PLANETSIDE 3: avoid the problems of PS2

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by elkikko92, Nov 8, 2019.

  1. elkikko92

    I read that Planetside 3 is in development; they have said is more big than planetside 2.
    In my opinion this is not a very good idea: Planetside 2 has a lot of problems BECOUSE it has a very spread large battlefield. To fix this, they implemented LATTICE, a bad idea for me, becouse it destroy strategy.
    Before creating Planetside 3, please: THINK ALL THE PROBLEMS HAS PLANETSIDE 2!

    Sorry for english
  2. Andy04

    They could not get Planetside 2 right after all these years SO Many bad design choices and changes and so on and on and on it's been a horrible development practice, Then Churn out an Arena Mess which is a complete Joke and there is no doubt in my mind that they well turn these new assets into planetside 3. this team is incapable of creating a good Planetside 3 experiance.
    • Up x 2
  3. Liewec123

    PS3 (atleast how they describe it in the recent producers letter) will never happen,
    galactic warfare? yeah that isn't coming from DBG, they tried releasing a barebones miniaturised version of PS2 as a BR
    and it broke the company, and that was what happened when they made PS2 smaller...
    imagine them trying to upscale PS2 a thousand fold?

    also if it is set after PS:A then we won't have the triple faction warfare, which is one of my favourite things about this game.

    everything was great until a few years ago, after that it just seemed to be a step backwards every patch,
    with the occasional gem (like DX11) mixed in.
    • Up x 2
  4. Demigan

    Under the HEX system you could attack any base you wanted. Zergs were unstoppable mobs that could simply attack another base if they hit a strongly defended base, making defense practically impossible unless you were defending the direct base the zerg was going for. In the meantime the best method to counter them was by ghostcapping and avoiding combat altogether, just capturing point after point and moving on in the hopes people wouldnt redeploy there and recap. The people reacting to ghost caps had no way of really knowing where the opponent was or if they were on their way out to the next base. In military jargon this is what is called a "clusterfck". Strategy or tactics are almost non-existant in that scenario.
    The lattice system isnt perfect and has many drawbacks that could be reduced, but its tactical and stragetical value is a hundred times higher if only because tactical defense is an actual option, instead of the defensive method being redeployside to crush attacker resistance and move on.

    And that in itself is a problem for PS3. If the playerbase already has the idea that blatantly inferior options are actually better then how are they going to ever please enough players?

    If you want strategy to be more important then an expanded lattice system is the way to go. For example by reducing the amount of lattice-links and allowing players to build or activate lattice-links themselves. We have those radio antennae all across the continents, allowing players to capture and power them, reinforce them with player made bases in order to open up new routes to other bases would be a great tactical tool. Additionally such lattice generators could function as logistical points. With reduced redeploy methods these points would teleport players and vehicles around giving these points a stragetic and tactical value to hold for your empire.
    This also helps with the early open continents during the unstable warpgate period. Players could be allowed to forge new lattice lines and capture territory, allowing them to mutate the frontlines before the continent stabilizes.

    The game would also need to expand its variety. With how continents are laid out most people will see the lionshare of their battles at the same frontline bases, and then they see another base it is likely fighting with/against a zerg without a good fight. By switching where the warpgates and starter-frontlines are located people will see a much wider variety of bases.
    Currently all capture mechanics are king-of-the-hill, but other methods of capture could easily expand the variety of the base captures and those capture methods could randomly swap out for each base whenever a continent opens. Various CTF modes, some CTF modes that would be unique to PS2/3. Some VIP capture methods etc.
    • Up x 1
  5. ican'taim

    I'd like to see the LLU make a return to ps2. It's getting old just walking to a point, waiting for it to magically change colors, and and fend off 40+ people in a tiny room.
    • Up x 1
  6. JibbaJabba

    All other problems can be corrected by later changes in design through major patches or similar.

    The one thing to get right on day one: No more free to play. Make it cost *something*. I don't care if it's a dollar. But make new players get a payment form registered (to help generate revenue later), and make cheaters/hackers have to pay a price when they are banned.
    • Up x 7
  7. ican'taim

    Agreed, it would also prevent (or at least be a deterrent) the 12 year old fortnite crowd from ruining the game. (so we won't have a PS3 version of CAI)
  8. TRspy007

    As much as I want Planetside 3 to happen and succeed, I'd be surprised if planetside 3 released. I'd start believing in god if it actually released polished and successful .
    • Up x 2
  9. sjtw_w_stot

    SERVERS! In a game like this you should double your expected budget on servers. Lighten the server load and we (the End Users) will have fewer bugs n' you know, the expected general PS2 performance/experience.

    If PS3 comes out and I'm seeing the same old server lag I'm out.

    Oh yeah, and more **** to do for Lone Wolf players. This needs more brainstorming but perhaps some type of dungeon play against AI (Infiltrators need to steal/liberate docs or 'advanced construction' blueprints from NS Systems ect) coupled with an overhauled Construction base system with snap-abled prefabs to existing bases(Radar Towers/Base shields(like the skyshield ect ect)).
    • Up x 1
  10. Scroffel5

    I'm gonna say this. You guys are ragging on the lattice system. What better ideas do you have, because that is probably the position that you put the devs into. Do they change things and possibly make it worse, possibly make it better, or do they keep things the same? Then you have to answer what kind of system would make it better. You also have to think about the problems of Planetside and ways to make them better. That is no easy feat. Even if you can code ways for the game to be better, you have to come up with the idea first.
    • Up x 1
  11. JudgeNu

    Im already excited for it! Oh wait...

    However it seems any system will have to be prefaced with a solution to Faction Stacking.
    Not allowing imbalances to linger for years causing this phenomenon.
  12. elkikko92


    I think is a good idea if we collect all suggestions about creating a good capture system for Planetside 3; considering all problems of PS2 (hex system and lattice system).
    Second step thinking a resources system and a better metagame.

    Do not create Planetside 3 without considering all problems of PS2 , please.
  13. Pelojian

    the biggest thing would be to require a subscription to play, even if it's like $5. it would keep the riff raff out that would just cheat and then make a new account if they had to buy the game and then pay a subscription to keep playing, then the devs need to actually use their budget for things players want that are reasonable, instead of catering to the personal desires of the dev team members that could unbalance the game due to ether favoritism or preference for a mode of play.

    the biggest problem for a game is when the dev team members try to mutate the game they work on into something it's not marketed as, EQ2 is a prime example, their gameplay focus seemed to change year to year when i was playing, pissing off veterans and still not managing to recruit enough of the demographic they wanted to attract (they basically chased the flavor of the year demographic).
  14. tigerchips

    Oh, please no, not another subscription service. That's exactly why the game is messed up. Now, call me a free loader, but, i would prefer to pay £60 upfront. No Man's sky did it, PS3 can do it.
    • Up x 2
  15. Ohaunlaim

    I think I would prefer a purchase model as well. If ongoing costs are a worry, then there are lots of things that could be monetized outside of anything that affects game-play. For example: additional character slots, server transfers, name changes, voice packs, kill-screen graphics/music/animations, and so on.
    As for the lattice system. The lattice is not a broken idea. PS2 implementation of the lattice is very poorly done. My main gripe is that there should never be lattice connections that essentially create corridors; two links- one in, one out. Every lattice connection should have at least three links or as many as five for key bases.
    The reason there are corridor links is because there are simply too many linked bases/outposts/places on the maps. Bases (and links) need to be fewer and far between. Non-linked bases could be captured freely, but should provide little benefit beyond a place to spawn and maybe something like some turrets, or a re-arm station. Main bases with all the bells and whistles alone would be on the lattice.
    ** As a side note. Vast empty areas between bases would insure a much greater number of field battles between vehicles. The time necessary for attacker to muster up and move to the next base would give defenders time to grab vehicles and engage in open land. In fact lattice linked bases should be placed to encourage this in most cases.
    ** Also... If bases are placed far from each other, there is no need for all those annoying cliffs and mountains obviously designed only to keep one base from shooting at the next one over. You can have open areas as desired, and hilly/maze-like stuff too if you like. This lets the players choose their lines of attack instead of forcing them down dev-designated lanes.
    • Up x 1
  16. Demigan

    1. I hate subscriptions and avoid them like the plague
    2. Is it even necessary to use subscriptions to stop cheaters?
    Imagine if every single player has to pay 10 euro to buy the game and no subscription service is in place. It's a nice starter fee but it also means that DBG can link accounts to the bank number that paid the account.
    Now we ban this account for 30 days or something because of cheating and the cheater wants to keep cheating. He buys a new account... But with what bank account? He would need to use a new bank account or else DBG could simply say "this new account is linked to a 30 day banned bank account, still banned".
    Since the amount of bank accounts is usually limited for most people it also limits the amount of returns these players can make, besides the money investment of constantly having to buy a new account to cheat.
    • Up x 1
  17. Pelojian

    the biggest way around registering CC/bank details on DBG's end to hurt cheaters is gift cards.
    anyone these days can afford $5/month. having to pay a sub on top of buying the game will cut out the young anklebiters that plague multiplayer PVP games that you jsut need to buy the game, also $10 is pretty cheap for a game, also makes it easier to get back in.

    if they have to pay a subscription even if it's $5/month on top of spending $20-30 on the game EACH time they are banned their bill will quickly rack up and only cheaters who actually have a job or are rich will be able to keep it up, also a subscription means if the management is competent they can pool that money into keeping cheat prevention up to date.

    the only games that can justify sub models are mutliplayer games where cheats can hurt other players enjoyment.
  18. OgreMarkX

    There will be no Planetside 3.

    Planetside 3 was hinted at in order to keep micro and macro transactions going for Planetside 2.

    I think the Devs would love doing PS3 (well ok, not love, as it would be a huge amount of frustrating work), but DBG would need a new engine, which means buying an existing engine that has outside support as DBG does not fully staff a project.

    DBG execs want quick easy money via Macro Transactions. Somewhere along the line DBG execs got an Electronic Arts mindset from 2016. That is why we got Macrotransaction Side: Arena. That whole game was designed around macrotransactions. It wasn't even really a game.

    New games from DBG will NOT happen. They just don't have the staff or funding.

    I am not saying that is a bad thing, it's just a financial decision thing. Money doesn't grow on trees and profit is required.

    Until game studios stop expecting to have players pay 1000's of dollars for a game, this asshattery will continue. I used to work for major US banks. US Banks have a mentality that customers MUST buy more and more products (products = loans). Then the bank charges them paperwork fees, late fees, transaction fees, operating fees, fees, fees, fees, fees.

    Banks forgot that their purpose is to take, secure and make available deposits. Now they think they are investment firms first and banks second.

    Game companies forgot their purpose is to make good games people want to pay for and want to play. Now game companies think there business is selling cure all macro transactions for the illness that is their sub-par game designs.

    Game companies no longer build reputations to attract and keep customers. They build macro transactions with an eye to pillage and move on. It's similar to bust-out fraud.

    N.B. Game Companies != Developers and Designs. The latter folks are screwed more than we are.
  19. Demigan

    Even with a giftcard you can require all players to pay at least 1 cent to the game (which can then be refunded if you wish) just to ensure they have a working bank account connected to a player account.
    Even if you don't do that it would mean the cheaters would just pay for subscriptions with a giftcard once, cheat, get banned, use another giftcard etc. Having a 1-time cost buying the game, or as I mentioned previously somewhere else to buy an account (with multiple character slots) and get some DBG cash to spend as a way to showcase what the system could offer players, the cheaters will have to pay for that each time they get banned. Since the starter fee could be higher than a subscription fee it would be a higher entry each time they make a new account.

    Yes anyone can pay 5 dollars a month, but what are you going to spend it on? There's a million-and-one subscriptions already you can sign up for, from necessities like electricity and water to your phone subscription (which I purposely keep down. I find 20 dollars for a subscription already ludicrous and some people shill over 60 a month), things like Netflix and contemporaries crawling out of the woodworks like (combined) local TV network subscriptions, Disney+ etc, there's insurances for the car that has to be paid each month, food, accessories etc.
    Now I like to play multiple games each month and since I don't want to be paying 5 dollars each month to keep a subscription for each open I avoid them like the plague. I can't imagine a situation where I'll happily throw 5 dollars a month away for 3 seperate games (if they don't have more expensive one's like seasons passes and that kind of bullcrap), then have to wonder at the end of each month "which game do I want to play next month, am I going to stop the subscription of the currently going games I play and which subscriptions am I going to restart?".
    I don't ever want to have to do all of that just to keep track of my games. So I avoid subscriptions for my games instead.

    Why is the 5 dollars a month the lynchpin if they have to pay 20 to 30 dollars each time for the game? And can't the advantages you see in the subscription simply be added to the basic cost of a one-time buy of the game?

    It's also an earning model. The players pay a subscription to pay for continuous updates and support of the game while the company gets the money to keep paying for it's costs and earn something on the side. But the F2P model is an alternative. The point of this model is that the free players also provide a service: They are basically the most advanced AI you can have and they will populate the world while also running into problems and reporting them. Money is brought in through micro transactions and replace subscriptions as a way to earn money.
    By using a low cost to play the game remains accessible and populated and the main income would still be micro transactions. It should have all the points you want the subscription for without needing that subscription.
  20. Scroffel5

    I still suggest making a redeploy timer longer and reworking that system, so you actually have to drive or fly from point A to point B instead of redeploying in mass forces. People who actually have a good attack strategy will have to prepare for your arrival via AA and AV, and setting up a perimeter to make sure you don't get past. Outfits, Platoons, Squads, even full on factions would have to communicate more when they see a convoy moving in. I think we could rework the redeploy system so that it costs resources to do so. That would seem to fix a lot of the annoying things that happen in Planetside 2. Maybe spawning at a base in your HEX would be free once you got there. That seems fair.

Share This Page