This game is more horrible every time I try it

I know right? The fact PlanetSide *isn't* a lobby shooter is precisely why it is my favorite FPS. I'm like a PlanetSide evangelist, a fanboy screaming for unlimited and unscripted battles where fairness isn't the objective.

That's my favorite part about this game. Sometimes the odds are so far against you that the best you can hope for is to antagonize the noobs in a Zerg. And sometimes the odds are so in your favor that you're totally gobsmacked when a pro squad crashes your entire platoon and f*****s you up.

PlanetSide. Best game ever. Just fix the bugs.

Yes! Which is why that list NEEDS to be at the core/forefront of the tutorial/guides/FAQ/info for New and Ongoing Players.

You need to build the right bridge (help) over the right chasm (walls/pitfalls). Efforts should be spent to identify the chasms (true and complete breadth of learning curve of the game), and figuring out the best bridges (tutorials, resources, guides, etc.) for them. Rather than just building bridges to nowhere (generic, industry standard tutorials on idealized but inaccurate or incomplete info on how to get up to speed and competing/contributing in the game).

New Players *should* be able to kick **** 10 minutes after they login. At least on the basic Infantry-vs-Infantry level. *If* they have the skills and basic game knowledge to compete and contribute.

If skilled New Players can't compete within 10 minutes, at least as Infantry in large battles. And if the average player can't start making progress on their learning curve within 10 minutes in any Class/Vehicle. Then there is something majorly wrong with PS2.

PS2 should be MMO + FPS, PvP, Combined Arms, Solo or Organized Play. That's it. It should make great efforts to make sure it defines itself strictly to those things (or whatever other core traits it wants to add to those). It should *NOT* be K-Style GunZ.

PS2 at launch WAS a level playing field for most players. It WAS MMO + FPS, PvP, Combined Arms, Solo or Organized Play. New Players could compete within 10 minutes, at least as Infantry in large battles. And the average player could start making progress on their learning curve within 10 minutes in any Class/Vehicle.

He can't kick ***, he can't identify a learning curve to start progressing on, and the in-game's auto-navigation loop-spawns him into a dead end, insta-death engagement. It's confusing, it's a morale train wreck, it's a dead end, and it's largely unplayable.

Most of us were born on 3rd Base. And some of us thought we hit a triple to get there.

It's not complicated to us because we got in early or had some method to shortcut into the learning curve. So for us it *seems* uncomplicated, it just seems "complex"/"deep". But the game is MUCH more complicated than it was at launch: feature creep, power creep, exploit creep, veteran playerbase, 3rd party info that is both hard to find and ambiguously outdated, etc. And for new players who don't have a method to shortcut into the learning curve, it's a nightmare.

One of the steepest learning curves of this game is learning maps.... yeah... even after reaching rank 85 i still only can recognize where im at 40% of the time just by looking around.

Veteran players will recognize where they are INSTANTLY. Knowing which vehicle to roll out in. Which infantry set to load. Knowing where the enemy is likely to come from / where the SUV is likely set up.

I'd almost argue that the game needs more recognizable landmarks. I almost would like to see a post-apocalyptic style map, with identifiable run down buildings, alleys etc.

I'm not sure how they could create identifiable landmarks in this game how it is currently.

However my solution has always been suggested to be maps 1/4 the size of current worlds, which are queued alerts, with specific limited player counts etc. This would make things soo much more user friendly.

What do you expect from a dev team that literally doesn't give a **** about fixing the current laundry list of issues and instead only wants to push more garbage content because it might net them a few DBG sales? They literally don't ******* care about this game anymore. Don't play it, tell your friends not to play it, tell their friends not to play it, etc.

Do the same for every SOE/DBG release in the future, too.

I think this is an EXCELLENT idea. It's a subsection of Building Playability into world design.

When I worked on Vanguard, we ran into some of these types of problems: areas that were visually redundant, and thus poor at conveying an immediate sense of location or navigation. We ran into this in closed places like dungeons that had level terrain and uniform brown walls and uniform brown rooms; we rain into this with outdoor areas that were long stretches of paths through uniform looking trenches. We identified these and solved them.

For the indoor areas, we added easy to see objects. One room might have a large stone Hand statue, another might have rocks with white painted pictographs on it; suddenly players could see them as the "hand room" of "writing room". For outdoor areas, we put visually distinct constructs like a unique outcrop of rock spires in an area that was otherwise hilly desert. And all this was done post-art, but the Design Department, using Objects and one Designer who had approved access to edit the world art.

PS2 doesn't have Fantasy or Alien Relic imagery to use, but there are other ways. They can make one hill have a large visual swath of unusual color for the area. Another have an NS Bunker on it. Another with rock formations (in a standout color: or the eye won't not them as much) that form into an imposing or unusual shape (large graceful or unusually proportioned arch, human skull, etc.). Another with a change to dead trees in the area so it looks different. Another could be large metal silos built into the sides of giant rock mesas. All these things help, as long as they're done with a critical eye to STANDING OUT: choice of visual marker, placement for line-of-sight to it, etc.

This all works to help grab the eye and help the player orient themselves.

Open world games aren't for everyone.

When Sony Online Entertainment (now Daybreak Games Company) invented the MMO (yes, the creators of PlanetSide 2 are of the same technical and creative lineage that started it ALL), people complained that it was too big and too intimidating, not intimate enough like the MUDs and other smaller scale games like Ultima Online, and that it would fail.

The MMO genre took off like a rocket, and it all started with EverQuest...SOE's first and still most profitable title. It was so successful that it spawned an entire type and method of gaming: Open, persistent worlds, where the game goes on even when you're done playing. They wanted to do MMO-everything. Who remembers that SOE experimental MMORTS called Sovereignty that never got off the ground?

The MMO approach was so successful it got co-opted by non MMO titles in order to increase their popularity. Games like Battlefield (that aren't really MMOs but are instead of smaller scale type called lobby shooters) have diluted the MMO market with easier to consume titles that have had a deleterious effect on PC gaming as a whole.

When you are playing PlanetSide, you are playing an MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) game in the classical sense, meaning it is by default an open world with freedom of movement. This game is a first person shooter version of World of Warcraft, minus the instances and dungeons. If you don't like MMORPGs, then you're likely not going to like this MMOFPS.

The fact that you run the game on a poor computer doesn't mean that the game is "garbage".

I can play FO4 on Ultra with decent frames. My computer is dated, but far from poor. Even then, my computer is well above the recommended requirements for PS2, and was in 2012. A 3 and a half year old game shouldn't run poorly on ANY machine that's capable of playing new releases at decent quality.

But hey, if you wanna gobble up the DBG-****, be my guest.

So classy, as always.

A game unable to launch, with horrible renders, unplayable, damaging OS', with datas loss, p2w, with absolutly no content, no update, unbalanced as hell may be qualified of being "garbage"...but it's not, because it's the result of someone else efforts and work.
Customers usually avoid "garbage" games. I'm glad to notice that you're still with us on PS2.

While others are able to run it in a proper way, you decided that you can't. Maybe are you looking in the wrong direction when spitting on the game ?

PS2 need fixes, but it is more than only "playable".
Get hired by Dbg asap, i'm sure that you'll be able to solve all those horrible troubleshootings in the quickest way.

Old player experience is bad too, because everyone only plays Indar. I don't know how people aren't sick of it after years of playing it.

People love deserts in MP shooter games.

Actually, that death was just a matter of Clientside.

That MAX charged as soon as he saw you drop that C4, but on your screen, he didn't start moving till you actually blew the C4. So the game registered that you didn't deal any damage, but it looked like it should have been a kill.

Also, Flak armor pls