There are two types of PS2 players...

So over time I've noticed that there are two types of players in PS2.
(This is a generalisation, so there will be exceptions, but the theory still applies.)

The first kind of PS2 player:
Enjoy arcade shooters, have 'twitch' skill, log on for brief time periods and enjoy a fast-paced game.
They have probably played a lot of TF2 or Borderlands, etc...
They buy the smiley face decals and rainbow patches, they buy Lumifiber and actually think that's a good idea in a warzone, they buy garish bright camo patterns.
They are probably more likely to be 'F2P' players even though they might have made some micro-transactions.
They prefer to fight in big battles, sometimes as a lone wolf but also in a small squad with their mates.
They don't particularly care about faction loyalty or territory control.
In general they will play all factions equally and might tend to play a faction to use the 'Flavour of the month' item before it's nerfed.
(NC Phoenix, TR Striker, TR Vulcan, VS ZOE MAX, etc...)
They have names like: Xx180noscopeXx, geypurplespandexlol, MLGProUMadBro, etc...

The second kind of PS2 player:
Enjoy the tactics and scope of PS2, they might play for several hours at a time and enjoy the teamwork aspect.
They most likely enjoy mil-sims such as ARMA, etc...
They buy the more 'realistic camos' and more warlike decals such a kill tallies and faction insignia, they are probably more likely to have a membership.
These players focus on team tactics and the use of combined arms effects.
They can read the map and try to follow a strategy.
They tend to care more about faction loyalty and territory control.
But might play on other factions for a more well-rounded experience or to better understand the different faction traits.
More often than not they are the PS1 veterans.
They have names like: TerranDefender, FreedomFighter, VanuDisciple, etc...

Now there's nothing really wrong with either group,
Even though the occasional insults are thrown around, like 'COD kiddie' and 'tacticool', etc... both types of player seem to co-exist in PS2 fairly well.

The reason why there are two types of PS2 players is the fact that PS2 doesn't seem to know what kind of game it wants to be
(fast-paced, cartoony, arcade shooter vs. tactical, team-based, mil-sim)
so it attracts both kinds of players.

I reckon if PS2 actually committed to a more defined game-style, either: arcade shooter (like TF2) or sci-fi mil-sim (like ARMA), then one of these groups would dwindle in numbers.
So I wonder if SOE isn't trying to please everyone, obviously to keep the micro-transactions coming in from one group and memberships from the other group.
However, by trying to please everyone SOE won't ever have a truly dedicated 'core' of players, like PS1 did.
Also the true potential of PS2 won't be realised and then the game will die a slow death in no-mans-land.

So which kind of player do you consider yourself to be and why?

Segregation is bad, mkay?

and there is the third type like me, who actualy just in it for FUN and havin a lot of skill, they dont like being serious and just like to derp around places where they shoudnt be,like going alone to the crown while everyone still fighting as snake ravine, and hack all **** inside it
,also going to a biolab and start climbing the tree and rock and start shooting everyone inside
also these type of player like blowing up scu and gen for the infamous FREE CERT
and they ussualy run alone even on squad,normaly they will stay away from being cannon fodder,they normaly buy fancy stuff like lumifiber and the shiny half tone camo.
normaly these type of player are just high lvl br that only PLAY FOR FUN and ussualy they arent super serious unless needed

You could get creative and design that into a political spectrum chart. That would allow you and other people to get a better idea of where exactly they would sit between the 2.

Neither, PS2 is the first FPS I've played in about 5 years. I'm an RTS/RPG player.

I thought the 2 types of PS2 players are those who have certs and those who do not.

I didn't know being a twitch player meant I couldn't read a game map...

maybe I should go take some geography courses.

Well put and well written post. So far it seems like nobody wants to actually play ball and answer your question. I'll go first.

I'm definitely in the #2 group. And I agree that PS2 would have a stronger player base and be a more enjoyable game if it had more focus and picked one style or the other. Currently, it's barely "tactical" enough to keep me playing. If they increased the TTK any more than it already is, simplified the physics and/or (almost non-existent) flight model more than they already have, I'd quit.

Currently we have artificial 'balance' with weapons doing arbitrary and completely senseless damage to various targets with no consistency what so ever. It's total crap. Big guns magically do less damage to small targets. The game has huge balance issues. Logistics are non-existent, etc., etc., etc..

It wouldn't take much to implement almost every basic feature of Arma3 in planetside with respect to physics models, weapon balance/design and inventory/equipment, and keep things simplified from a player movement model (no leaning, prone, multiple stances etc.). With more 'realistic' weapon modeling, a simplified penetration model and a streamlined inventory/equipment design, Planetside 2 would be a much more balanced game, and more fun to play.

you basically just discribed someone from the first group

PS2 is my first FPS, and i am definitely from the second group (membership, interest in strategy part, teamplay, etc.)

However, i am ok with the first group of players. I think this is an advantage, not a bad thing. A rogue soloer always adds spice to the game, and some of them are amazing to watch (enemies included).

To be technical, geography is pretty much cartography.

Cartography is more of a profession or a task, you study Geography to get the skills you need to become a cartographer in the classical sense, but Geologists, archaeologists, civil engineers, and Surveyors (Most of which aren't Cartographers, they are just guys who took some certification classes) all have to have some knowledge of basic map making. Most map making is done using GIS, Autocad, Petra, Surfer, Geographics, or custom softwares designed by the company using said program. You have to navigate the projections and know the numerous systems by which the world is subdivided (Township and range) and how to get a point on a globe depending on your projection and what coordinate system you are using (X-Y state plane or Lat Long). All of this is done using GIS related programs... so a lot of geography is learning how to use those, and figuring out how to interpret Remote sensing data.

... So yeah, he -would- take some geography courses in order to read a map.

I think you are subdividing things way too strictly. I am a mix of both, with aspects of both of these. I like PS2 because it reminds me of more arcadey older FPS games I loved and isn't as pretentious as games like BF and COD, who have this strange fetishistic obsession with the glorification of the military, while lacking the mechanical workings that would make them a true represenation of that kind of lifestyle. That said, I want my games to be deep and difficult with hundreds of hours needed to be effective in the game. If I play a game I play it to perfect the most difficult aspects of it. I usually only play a couple hours with friends, but I would definitely play more if there was more depth to the game.

If pressed though, I would say I identify more with the second group.

Reason being is that I want this game to become more complex. I want there to be multiple ways into a base, with multiple things to consider, and darkness that is an actual consideration. I want objectives that are less obvious (Take the walls and we gain control of the courtyard because we have the high ground, not because there is a gen up there that makes the wall gates shut down) and objectives that are obvious (take down gen that will disable the gates) and multiple ways into a base... but some ways can be blocked. That said, I want the shooting mechanics to remain just as they are now. I want this same frantic run and gun kind of gameplay to remain just with a more complicated and deeper backdrop behind all of it.

I think as long as that mix remains the same: More complex mechanics surrounding arcade style shooting, that the game could be unique, fun, and deep enough to suck people in forever.

Type 2 but I don't really like hyper real military FPS like Arma 3. They're ok but i never do well in them so i'm not a big fan. Mostly, I like combined arms MMOFPSs but got tired of BF. I had been looking for a good persistent MMOFPS for a long time (I have no idea how I missed PS1. Probably cuz I was caught up in BF42 and its immediate sequels) and PS2 mostly fits the bill. "Mostly" because I'd like to see something more "adventure-y" and less "Battlefield-y" if that makes any sense. More like Firefall although that seems a bit limited right now.

everyone can say they are both,since you need to know how to have fun, the best way to do it is to generalize your cert into everything even only a bit of it,in the end of the day you gonna need to adapt to all situation to benefit you,like being infil while the enemy are trying to push toward your base and start sniping away from cannon fodder range, or being a max to help the push on a point, all matter is havin kill its FUN and no one ever hate having killstreak,to have FUN you must know what you are needed to be and not being one thing all the time so yea FUN IS GAINED THROUGHT TACTICALITY

It sound bad saying "I'm number two" xD.

But that's what I am, I surely don't have the best aim or the most skill, but I'm actually dedicated to learning all the aspects of Planetside 2. That's just how I am though, I don't play I wide variety of games, I usually skim through loads of them until I find one I like then I lock on 'til it ends, basically.

I suppose it's highly possible that both of the described types of players bleed in to eachothers categories. I know I can log on occasionally, not feeling fully focused and just end up "derping". Not being a troll or a burden on my squad, I usually end up leaving my squad to a better fitted player.

Lol, OP, you like to draw a lot of lines, don't you?

Binary simplistic thinking is all the rage for internet denizens. Its much easier to demonize people when they're firmly in the "other" camp, after all.

I'd argue there's at least four major types of players here.

The ARMA-enthusiast tactical/strategic types that prefer combined arms and large organized groups meeting complex objectives. Sometimes get carried away and want game mechanics so complex and archaic that it can be hard to even get started (I love this style anyway).

The "skill skill skill" twitch shooter enthusiasts that think nothing matters but direct fire weapons (especially sniper rifles) and how quick you kill with them at the expense of any team or objective based goals. Prone to teabagging too.

The casual guy who is here basically to pew pew and wants cool and fun things and neat explosions (deep down hard to blame them).

The stat farmer. This guy exists to find what will get that K/D ratio higher, be it lolpods, ZOE MAX, or whatever, and then post their stats everywhere.

i enjoy arcade and sim shooters alike enjoyed battlefield from 1942-2142 (but dont like bf3+) i like arma series games but i also really enjoy borderlands and the old unreal games also, played ps1 from the beginning - i play for hours at a time (12+ sometimes)

i dont really like any decals or camo but if i was going to get any it would probably be the hockey mask

been a member since the game was released but recently cancelled (so mostly not f2p) and i dont mind spending some money on the game - i pretty much only buy weapons and boosters though as i dont see the point of camo and decals and stuff

i like the big battles best with large squads and small squads and with friends and lone wolf too (wow im pretty open in this way)

i am very loyal to my faction (rarely play anything else but VS) and pretty much all i care about is territory control (for land for power forever.! i still live by the ps1 motto)

same name ingame as i have had throughout my gaming life - f0d

i can tell exactly whats going on when i read the map its vital to knowing which land to defend or attack and i can tell pretty much exactly what will happen in the next hour with land ownership

ps1 veteran




so i think im a bit of both but mostly part of the second group i think

Option 3 - farmer Joe

Why? because lolpods bruv

Talking about the types of PS2 players.

Most players are probably some of both groups...

That's why this is so inane