not a battle royal game, it shares little to no elements with one and does not play like one would. Death in PS2 means nothing, there are distinct teams, distinct pre-set equipment, long and unending battles in a large open world with no artificial playzone restrictions, random matchmaking or anything of the sort.

    You seem to have an issue with them, I personally don't care about BR games in the least.
    • Up x 4
  10. Liewec123

    i love the android and IOS logos XD
    because phone games are obviously the future! (**** blizzard!)
    good job :p

    on a serious note, the big announcement is probably going to be game engine related,
    maybe higher levels of DX? or if i'm allowed to dream, VULCAN! (the API not the OP TR bullet spewer) ;)
  11. frozen north

    I do hope they don't make a battle royal game. I realize they are popular, but I seriously do not care for them. And I say that having played a couple, including H1Z1, which is built on a derivative of the planetside 2 engine.
    • Up x 1
  12. tommyrocket

    It was just a joke on reddit, making fun of the diablo blizzcon thing. Nothin' real about any of it.
    • Up x 2
  13. Shadowdev

    I hope not, I hate that
    battle royale garbage, that's why I don't play those other multiplayers. Open sand box, like PS2, is the way to go.
  14. Nuggz

    Everyone acts like the "Battle Royale" game style is in any way a new thing even when it first became popular rather than what it actually is, an expansion of already pre-existing ideas and game mechanics..... Nothing BR games do is in any way new or ground breaking which is why I've been completely disinterested in them as a whole.

    The only real correlation I see between PS2 and the BR game style is we're stuck on prescribed combat lanes with no real ability to move with any freedom... Lattice system just makes this game too boring to stick with for any length of time which is why I've quit off and on since it was implemented... every continent is the same battles from the same directions all the time... Old connection based system at least allowed attackers to be a bit less predictable.
    • Up x 1
  15. Roxxlyy Community Relations

    Anyone notice the mobile icons on the image?

    ...

    It's a recycled April Fool's joke for "PlanetSide 3".
    • Up x 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.