Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by elkikko92, Apr 27, 2017.

  1. elkikko92

    (my english is bad, sorry)
    Playing planetside 2 and planetside 1, how do you like to see a new planetside?
    Which are the good thing and bad thing of each planetside? Which suggestions do you have?

    In my opinion the main problem of Planetside 2 was "create" balanced battles on each territories. Cause a lot of territories, they introduced lattice-system (i dont like so much, becouse there are always the same battles in the same territories).
    Another thing is that have a battle in little outpost is not fun.

    My suggestions: remove all little outposts, create a lot of continent with a lot of kind of "macro-structure outposts" (like tech-plant).
    When you open the game you are obliged to choose an outfit and play with it!
  2. Demigan

    Forcing players into outfits is a bad idea. Lots of pkayers end up in a mastodont outfit and you might as well say "all players without an outfit are banded together until they pick one" for all the good it'll do. Forcing teamwork by saying "and now you work together" never works. Even players that join squads barely follow their leader and they chose to be part of the team. What you need is encouragements and tools so players want to stick together. A gunner for a vehicle gets firepower, protrction and speed for free, the driver gets more eyes around him and better protection/firepower overall. The advantages are clear. But when you fight together with others its more a competition where players hate on eachother for killstealing just as much as they like the extra firepower. Theres also a giant lack of Situational Awareness (SA). You often cant see what the situation is on the other side of the base. So if a leader asks something or orders something, his SA can eidely vary from that of his teammates, causing players not yo know what the orders mean unless its exhaustively explained, which no one takes time for.

    What I would want in a PS3 game? Either multiple continents tbat you fight through to reach an enemy main warpgatr or 3 continents max, each continent gradually changing its theme based on the maps position. More capture mechanics beyond king-of-the-hill. Better integration of PMB's, for example by allowing PMB's to enhance small facilities, allowing PMB's to create lattice-links for tactical assaults that deviate from the lattice-links and letting PMB's take the role of logistics so that theres less reliance on redeploy and more reliance on player-made teleportation from PMB to PMB and unarmed transports that keep respawning there.
    The three most important things though:
    Free teamwork. If you run into someone you should be able to and want to work together with that guy, regardless of him/her being a pubbie, in a Squad or a different platoon.
    Better SA, players should have the ability to look at the map/deathscreen and know at a glance how the battle is going, where the fights are anywhere on the map down to what buildings are currently being fought over and by who, and players should be able to enhance the SA of friendlies with spotting, putting down contextual beacons "need airstrike" or "finish of this target" and allowing players to give off orders or change some stuff like resource allocation while they are dead, so that even during death you have something to do.
    And lastly, every class, vehicle and airceaft needs an AI loadout, AA loadout and an AV loadout, eith each class and vehicle having their own advantages and disadvantages. And balance-wise every vehicle and aircraft should be just as useful and capable regardless of their role. I would even go so far as to make vehicles free or cost like 50 resources, and put most resource costs in single-use items like C4, special AA weapons, temporary engine boosts, special infantry/tank/aircraft ammo etc.
    • Up x 1
  3. DeadlyOmen

    Weapon performance governed by laws of physics and not arbitrary argument.
  4. FateJH

    You want real life?
    • Up x 1
  5. DeadlyOmen

    No. Any law will do, the point is any weapon characteristics are controlled by those laws, and no amount of ******** will change that.
  6. FateJH

    I still don't think I really understand what you want. The weapons and projectiles have laws that govern how they act that are defined within the context of the game engine by leveraging numbers that explain the weapons. We use numbers like muzzle velocity and like gravity and like resistance, etc., and insert into a series of laws (equations) that translate between the weapon, their projectiles, and how they interact with other game objects.

    The only interpretation of what you're trying to convey that I find realistic is that you want the developers to give game object foo certain numbers once and make it subject to specific laws once, when foo is introduced, and never change the association of those numbers or laws with foo ever again afterwards.
    • Up x 1
  7. DarkStarAnubis

    IMHO he means that the damage of all projectile based weapons given the projectile mass and initial velocity (aka KE) is clear to understand and predict and not subjected to an endless stream of nerf/buff according to the developer's mood.

    Or that the angular speed of a weapon being spun around is a function of its weapon mass and mass distribution and not arbitrary. Faster for an handgun, slower for a rocket launcher.

    Or that the amount of recoil & bloom (hence COF variation) of all projectile based weapons is based on the projectile KE and weapon ROF and mass so it is clear to understand and predict.

    Or that the head damage multiplier or projectile based weapons is a function of the target armor (or lack thereof) and not arbitrary. If weapon X with base damage of 200 hits an infiltrator wearing a pair of sunglasses the head damage multiplier is 2.0 so effective damage = 2x200 = 400. If weapons Y with a base damage of 400 hits the same infiltrator, the effective damage is 2x400 = 800.

    That is not real life, but is predictable and easy to understand.
    • Up x 1
  8. Littleman

    I'd like to know if the next Planetside will pass on giving one class extended magazines, rocket launchers, nearly double the health, the same movement speed, and access to self healing. Also, OHKO snipers on guys that can go invisible. That has to go too.

    Actually, I think I'd prefer just armor classes - the balance of the heavy assault wouldn't be so borked if every "medic" could choose to have either a jetpack, heavy shield, or invisibility, with trade offs of course.

    I could do without sprinting too. A higher base speed, but no need for sprinting. At the very lease, no reloading while sprinting. Most ridiculous thing for someone to race around in a 5m/sq area while reloading and not taking damage because of hit detection issues.

    Could do away with weapon recoils too. An overwhelming number of players stick a fore grip and compensator on their weapons for a reason. It's quite ridiculous to talk to anyone about weapons only to read, "Just put a fore-grip and compensator on it and it's really accurate." EVERYTHING is super accurate when you remove the recoil from it! PS3 should just ditch the concept of recoil (little nudging while firing maybe, but that's all) and introduce more varied forms of attachments, like extended mags, fast reload mags, spin up barrels for higher rate of fire, etc. The average engagement range is too insane NOT to have a comp and grip on your weapon if you want not fight your own gun and hit anything.

    I expect bases to be designed more rationally, with more in favor of attackers, but not to the point where the defense has to helplessly ride some magical grav lift into an open space with no hope of effective retaliation until they land or getting pinned down by vehicle spam. I also expect bases to be a bit smaller - Amps, Techs, and Bios are freaking HUGE for how little space is actually used. Most fighting occurs in chokes and between objectives and one or two defensible positions.

    Hard spawns NEAR said bases too, by the way. PS2 places entirely too much distance between bases and their surrounding towers. It's ridiculous. Should be able to foot slog it without having to cross 300m of open, exposing terrain. Fights end very abruptly because the only thing within a reasonable spawn distance is a sunderer, and they're paper weights.

    Finally, aircraft would need to have a SANE control scheme. Learning to even maneuver one shouldn't qualify one for a helicopter license. It should be as simple as hitting "S" to thrust backward. Slowly, but still thrust backward, and follow the mouse-control flight sim model for Vanu's sake: craft's center attempts to follow a cross-hair controlled by the mouse.

    Hey... I'm basically asking for PS1. You know, when PS2 was still in beta/alpha, I gave the current iteration a real chance, I was more than willing to let PS1 go. But after playing PS2 for a little bit, I've come to the conclusion that while PS1's game play is very dated and clunky, the designs of its core systems and approach to game play was pretty solid. Just can't build Planetside to be like Battlefield: Massive. It has to be treated like its own beast and yeah, unfortunately that means players kind of need to be "one man army" material and completely self-sufficient, or we get what we see in game - a disproportionate number of people going HA for the I-win shield... and being self-sufficient anyway through other means.
  9. dreyone

    It was a lot of fun when I first started playing it back in 2014. Unfortunately after SOE became Daybreak and Higby left the entire game went down the drain. The chinese and korean cancer swarm infested Connery and turned it into a 24 hour zerg fest. They started systematically breaking the game by reducing the graphical fidelity, nerfing and buffing all the wrong equipment, adding useless new things nobody asked for, etc. Now its gotten to the point where at any given day I log in and I'll get maybe 10% enjoyable gameplay and 90% BS. Back in 2014 I was blown away by how good this game was. Fast forward to now, and I literally can't stop myself from vomiting every time I see it. It's absolutely disgusting what daybreak have done to this game, and it couldn't have happened to a less deserving title. They literally took the greatest FPS game of all time and turned it into a asian cancer infested COD clone
  10. FateJH

    Don't be naive. The developers could just as easily modify that system by changing the numbers too. It doesn't matter whether it used realistic concepts for its numbers such a mass and acceleration or the abstracted concepts such as cone of fire and damage degradation. In the end, it's just a simulation of something and, in our case, we can't even justify calling it a simulation of reality. Nothing has any basis, just what it feels like.

    More to the point dear to my heart, using lower abstractions, coefficients and such, just means more calculations that could just as easily be saved by relying on the fact that we're building up to certain numbers. You don't make a system any more complex than it needs to be to represent or accomplish what you want it - that's standard clean developmental practice. Bullets don't need mass to find gravity - you can just give gravity as weight. The weight of the weapon in the player's hands? We don't simulate it so that doesn't matter. And, if you can save a ton of work finding the same information over and over again, you can skip all the physical properties and just go to how much damage each bullet hitting a valid target does. ARMA gets away with going all-out for realistic detail because that is ARMA's first and fore-front claim to fame, what it was designed to do in the first place - achieve an incredible sense of realistic armed conflict. An ARMA Dragunov is expected to be as close to a real Dragunov as possible. There is no such thing as a Trac-5 or a Gauss Saw. We're not even on Earth.

    Before anything else, get away from that malarkey thinking that using a less abstracted, raw system is going to make the game less arbitrary to a patch. The developers can and will change it so that weapons suit however they want and, within reason and mood, how the playerbase wants, regardless of the laws (equations) and the numbers underlying it.

    And that's probably the most frustrating thing to have to accept.
    • Up x 1
  11. DarkStarAnubis

    Look - let me try another way to say it.

    Say there is a RPG Fantasy game where an Ice Dragon takes more damage when hit by a stream of lava and less damage when hit by an ice bolt, so it would be reasonable to assume that the Ice Dragon is also weaker to fire globes. Make sense huh?

    That RPG Fantasy game is not realistic of course. There are no Ice Dragons or magic lava streams, ice bolts and fire globles all is 100% fantasy however it is consistent and consequential in its fantastic setup.

    I am not talking about REALISTIC games - I am talking about CONSISTENT games, sadly PS2 isn't.
  12. Pikachu

    This is what the PTS changes is going for. Infantry are ice dragons and vehicles and lava dragons. Vehicles most use lava bolts to hurt infantry. No longer can they rely on dual-purpose-fake-ice-bolts. Like halberd. :)
  13. DeadAlive99

    I could list off tons of things for PS3, but it's pointless since they could all be put in PS2. There is no way I will spend money on PS3 if they refuse to fix PS2.
  14. DirArtillerySupport

    A sick industry will continue to produce sick offspring so long as we are willing to continue paying for it.
  15. dreyone

    You know that's a really good point. If everyone who actually pays money for this game stopped paying until Daybreak actually undo all the damage they've done to it over the years, maybe we could actually force them to fix it? The key would be getting everyone to boycott paying for the game. Then they'd lose all incentive to keep adding these useless new weapons and actually have to start fixing stuff in order to keep their company from going under
  16. dreyone

    Sorry for the double post (the edit button is broken) but i also want to add that as a player who actually did pay money for this game, I can't tell you just how stupid I feel for doing that only to have Daybreak basically slap me in the face in response by breaking all my equipment and turning the game into an asian cancer swarm fest. I really can't stress enough how deep the buyer's guilt is running here. If you are considering paying money for this game. PLEASE DO NOT DO IT. It is NOT worth it. Wait until they undo all the damage they did and restore it to how it was in 2014 before considering giving daybreak any of your money!
  17. Demigan

    Yeah! A clean slate with a better engine and new technology is going to be a terrible thing! And building PS3 from the ground up with all the lessons from PS2 behind it is only going to be worse! Definitely!

    PS2 has had many many missed opportunities to become incredibly good, a cult classic. It's not as if the developers don't try. Hell, the developers have their income and livelyhood tied to the game. If they get fired, their house and their food is at stake. They have all the reasons to make the game as fun for us as possible.

    So that any developer, including Daybreak and SOE, that want to do anything with MMOFPS's will look at the industry. "Hmm, how many MMOFPS's have there been? Not many. How successful were they? Well moderately, but it doesn't seem worth it. We want a sure-thing to get our money. Let's invest in anything else than MMOFPS's".
    All that your suggestion will do is that Daybreak will pull the plug on the game, and any other developers will avoid making MMOFPS's. Even if you did a petition with "we want a change" and communicated clearly that the money would start flowing when the game is fixed, you would still need to unite on what changes you want so the developers know what you want. Since if you put 3 players in the same thread you'll have 3 different idea's on what they want, this is going to be impossible. And even if you did manage to get a single front on the changes, at least 50% of these changes will be horribly horribly unbalanced and **** up the game for yourself, but you only find that out when the game is "fixed".

    in 2014 the game was a **** fest. It was terribly balanced and had tons of problems. The best thing you can do right now is actually spend money if you can afford it, as it gives the company more reasons to actually put people on improving the game further and further.
    • Up x 3
  18. FateJH

    If the problem is that the Edit window is covered in white, making it impossible to see your words, use the "More Options" button on that window. That should reload the page into a full-blown editing panel that will not have the same issue.
  19. dreyone

    I enjoyed the game very much in 2014. I thought it played nicely and had beautiful graphics to boot. The Planetside 2 of 2014 is always the one that comes to mind for me when I recall good memories of the game.

    Aside from some of the cool new features like new continent, construction system and new vehicles, i really don't feel like the game has improved at all and has gotten drastically worse. In 2014, about 90% of the gameplay was enjoyable for me with only about 10% being BS. Nowadays, its the exact reverse. I log on to Planetside 2 today and at ANY given moment its pretty much cancer 24/7. 90% bs with maybe 10% good gameplay (aka like 5 minutes of a balanced fight before all of china and korea show up with heavies)
    • Up x 1
  20. DirArtillerySupport

    What difference does it make if the developers aren't calling the shots? Really are we going to start talking about hungry babies and socially responsible consumers?