SOE intended it to be a sandbox, where "the content is the players"

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Zizoubaba, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. Zizoubaba

    I would imagine that it's the same for DB, as far as I've seen so far, it seems to be the case.

    But that doesn't mean some freekish chaotic random game where everything everyone does makes absolutely no sense.

    I get that some people don't care about winning, or achieving an objective, they just want to fight. I've been "getting" that since 2012, but (in my opinion), this is really getting out of hand.

    When nothing makes sense on the map, for someone like me, there really is no point in playing anymore.

    Up until quite recently, I always used to whine a little bit about the idiot zerg who pushes one base after the other when they could simply take the 4th base which is a cut off point and take all 3 previous bases along with it.

    Or the enemy faction that is losing a very important base in a 1-12 populated fight but ignores it and instead pushes some other totally random base held by a faction that is losing the Alert.

    Whatever, it happens, it's happened, it's always been like this.

    And if I love PS2 this is why, the freedom for all to play as they like.

    But not this, not what I witnessed today, or over the past couple of weeks (not all the time and not every day).

    You can learn a lot from simply looking at a map. Depending on how it looks, you can tell if there are outfits running with platoons doing what they can to achieve victory. At first glance, you can tell if no one really gives a **** and it"s all about god knows what actually, I have no idea what it's all about.

    But can I blame on the players? They're the ones playing like this aren't they? Sure, so why did they not play like this up until now?

    TL;DR : I would like to suggest, recommend, if not ******* beg, that DayBreak pay closer attention to what a lot of people refuse to call "meta game", the actions of players in the game.

    A sandbox where everyone does whatever they like does not mean, should not mean a entirely pointless and random collection of battles. If players aren't doing it, I think, it's because the game isn't really "gently guiding them" in the right direction .
  2. JibbaJabba

    At a super high level there are two games going on here.

    One is the a game amongst commanders to control stuff. This game organically generates the circumstances for the other game: deathmatch.

    I play both of these games at different times.

    During alerts, or approaching warpgate charge, I play the commander game. At other times I simply don't care. I'll have a blast farming that biolab that long since got cut off from the lattice and has no strategic value.

    Just keep in mind another possibility: Some of those irritating folks ARE playing the "commander" game just like you want them to. It's just that they suck really, really bad at it. :p
    • Up x 3
  3. Zizoubaba

    I totally get your position, in fact most people I know, or have known since 2012/2013 share that position. (I don't, I'm 100% commander :p).

    My point though, is that if EVERYONE plays death match, or treats PS2 as a MOBA where each "base" is one "game", or any other kind of arcade game where you click on "join combat" fight till you drop then click "join combat" again, then :

    a) it goes against how SOE intended the game to be (and I think also DB)
    b) it makes the game completely pointless to me, literally. I'd play PUBG if I "just wanted a fight".

    Of course there should be space for what you call "deathmatches", but there should be some for the commanders too ... (in my opinion, it should (((((and has been for a long time)))) be the majority..

    As to outfits / platoons etc sucking, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, though you know that if they droping from a gal, it isn't for a deathmatch hehe
  4. JibbaJabba

    I find generally it ebbs and flows.

    As much as we complain about whatever the current iteration of alerts is, it does indeed drive the desired behavior.

    When continent max pop happens and an alert approaches, that commander game really starts to get in effect.

    And as much as I love the deathmatch, it's not why I come here. Pwning someone 1:1 with a quick juke and headshots is nothing compared to the rush of pwning someones platoon with your own platoon. Putting my guys into that highground flank and watching them melt people is just ... grrrr that **** is awesome.

    During off hours though I generally find: 1-2 platoons, generally hitting some lattice of their choice with not a ton of faction wide thinking. If you see this junk commonly, maybe try exploring some different play hours??
    • Up x 1
  5. Liewec123

    You'll be pleased to know that the current freedom to enjoy "pointless" big fights is soon to be removed.
    Part of their plans to further ruin the spawn options include all of the terrible things
    that will force players to go where the game wants them to go.

    There won't even be an option to spawn in a region with over 100 players.

    you want people focusing on objectives?
    Well be careful what you wish for, because the devs are soon to force that upon us all.
    • Up x 1
  6. Zizoubaba

    If what you say is true, I think it's silly.. I imagine if you make the players do what you want them to do through force rather than incentive, you're pushing them away from the game?
  7. adamts01

    Sometimes that's necessary though. It's shown day after day that 96+ players like rolling down a lane against 1-12. They like that, but it's not good for the game's long term player retention. They need competition forced upon them. I didn't read the exact details of that proposal. If they soft-limit fights to 100 per faction then I can get behind that. 150 vs 150 infantry fights are just a laggy **** show of grenade spam and suicide bombers. If that 100 players is cumulative, then I absolutely oppose it.
  8. Zizoubaba

    My experience is that this issue wasn't so bad in the past, even in the relatively recent past, which is why I'm assuming that it isn't all down to "players will be players", which is why I'm assuming that it's in the hands of the devs and that it can be done without obligating players...

    Maybe my memories serve me wrong, to be honest, how the system was organised last year let alone the years before seems like a distant fading image in the mist!
  9. adamts01

    "Players will be players" is the perfect way to look at things. Consider that it's basic instinct of all life to take the path of least resistance. When your faction beating the others is the end goal, then it's natural to bring overwhelming force and have an easy go of things. The thing to now consider is what makes games entertaining. Struggle and competition is what adds longevity and entertainment to any game. This is why players can't be given what they want, an unstoppable army, but where game developers must give them what they need, competition. I can't speak for all servers, but fights are currwntly much better on Connery than 2 years ago when I started playing PS2. That force feeding of more balanced fights through spawn manipulation is exactly what's needed. I can't say their latest proposal will fix things, but it's a step in the right direction.
    • Up x 2
  10. Liewec123

    damn straight! when they make these changes i'll be looking for reasons not to leave,
    the only thing PS2 has is the gigantic battles that can't be found elsewhere,
    when we're forced into small fights there won't be much reason to no go play one of the other 100,000,000 games like that.

    i understand that people can get frustrated that we aren't focusing on the objective and are instead having fun.
    but that is just the way it is, fun>objectives.
    • Up x 2
  11. OldMaster80

    This has been discussed recently in another thread.
    You are 100% correct. In PS2 players can do 2 things: follow personal achievements (directives,KDR, score), or follow faction's goals (Alerts).

    The second option does not bring long term tangible rewards: bases come and go, continental ownership changes all the time. But stats, shiny armors and guns, certs instead remain.

    If you ask me that's an awful game design. Players are rewarded more to be lone wolves killing machines than cooperating for faction's success. And it happens exactly what you said: the whole game is completely pointless. We have the biggest maps of any shooter, the biggest population and the biggest battles, but in the end PS2 is not different from any other shooter, as most players just play that as a deathmatch.

    It's because the game does not tell them to do otherwise, and rewards them to play like a simple shooter.

    Sorry, what you wrote is ********. Players will still be able to go wherever they want. They will just to use vehicles instead of pressing the magic teleport button.
    While this might sound a terrible disgrace to the laze crowd of "I want pew-pew right now!", it's a necessary change. The current asinine iteration of redeploy is detrimental for the game. Instead of an ordinated and logic flow of forces moving through a battefield PS2 is a whack-a-mole of people teleporting back and forth trying to spawn in a fight where they have numeric superiority.

    It's all about redeploy, zerg, farm, redeploy again.

    Combined with other issue of rewards system you have a terrible mix and it happens what we see every day: as soon players capture a base the enemy is pushed back, and instead of trying to resist and retaliate their population drop because they just redeploy somewhere else. Players are rewarded to give up, it's awful
    • Up x 3
  12. Liewec123

    • Any fight with more than 96 players is completely disabled from becoming a spawn location.
    • These locations show up as greyed out icons, and affect all public spawn locations.
    (directly from the redesign document),

    it means if you are in a big awesome fight and you die and don't get revived,
    you are booted out of the fight because it isn't an available spawn location
    this also happens if your team reaches 55% pop in the zone, you cannot respawn there.

    now you might be fine spending 2-3 minutes of travelling after each death just to get back to the base you were booted from,
    but not me, if these changes happen, i'm out!
    • Up x 1
  13. velie12

    They probably meant 96 players per faction, otherwise it would indeed be silly. Also remember that most bases aren't really made for 192+ players(if they managed to spread the fight more out most bases could work with such numbers though). Such numbers are only gonna work for an open field battle and maybe ikanam biolab. Also keep in mind that the design document was a rough sketch, they are still working on it and it will probably not be exactly the same as in the document
  14. Silkensmooth

    I couldn't care less about capturing bases. Why? Its not fun. Its actually boring.

    Unless you like standing around a control point with a bunch of maxes farming the 1 or 2 brave or stupid enemies who come to oppose you.

    I just want good fights.

    For me getting a 20 kill streak with my trusty trap m1 beats warp-gating the opponent every time.
  15. Liewec123

    Nope, when they mean "per faction" elsewhere in the doc they say it, there won't be any big fights when the changes come in.

    It is a huge step in the wrong direction forcing players away from what we all enjoy and play for, big meat grinder battles,
    Even if it isn't furthering an objective it is the only reason many of us are even here. :D
  16. velie12

    I can't find this with when it comes to absolute numbers(they only mention percentages this way). They were probably thinking of the population indicator you see when you hover over a base when they wrote this. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise