In spite of everything else...this is why I'm losing interest in Planetside 2.

What's funny is if you Planetside elitist tried to play competitive Battlefield at a high level, you'd get wrecked.

Based on what i've seen from you on Battlefield, you suck. Why are you so bad at an easy game? lol.

speaking of age..........if you are older than 14 than I sincerely suggest that you work on your communication skills. No offense but that answer sucked. It was very difficult to put together your porous argument.

Yes, I have heard of those titles but have only davled in them, and I have not spent alot of time in them, so my experience with them is small enough to discount. I have spent most of my time playing FPS's in the BF series (1942 beta plus, so probably not 14) and have only recently deserted it because BF3 was that horrid. I spent most of my time in mods playing games that were 100% community based and very enjoyable. I never had a need to play all of these other larger titles.

The only reason why BF3 and the COD titles are twitch wars is because of the scale, not the TTK. I consider COD to have a stupidly high TTK myself. I have played MANY games that have had incredibly low TTK's, like PR, ARMA2 and the likes, which have been enjoyable. In these games, positioning and situational awareness was MUCH more important than your ability to control a mouse. To me, the thought involved in these games was MUCH more exciting than the mindless hum of an already aquired (god-given) set of vitual hand eye coordination. Fine tuned movements of a mouse are not that interesting to me, but the thought of out performing your opponent is. Like I stated in other posts, we all have our likes, and to each his Own. Im not going to rag on you for your likes, and will instead try to understand them, (this thread). Unlike you I will not insult you due to your blaring ignorance of games made in the 90's/early2000's which required intellect rather than motor control, and will not be derogatory in my remarks towards your opinions/tastes.

1:1? sorry but thats just flat out wrong. How can you compare a game of this size, and focus o a game of such limited scope and hyper focus of infantry. I will not deny the similarities (yea i suppose they both have guns) but please, try a little objectivity.

Im one of the guys that appreciates the way games were made in the early part of last decade, and CERTAINLY dispise the trends of the modern gaming industry. I will not deny the influence that major titles have played on the dev of PS2 but this game is certainly not a carbon copy.

I disagree with the OP.

Avarage time to drop someone is just fine .. In fact it feels very optimal for fun gameplay, rarely you get dropped without being able to react and even take them out if they fail to control their fire.
Makes up for a good feel in the gameplay. You allready need quite alot of carbine rounds to drop someone.

What you seem to crave for can only be found from a single player game because only those can cater to the "I am an epic firefighting hero" customer ... in MMOs its impossible since everyone is the hero.

The BF's of old required a good bit of skill and thought. Thats what always attracted me to it. Gaming skill goes beyond mouse control, and thats why i dont get this thread. But oh well, i guess we BF players will just have the raise the bar a bit

The best part about this thread is the blatant difference between individuals like ABATTLEDONKEY and those whom he is arguing with. Donkey is providing clear "connect the dots" style of arguments that are well articulated, easy to understand, and non critical. The few individuals who comment on the other side of the aisle are disrespectful, ignorant of numerous facts, they blatantly ignore certain points made against them for the sake opf being "right" and are anything but productive. Truth of the matter is this.

In all FPS games. the lower the TTK, the more intelegence has to be placed into a movement BEFORE a move is made (i.e. a game built around strategy and tactics) while a higher TTK promotes rambo style game play where the best mouse control wins (i.e. the same game mechanics found in children's games just with guns).

I think that the TTK should be like hardcore modes in battlefield. You make one mistake and oops! your dead. Not like it is not where i routinely will have someone jump me but because im a heavy assault, They unload thier entire clip in my shield and i am easily ablt to turn around and kill them while they are reloading.

Yeah. It's hilarious how bad they talk about Battlefield players and make it seem like we are perfectly fine with how Battlefield 3 was casualized and dumbed down from previous titles. I wonder if many of these people here have spent any real time playing BF games that aren't BC2 and BF3.

I guess I should expect it though. Battlefield players trashed CoD players and now PS players are trashing us .

I think alot of the vets of this game are now going through what we went through with BF3 ( watching their game plummet down a toilet). I do sympathize with them, but I think that when they hear "BF", they think of BF3. It sucks because as you know that game is the worst rep you can think of for the BF franchise. They think of people who like small, congested twitch war gameplay when we really like large, well laid out maps which allow for good movement which rewards players for those well laid out thoughts (i.E you can actually kill someone). Oh well we need to educate them.

Until then, the COD fanboys deserve it. We MUST FIGHT BACK!

Can you describe what about PS2 gameplay is different other than 1) more vehicles/aircraft and 2) more people

because there is nothing, and neither of those things are related to actual gameplay mechanics

A tank in PS2 feels like a tank in Battlefield
Playing infantry in PS2 feels like playing infantry in Battlefield
Flying in PS2 is pretty much just flying a jet+chopper at the same time.

I've already explained this to both you and that other guy in a topic that got locked on the forums. Did you not read my post? I can always copy and paste it here for you. It was about vehicle disabling.

I'll ask you one question. Where is the suppression mechanic in Planetside 2 that Battlefield 3 has? Oh, Planetside 2 doesn't have suppression? Then your argument has just been destroyed!

Oh no it lacks a singular mechanic, truly DESTROYED. Keep in mind I said "Battlefield," and not Battlefield 3.

Meanwhile the game plays and controls the exact same way. It's not hard to see their aim when creating the core of PS2 was to emulate Battlefield. Denying it at this point is just fanboyism.

found this in his post history

destroyed

Singular? There are more differences than that obviously, such as the vehicle disabling I just pointed out, but shouldn't a 1:1 literal clone be an exact copy of something else?

And hell, just the other day, you said this game is a 1:1 literal clone of Battlefield 3! Don't believe me? Here's a quote!

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...ld-game-but-ill-pass.62390/page-2#post-779842

Now you're saying this game a clone of the Battlefield series itself? This is laughable!

The infantry combat in Battlefield 3 is completely different from any other Battlefield game ever created. Have you ever played Battlefield 2 or 1942? The infantry combat was god awful! Absolutely nothing like this game or BF3! You were better off just sticking to your original comment.

Fair enough, i get (and agree with) your point about the "skill" factor in BF and COD games. And i apologize for the rude tone in my previous answer.
However, we're talking about 2 different sets of skills here. A game like Unreal Tournament (just as an example) required you to be able to "dance" around your oponnent and anticipate his movements because most weapons did not in fact shoot bullets and you had to be skilled and trained with most weapons(there were a few exceptions) to even hit anyone, much less kill him before kills you. This lead to the following issue, which i think contributed to the demise of this subgenre and/or helped the COD-type games become so popular: In those movement-based shooters(as i like to call them) skilled players won against lesser opponents 8/10 times atleast. You had a reasonable chance to kill someone who is a lesser player than you even if he somehow got the drop on you. And more importantly: If you were really good you could take on multiple people.I frequently managed to go up against 3 or 4 lesser players and just anihilate them with my movement and aiming. Let me clarify: In these games, lesser players used to get owned over and over again. I'm sure that was frustrating.
In Cod-type games,however, even the dumbest player will get kills eventually because, more often than not, all it takes is holding down the left mouse button for about 1second. You get the drop on someone (for whatever reason) or add into an existing fight and you're pretty much guaranteed to get a kill or an assist.
This is rewarding. Every player likes to be rewarded, even the bad ones. You dont want to die and feel like "oh boy, how can i ever go up against this guy". Thats why (in my opinion) these types of games have become so succesfull, coupled with the xp/unlock systems that encourage you to grind as much as possible (who would run around and drop medkits/ammo everyhwere if there wasnt a reward for it?).
Now dont get me wrong, as i said above, i do realize there is skill involved in these games and you can tell who the good and who the bad players are, but its much easier for bad players to have a positive experience and feelings of success if all it takes to kill someone is holding down your left mouse button for a sec.
And thats the same feeling i get with ps2. If i see someone first he's pretty much dead. If i land the first hit (which messes up his aim) he's most likely dead.If 2+ guys are shooting at you youre usually dead. If you're already fighting a guy and another comes around the corner you're most likely dead. It just gets old (for me) rather quick and thats why i never got sucked into games like COD or BF(i didnt even play the new ones).

If anything the only game that got it right is a hl2 mod 'insurgency' it truely had epic gun battles. Defending was actually quite possible since it didnt take 10-20 shots to drop a guy and have no ammo for the one that followed him.

The player base of planetside is much larger than your normal fps hence the enemies need to drop faster. There were numerous instances when I came up behind a camping squad I could of taken them all out at once if it didnt take 10-20 shots on a person at minimal distance.

Why not make atleast one server in each region a hardcore server. Where it only takes 1-3 hits to take anyone down? or a server with no shields

Sorry there really isn't anything you can say to get out of this one.

This comment refers to the meta-game and if you read the topic I just linked you then you would have found this....

You were saying?

Thats the whole beauty of it! a lesser player has the same amount of skill to kill you as much as you do! you dont win a battle by the hours spent playing or with better equipment! the days of memorizing 'dance' moves and hitting as many keys as possible at once dont belong in this type of fps genre. this is tactical shooter not a free for all, bouncing from wall to wall shooting lasers.

Nice trick on the stats thing, I didn't know about that!

Now, what does it have to do with anything? You made NO correlation between my stats and your position.

Please, if you're going to post, do so intelligently. I'm busy.