Stop putting in stuff from PS1 that nobody wants.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Belphan, Mar 25, 2013.

  1. Larington

    The vehicles in Planetside 1 had a LOT more armour and could withstand more shots encouraging infantry to work together to bring a target down (Conversely, a tank required 2 people to be effective, which mitigated that armour/health), also the certification system reduced the number of players who had access to any kind of AV... In PS2, anyone can run up to a terminal and pull some kind of AV. Just wanted to give a bit of context. I'd happily see tanks get refire rate halved and their health doubled or something in that direction.
    • Up x 1
  2. Zenith

    I'd actually be for this, if only to prolong those epic battles that are always over far too quickly.
  3. Gavyne

    I fault SOE on this, because they should know if two games are designed differently at core, they should not copy/paste items from one game to another without thinking about the ramifications of these new weapons & items. Now that you've explained how tanks were in PS1 (thank you), it's more infuriating to see SOE copy things from PS1 even though this game is built differently.

    I think we can all agree that planetside 2 is not planetside 1. With that in mind, copying things over even though the two games are built differently is probably a mistake. And I go back to what I said earlier, SOE has no idea who their target audiences are, and they keep wanting to please planetside 1 vets, while at the same time want to attract the larger crowds from the Battlefield franchise.
  4. TeknoBug

    That was the benefit of the longer TTK, I remember logging off from a fight at a bridge on Cyssor and coming back hours later or the next day and the fight is still happening in that area, or at tech plants. It involved alot more tatics than just running to the next base and lob as many tank shells as possible.
  5. Zenith

    Yeah, TTK does seem a bit low in the places where it matters most. Personal shields for instance don't even seem to serve much of a purpose, as they are gone after the first few rounds.
  6. WorldOfForms

    Orbital Strikes were fun in PS1, for quite a number of years. It was only in the later years that too many people unlocked them, so too many strikes happened at each battle.

    It's simple to limit that, though - the key is to create a limitation that takes into account of how eventually everyone will have access to them. PS1 didn't account for that.

    Why was an orbital strike fun? Because if you were situationally aware, they rarely killed you, but they made for exciting moments. You'd see the beam of the light and the loud charge up sound, and you kicked on your Surge implant and JUST sprinted outside the blast radius, watching your duller comrades getting fried behind you.

    Orbital Strikes can be very fun, for both sides. They are also great in breaking up an entrenched defense - of course, PS2 doesn't even really have those defenses, but given time, it might.
  7. Slyguy65

    False...its takes days of hardcore playing AND SAVING to buy one gun.

    With 1000 certs you could half way max out an entire class....
  8. Gavyne

    Long TTK just won't work well for today's gamers, but too short obviously isn't good either. I thought prior to pump action shotguns and SMG's were introduced, the game's infantry balance was very good. TTK was just about right, not too short like CoD, but not too long either. Now I have to say TTK is a bit too short, but I still have fun and I adapt.

    But the fundamental TTK differences in PS1 & PS2 shows you the shift in the FPS genre. This is also where SOE has to decide, do they want to make this more like PS1 and please PS1 vets? In which case they likely need to implement a lot more from PS1 and make TTK a lot longer. But if they do so they risk losing newer generation gamers, because there's no such thing as a FPS game with long TTK these days. This is where I feel SOE is hybriding the game. They're wanting to attract both the new generation gamers and today's FPS enthusiasts, while at the same time please their PS1 loyalists.
  9. IronWarrior

    That's why this game is pay2win, if you value your time as much as I value mine, I don't have time or the will to save and spend my certs on weapons and equipment.

    It's faster and easier and cheaper to buy SC to buy the weapons and use certs to upgrade them.
  10. QuantumMechanic

    I don't really see what the issue is. Someone recently posted that the ESFs were more powerful in Planetside 1, that's simply not true. But regardless, it all boils down to balance. And SOE has proven that they are notoriously bad at balancing weapons before releasing them.

    You can one-shot an infantry with the Phoenix right now, it used to take at least 3 shots to do that in Planetside 1. And any idiot dumb enough to sit in the exact same place and get hit by 3 seperate rockets deserved to die. Surprisingly, Higby said today that rather than nerfing they are going to buff the other ESRLs... we'll see how that works.

    Orbital strikes. I played Planetside 1 from day 1 until it's sending off party a year ago (off and on of course). Orbital strikes were never a bother to me. A few seconds before the strike hit, you had a very audible sound of the incoming strike. It was always more than enough advanced warning to run and get out of the way unless you wanted to risk it for something. And yeah, probably half the playerbase towards the end could call orbital strikes. Even with that, the game was still a slower paced less twitchy run-and-gun FPS game than Planetside 2 is.

    Yes, more importanly than weapons are some of the systems that Planetside 1 had (certification system was better, no classes / open inventory system, base siege mechanics etc). However weapons too can be implemented in Planetside 2, they just need to be balanced properly (and the ESRLs currently aren't). It's really no different than SOE just making up some new weapons and adding them (which they'll eventually do as well).
  11. Fivetide

    They didnt copy things. The names are the same but they work differently. The current vehicle/rocketspam "balance" has nothing to do with ps1.

    The constant stream of new weapons come because ps2 is a "free" to play game, unlike ps1. Thats probably also why they tend to be overpowered when released.
  12. Stargazer86

    I have stated, many times, multiples times, that I do not want PS2 to be an exact copy of PS1. Quit it with that.

    And this entire paragraph is just full of business jargon. It has no real meaning.

    Sequels advance the franchise. Or at least, that's what they're supposed to do. Good sequels are those that bring something new to the stage while maintaining the core principles and aesthetics that made the original game fun and popular with the playerbase. Bad sequels are either those that simply copy the formula of the previous title word for word (Namely, yearly CoD releases), or stray too far from the original concept to the point they resemble nothing of what made the first game enjoyable (The XCOM FPS).

    I will say this again. I do not want PS1. I do not want PS1. I do not want PS1. I want certain features from PS1 to be transferred over into PS2, while new features are added in order to make the game its own unique animal. If you add too many new features without maintaining the old, the end result is you get a game that is a pale imitation of the original product that it was supposed to advance.

    At that point, you might as well just call it something entirely different and make it its own IP. And you know what? I'd be much happier with this game if it was called something other than Planetside 2. Call it Space Shooter MMO. Call it Shotgun Wars. Call it whatever the heck you like. Then not a single Planetside 1 vet would be able to say "Why the heck isn't this more like Planetside 1? It's called Planetside 2!" Instead, you'd get "Hey, this brand new game reminds me of Planetside. I mean, it's not as good as Planetside was, but it's alright."
  13. siiix

    its not simply about the ranking system (grinding), although that is a nice feature to have.. what i likes about bf2 was the team play complexity , you had commanders , squads , many different roles .... you could play all day long not firing a single shoot

    in many ways bf2 had better team/squad play capabilities then ps2... even trough platoons are far bigger in ps2

    i barely remember ps1 its been so long , but i did not had any of that feeling to me

    the grinding part is fun, but real team play is the key

    the other appealing aspect is how much stupid stuff can you do , besides killing people < witch is kinda boring after 100's and 1000's of hours of game play ... again BF2 is winning there... there where suicide bombings, tear gas choppers while they take of , car racing ... the list is endless ... sadly in PS2 you can do WAY less stuff like that ... but never the less you can still do more then most other games ... from what i remember PS1 had very little of that type of fun

    i mean you could drive a frekin MUSTANG or a semitruck in BF2 how silly is that, blow up bridges while an entire convoy passes trough, have boat races ... complex and fun stuff where not every element is vital to actually winning or killing

    i had 3000 hours of ranked gameplay in bf2, and some unranked... so i did lasted pretty long
    in fact this is the 2nd most played game i even played with now 420 hours + beta
  14. TeknoBug

    Oh haven't you heard? PS1 had commander (command channel, command rank (up to CR5 which had beneftial unlocks on each rank), squads, PLATOONS, different roles upon cert allocations.
  15. Kingside

    Thanks TeknoBug for posting that video of PS1.

    As you can see Orbital Strikes were not that large and they had a lengthy chargeup time where any idiot who was not AFK could simply run outside the radius. They were almost always used on AMS spawn points once discovered, and occasionally used tactically to advance bridge battles. I dont know how implemantation for PS2 was planed for Orbital Strikes but if it was anything like PS1, then its no big deal. If you get caught in one, you deserve to die anyway.
  16. Badgered

    I'd be in favor of buffing MBTs but only if they required a crew again as they did in PS1. Until then they deserve to be weak as they're little more than nerfed BFRs.
    • Up x 3
  17. 9Nine

    I want all that stuff the tc mentioned.
  18. stalkish

    ...image doesnt want to load, ignore this...
  19. Udnknome

    Just a couple of questions.

    1. What class are you playing that is certed at 50% after only 1000 certs. I've got over 3000 in my engineer and he's still far from 50%.
    2. Since it is apparently too long for you, what would be the comfortable timeline to get new guns with certs while maintaining the incentive to purchase them with SC?
    3. How long did you play CoD or BF after you got all the weapons? (after you paid your 60$)
    4. How long do you intend to play this game?
  20. Phazaar

    So I go back to my original point; we're arguing for the same thing.

    The reason a lot of features from PS1 that probably will end up in PS2 weren't in at launch was simply that the game has launched as a demo of the engine, not a finished game. Worth noting, most features people want from PS1 weren't in PS1 at launch, either.

    There's no doom and gloom here, just a unique attempt to use a different development process that involves less risk for the developer, and potential for users to shape the finished product.