2015 Update

Discussion in 'Official News and Announcements' started by PS2_Luke, Aug 19, 2015.

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

  2. marcelomormaii

    I wish remodeling, redesign, a new design, all infantry weapons !!! Thank you, Amen.
  3. Skiptrace

    I Agree that the Apex Particles and other Phys-X effects should be toggleable for people running an Nvidia GTX 600 Series and Above GPU, along with a beefy CPU. They looked so nice in previous versions of the game, and didn't impact performance as much as people think.
  4. patoman

    I support the idea of player base or emplacement building. Why not, more stuff. This idea could be big, even more then adding another flavor gun.

    I had the awesome idea of making a bunker, and this new idea would allow it to happen.

    With that, if these new bases are destructible why not add destructible elements to current bases? Its petty lame and unrealistic that nearly everything is indestructible. Make siege warfare a real siege, where shell after shell can be thrown at a wall, to send it tumbling down, defenders scrambling to repair it.

    Olny thing I wonder is that the stuff would frequently be lost with continents rotating and whatnot. For say a two hour alert I would gauge that defensive structures would be not what everyone would be using all the time but some times.

    That would defiantly take away some usability of structures after lockout victory for one faction, of course every continent comes back into being contested, when that happens stuff you placed could start out being on the territory of the other faction (might add a funny game permanence if the same made player base keeps changing hands and getting rebuilt altered, destroyed and rebuilt again).

    Even with the changing of territory and moving lines of battle I can still see player made emplacements and structures being a new major metagame, think about it, a zerg is coming at your base, so in response on the fly someone could build the equivalent of tank traps (blocks of cement) to reduce tank mobility. And the other side attacking, would set up fortifications just to help protect them sieging the base, like trenches and bunkers.

    This, could, be big.
    • Up x 2
  5. Lorr

    With ANTS, I hope that they give us a variety of parts to work with. I'd like to see as many different kinds of bases as possible. Some parts can be more structural, such as a pole or a floor ( tree house anyone? ).

    I would imagine that these bases would probably spend a bit of time not being in use, especially once your team starts to push forward after an initial attack, so some parts should keep that in mind. Perhaps an artillary turrent designed to help your team by doing long-range bombardments.
  6. elkikko92

    please put CONQUEST MODE (with little outpost that influence the adjacent facility capture timer) in the roadmap.
    Support this GOOD MODE!
  7. SArais

    For the love of god. Just shut it down and remake the original already. This is only going to repeat history and Daybreak will eventually have to sell off it's IP's as it goes the way of THQ.
    • Up x 1
  8. Skiptrace

    That would go south faster than this game did... Even if they did re-make PS1 with better graphics and the same mechanics, the game is bloody hard, and archaic as all hell. Planetside 2 is better because it streamlines things. There's not half a dozen tanks that are the same light tank with a different gun, there's the Lightning, that can equip 4 different main guns. the ANT system from PS1 will hopefully be a direct copy to PS2, making it easier to capture bases because they will eventually run out of power if they are not supplied by an ANT or 3. Making Biolab fights much more strategic, Who's going to drive the ANT around to get energy for the Biolab? Who's going to defend said ANT with Lightnings, MBT's and Sunderers? Who's going to stay back at the biolab and defend the Shield Generators? Lots of questions that will need to be answered. Also, hopefully the ANT will be able to be upgraded with different chassis, armors and other things.

    What I want, is my bloody August update... it's been since 7/29 since we've even gotten a Hotfix!
    • Up x 1
  9. SArais

    It's not better. It's a goddamn battlefield clone. It over-simplified things. It make everything absolute trash (Barring some of the designs.), The game is just a way for them to line their coffers. The ANT is not worth including in this train-wreck. I'm trying to tell Daybreak that this is a mistake. This HAS to be aborted, or they will go the same way as THQ and other liquidated companies. It's NOT worth it to spend time and effort on this anymore. They need to cut their losses and do something that is valued or worthwhile. This isn't it. It's constantly losing players, and constantly will. I'm trying to save both parties from this. For the love of god, daybreak. Save yourselves. The original was so much better in several ways. The roles you could take, the customizability. Every part of planetside 1 was crucial in it's construction. Planetside 2 captures NOTHING of the original. It feels more like an insult. It does not carry over the design, ideas, or feel.

    I'm trying to prevent Daybreak from self-destructing and trying to work this out with it's constant diminishing returns over a period of 3-4 years, versus Planetside 1, which was 12 years and only deteriorated in it's later years. My biggest regret, gaming-related, is to have never been there when Planetside 1 was in it's hayday.

    It's also the fact that PS1 was less frustrating for beginners because EVERYTHING you did mattered, and that IT'S TUTORIALS WERE BETTER BY A LONG SHOT.
    • Up x 2
  10. Pikachu

    A reason for lacking PS1 stuff is that PS2 was pushed out after only 18 months of development like a premature born baby.
    • Up x 1
  11. SArais

    That and the fact that it really doesn't at all feel like Planetside. Bring back the old gameplay and it'll be a LOT better. I -assure- you.
    • Up x 2
  12. Cest7

    Can this come with the resource revamp phase 2? Nanites are bland compared to previous resources
    • Up x 1
  13. Rockit

    According to Malorn on Reddit, SOE/DBG viewed Planetside 1 as a failure and were distancing themselves from it. Which would explain a lot except why in the heck would this game even retain the Planetside name? I get they were trying to "re-imagine" the original but all it comes off as is a re-imagined sci-fi Battlefield game only larger scale and with LAZORS!
    • Up x 1
  14. Maniaboo

    Its funny. all the stuff they said they would catergoricaly not put in from PS1 has been creeping in form day one.
    • Up x 1
  15. Sedin

    I want Warpgate capture. Now that would be a fight.
    • Up x 1
  16. KaneRu

    All warpgates must be possible to capture.
    As example. Terrans captured Indar. After some times was captured by other fractions other 2 continets. So it gives a chance to make an attack on warpgates in Indar
    on ALL 3 of them at one time. It means terrans must make a defend all 3 warpgates.
    But with specific time limit. For an example 1 hour.
    All warpgates must be rebuilding like a huge Citadel with generators, canons and 5 point for captured ( why 5 point? It ismple. Becouse will be a lot of players, realy a lot. Remeber, atackers on 1 warpgate it is a whole fraction. Defenders at this time will be at 1 time on 2 warpgates.). I see it like a 3 floor Citadel with 1 undeground bunker in Center with ACU.
    So how it wild be.

    Attaker have a time 120 minutes. All atackers have a special resurses that are the same for all fraction and if smbdy bying tank\max the cost of it going from that resurses. Atackers can by their air/tanks/max on other continents. Resourses needed for TEleport them .
    Atacks will began from a drop capsules on some region near warpgates. And all atackers will have 4-5 ANTS. They must capture special generators that will reduce defence from power shiled on denfenders WP. ONLY after that they can begun atack WP
    Time to spawn for atacker - as usual
    time for spawn for defenders less on 2-3 sec.

    If all 2 atackers will have a succes and captured warpgate, it will be their.

    If succes was only from 1 side. It means that side that dedended 2 warpgates steel will have them. They still will have a bonus from continent. Untill the next time atackers will have other chance. But fraction that have 2 warpgates will have a litle bit less time for respawn.

    And the last one. remeber. what i wrote? Atack begans on 3 warp gates it means. that near 1 of them will be 2 side atackers, 2 fractions. it will be a very-very interesting battle. And if some fraction will capture 3RD warpgate in a time limit. For examples lossers will be tarrans. It means that terrans doesnt have ane chanse to enter on that continent. Unteel their attack will have a succes.

    So what we have with that scenario?

    1.warpgates CAN be captured
    2. Side that defend can loose everyting but if it will fight on full power. It can defence 1 or 2 and even 3 warpgates!
    3 On every 1 random warpgates always will be at the moment 3 fractions. It will be a very unussual battle.

    Part N2

    Another way to capture warpgates. If some fraction captured all territores beyond warpgates it have a chanse to atack. for atack WP it need to make capture special generators. And after that possible to atack WP.

    P.S. sorry for bad engl i am tried....
    • Up x 2
  17. Armcross

    Capturing warpgate? One of the purpose of the warp gate is when you warp from one continent to the another you wont get spawn killed.
  18. TataLebuj

    And yet I use the little terminal inside of a building to "warp from one continent to the another"......

    As a beta player of PS1 and PS2 and only stopping after the Devs stopped trying to kill the hackers (year 7 or 8 but way after BFGs) I want PS1 with PS2 graphics. I want to kill enemies and take their weapons off of their bodies. I want strategy. I want Orbital Strikes. I want a game that had a game of logic inside a game of action. I want to be able to direct the zerg the way a cowboy directs the herd, through loud noises and easy routes. I miss PS1 so much, and the people who ***** here have no clue how great it was.

    That being said, I like the game play of PS2, but it's mindless. I have not desire to stay with a squad, nor join an outfit, nor target a specific base versus any other base. I get in, look for a big fight, and then go play there. No rhyme or reason because in the end it doesn't matter.

    Give us real sanctuaries back and line up the existing continents so that everyone has a home continent which then has two Warp Gates to the other two continents, then we try and continent lock each other while holding off the third team. Oh wait. That's PS1. Damn....meaning.
    • Up x 7
  19. Ximaster

    I never played PS1,seems Legendary compared to PS2 o_O
    • Up x 1
  20. Lorr

    ANT runs wouldn't affect gameplay one bit. It would just force zergs to send people off on these boring trips to get more resources so they can continue zerging. Even in a situation where the attacking and defending sides are evenly matched, ANTS wouldn't affect stalemates because one side would have to surround the other to prevent ANT runs from getting through, and by that point they are probably about to win anyways. Saying that the ANT should be just like the old one just sounds more like nostalgia to me.

    Assuming the devs actually continue to add meaningful parts for ANTS to build, this new ANT could add in a whole new gameplay element to Planetside 2. Instead of driving a truck back and forth, people could spend their time planning out bases designed to defend against large armies. Suddenly all this land used for nothing more than to separate bases could be used to build a base to try and slow down the enemy until reinforcements arrive. The attackers, on the other hand, could have their own base so they have something to fall back to in case things turn sour, so fights wouldn't just end once they lose their sunderer.
    • Up x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.