Planetside 2 doesn't know what it wants to be. Does it want to be an inclusive, open game friendly to all participants? Does it want to be a game of elitest "twitch" combat like many private servers associated with many small map FPS games? Planetside 2 was supposed to break the FPS mold. Every video, every ad about PS2 talks about the grand scope and huge battles. While I understand that this isn't possible at all times, every effort should be made to distinguish PS2 from other FPS's and not fall into the same trap. I came to the game with delusions of gigantic battles a la "Warhammer 40k" if you're familiar to that game and its art. I think many are shocked when they first participate that it isn't much different than other FPS's as all of the combat takes place at the bases which is essentially a small map plastered on a big map. The space in between is just "dressing". Many veteran FPS players who come from the standard small unit (32 vs 32) or smaller like the old unreal tournament games which are hyper competetive enjoy the twitch fest that most decent size battles taking place at bases devolves into. They are usually the first people to complain about tank or air spam or the first to complain that anything other than infantry is an unwelcome nuissance. While I understand this mode of thinking (to a degree) as I enjoy the rush of that kind of combat. I personally have a decent k/d earned through infantry combat and not through any kind of vehicle spam, but I see the game slowly collapsing into the same ol' same ol' of all those games that have gone before. I came to PS2 hoping to find a game of "grand scope" and see a devolution of the game into one of small unit, small map combat created as an inelegant solution to all of the vehicle spam sieges that regularly take place. Ground vehicles reduced to the combat taxi from base to base will continue to be the future if the situation isn't rectified soon. The new continent Hossin is where, I think, the future of Planetside lies. Hossin is an entire map designed from the ground up where all combat will take place at the bases (small maps) and this automatically precludes most large vehicles other than the Harasser due to it's OTT mobility. Light assaults, infiltrators and MAYBE engineers (prox mines) will do quite well in the extended "infantry spam" that will be base combat. The Planetside 2 dev team appears to support that identity crisis. It supports small "team" tournaments, supports the twitch gamers by allowing the accumulation of certain statistics that intentionally alienate people who prefer the support role and are now, seemingly, slowly reducing the effectiveness of vehicles as a solution to a crappy game mechanic... the abilty to pull anything at any time with little regard to "resources" or the personal investment of time and be completely combat effective. To me, this is completely counterintuitive. What many gamers prefer is the choice to do whatever you want coupled with the knowledge that what you have has been earned through participation and unit loyalty. Sadly, much of that is missing in the game. There is a rank structure yet it has no meaning. It's simply a statistic which vaguely gives an impression of cert accumulation. What I'd rather see is knowing that a BR 100 is a great leader and not a just a great twitch player or just an "old hand". The only ranks that should exist are those granted to individuals who put the time and effort into leading squads and better yet, platoons. Perhaps this will give decent meaning to the orders channel as well. People who broadcast on the channel will be understood as having a clue about the game mechanics and be a person newbies can look to for solid information. Where a partial solution lies is the creation and promotion of leadership. As it is now, there is little regard for leadership and planning and the focus is primarily on the individual and stats. Left to this, most people will get either bored or frustrated and quit the game as I know many already have. Any sense of meaning in the game will be mostly nonexistant unless the focus is taken off the individuals statistics and more on what the individual has contributed to the team. Especially where individual statistics can be manipulated through cheating which, unfortunately, is far more prevalent in the game than most people think and/or padded from spawn rooms. I wish I had more solutions to the problems, but I'm hopeful that many people smarter than me will have some great ideas. I hope people see where I'm coming from with this rambling post.
We used to have freedom to choose, multiple roles for units in outfits, and small outfits could find roles to support larger ones, this brought command structure within voice chat, and outfit leaders collaborating with other outfit leaders. There was strategy, resources had meaning and could be cut off from the warp gate. Now we have the lattice, and everything in the game must change to complment the simplicity of the lattice, like only capping 75% of a continent and so on. Screw the lattice and what it has done to PS2.
The tag I bought into was "Free2Play, YOUR Way).. well my way has been taken away now. Now the game is on rails. The only true gameplay is really Amerish now. It's 'lattice' is restricted by landforms, not arbitrary connection lines. It has a natural boundary and ability to be defended, just from land lock alone. I hope they leave that continent alone at least. They may work on something like that one day, it would be very interesting. The MMO failed though. Thank you for recognizing that, i've pointed that out before, that most battles are just 32-64 vs 32-64 in an area anyway, its just that the experience is 'seamless' into a nearby hex. I've played those games and I value equal fights or even fights against superior forces, of all kinds from infantry to tanks to air. Its all good to me. What you are referring to more accurately are the gamers who prefer 'deathmatch' games over more tactical games that maybe Counterstrike and Battlefield would have fallen into (pre BF3). I wont like it then. I liked the open area of pre GU-13 Esamir with hex, which allowed the maximum choice of gameplay, for all sorts of gameplay styles, with multiple combine arms as well. And many other modern games as well. PS2 has this issue in addition, because there are so many players. Easy to create a community and respect in small servers where the regulars are part of a 32/64 man server, than 2000, where the guy you killed a minute ago you might not ever see again. With the current state of the game, and the 'rails' of the lattice or the use of a Zerg to accomplish all victories, leadership is really boiled down to 'tour boat captain' ; just some dude who points out where to Zerg next. I've played with multiple outfits and have observed their strategies, its nothing complicated, the game doesn't allow or require anything past that for the most part. I'd lead myself, but I've found it quite boring, cuz there really isn't much to do, most people just go with the Zerg anyway, and good leadership is not required in PS2 really. So I just lone wolf it, or team up with the closest outfit in the area I'm playing in. In BF2 and older games BF1942, leadership was much more valid and useful, even a Commander role that was important. PS2 doesnt have any of that. The mentality of the Zerg tactic changed everything gaming. I'm pretty sure it began with the introduction of 'cap point' systems and away from "Base vs Base' design. Cap points rewarded zerging, by both teams simply zerging aroudn in circles capping undefended bases until the timer ran out and a winning team was declared. I've seen it since in every FPS and MMO and every game that now features PVP. I dont care if they put the focus on my contribution or not. I get satisfaction from supporting my team and helping them win, and the private little thrills I get from holding down a base against a pack of attackers, or taking out tanks,etc. Good words overall.
