Just stumbled across the following video today: Well, thats interesting, I never played Planetside 1. Perhaps there are some suggestions in there which could be implemented in Planetside 2...
It was an awesome game. Some of the mechanics were more interesting and superior in my personal opinion. From what I recall there was more to it than just large battles.
I never played it but from description of the games I understand you could build your own equipment setup and pick up the one of fallen comrades (or even enemies): if that is correct it speaks volume about the simplicity and flexibility of design which are light years away from ps2 convoluted and twisted setup when it comes to classes...
All the original players from Planetside 1 just wanted was better graphics with a updated engine, not a complete revamp of the entire game. On so many levels they missed there mark with version #2. Higby hada wild hair up his **** about Battlefield and the game has suffered since his designs.
Some of the things seem superior but aren't really. For example the ability to carry any weapon due to the loadout-space feature is often lauded as a great thing, but with PS2's mechanics it would immediately create OP loadouts that everyone would always take, and many loadouts that simply would never be used because they suck. You think SMG Infiltrators are OP now, imagine if they can get their hands on Carbines, Assault Rifles, shotguns or LMG's. Such a system would require at minimum some restrictions to what weapons you can pick based on your class, rather than loadout space. Am I against a loadout-space based loadout? Heck no! I'm against ripping features from PS1 and dumping them directly in PS2 without looking at what it would do to the game. They need careful consideration of the time it would take to put them in, how they would change the metagame and what additions/limitations need to be added to make sure it doesn't create imbalances or bad gameplay. Another thing is that people seem to have severely rose-tinted glasses thinking back of PS1. There seems to have been much more OP strategies, like TR MAX's at the top of stairs that were virtually impossible to dislocate. Reading and seeing stuff from PS1 seems to show that balance was at many points absent. My god just started watching the video, and the guy thinks that being forced to ask other players what to do is "instant teamplay". Hey man the current PS2 tutorial is absolute crap and doesn't tell you half the game, instant teamplay right there right?!?
100% true. But that's exactly the reasons why PS2 mechanics are flawed and lazily designed in the first place. If you have a wide array of weapons and equipment but you have conceived them such a way that there are "OP combos" then everybody and his dog will gravitate around OP combos. Who wouldn't a cloak and an OHK weapon? So to avoid "OP combos" PS2 introduces artificial limitations (classes) with special abilities, and on top of it, limit weapons on a per-class base. We are all accustomed to this b.s. that we do not even question it but ... Why on Earth an engineer cannot use a LMG and why an Heavy Assault cannot use an ... Assault Rifle? it is beyond moronic
Planetside 2 has 100x better gunplay. Ps1 gunplay was clunky and you could look around corners in 3rd person.
I don't think it's lazy design. If all weapons are so close to one another that no loadout is OP then you have to minimize their versatility. No CQC LMG's for example as that niche is taken by another weapon class. Each weapon class would fulfill one role and nothing more. Having "arbitrary" limits to what weapon you can carry means you have room for overlap and versatility within a weapons group without letting for example an LA pick a long-range Assault Rifle. A weapons class arbitrarily named and included in the game specifically as a superior ranged Carbine class in order to make the Medic more attractive to use over other classes. Most Carbines are inferior to their assault rifle variant, who would ever pick one if they had access to all weapons all the time? You call it bs, but its a good way to overcome certain weaknesses in design. Its no different than shotguns having such a ridiculous spread or letting vehicles tank more than one anti-tank hit without slowing down or being killed outright. You improve the experience through adding such rules which aren't arbitrary at all, but designed rules to uphold the intended experience.
That's exactly what mean by lazy design. Having played PS2 for so long people automatically stop questioning its silly logic and start to refer to it as something carved in stone. Why on Earth most carbines are inferior to their assault rifle variant? Today all the weapons behave 99% the same aside from damage model, Cof and Bloom, so players look automatically for the OP combo: an LA can go anywhere, so never give him any long range weapon (God forbid, a sniper rifle) otherwise he will be OP. Never, ever, give a Stalker an high alpha damage (or an OHK) otherwise he will be OP. What about design varied and specific, contextual traits, with balanced pros and cons weapons and equipment so the choice is far less obvious and not purely damage-centric, or better TTK-centric or pure convenience? What about to make LMG super heavy and slower to swing around, packing an heavy punch without a stellar RoF, with the option to use a bipod and get much better at a cost of mobiliy (mana-turret like), quite imprecise in CoF and hard to handle in terms of Bloom, LMG ammo cumbersome to manage (long reload) and heavy ammo so impossible to bring a lot, ... In CQC any HA with LMG would be skinned alive, overshield or not. They would fight 2nd line, or support, or suppressive fire but either way, you wouldn't see hordes of HA with LMG around like today (or, going to the other side of the spectrum, hordes of Stalkers with Revolvers and Power knives) . You could see HA with Carbines, or Assault rifles, each one looking for his personal play-style and balance. Why not sorry? It is forbidden by the Bible (or the Koran...) ? And talking about overshield, what are the drawback of having an overshield in PS2? Zero of course, aside the fact you are slower when you activate it. Again, lazy design. If I can use an armor and carry it around but weights nothing when I move around, of course I will carry always around if I can, so it will protect me in battle. Who wouldn't? Nobody. Make the overshield weights a ton of lead, and make the HA always running less, moving less, getting tired easier (add stamina of course, it is not rocket science), breath more heavily and be less precise when they fire and again, maybe not all the HA in the world will like the Overshield so much. Maybe some of them may want to carry more rockets for the heavy weapon instead. Oh and BTW, talking about shield and armor, what about nanoweave armor? Why everybody and his dog run with nanoweave? Maybe because it has only plus but no minus ? But then of course I want nanoweave...
God, imagine Heavy Assaults with Carbines. The amount of salt generated would make even bolters jealous.
