This game is supposed to be unique and it kind of isn't

Nothing like them? Is that why Planetside 1 had a cool dynamic inventory system, and now we're stuck with ****** Battlefield style classes?

Is that why Planetside 1 had implants that actually affected your abilities and needed to be dynamically turned on and off, and now they're just COD-style perks?

Is that why Planetside 1 had long respawn timers, and now we have nearly instant respawning similar to both of those games?

Is that why Planetside 1 didn't let you teleport across the entire continent with one push of a button, and as a consequence had large outdoor battles, but now every single fight just plays like an team deathmatch around singular bases, with the redeploy loading screen effectively serving as a 'changing maps' function like in COD?

Is that why Planetside 1 had DOZENS of vehicles that required teamwork to use effectively and were unique and varied, but now we have terrible, boring vehicles and one-man tanks like in Battlefield?

Is that why Planetside 1 had lots of recoil and required trigger control, but now we have almost zero recoil and every single matchup is just you spraying full magazines into the enemy hoping one of you dies first, like in both of those games?

Is that why Planetside 1 had a neat hacking system to capture bases with long timers and an LLU, but now we have 'hold the points' like in Battlefield?

Is that why Planetside 1 disallowed you from being able to do anything you wanted, but now you can jump out of a gunship, pull a rocket launcher out, fire it between your legs and blow up a tank beneath you, and then land on a tank and jump inside it, like in Battlefield?

Is that why Planetside 1 had very few OHK weapons, but is now full of people dying left and right instantly like in Battlefield?

Is that why Planetside 1 didn't give you the ability to magically resurrect dead enemies, because it made killing people actually worthwhile, but now we can bring people back to life with full health an infinite number of times like you're goddamn Space Jesus, just like Battlefield?

Is that why Planetside 1 had bases with assets you could destroy and you could make lightning assaults to strike the generator which would bring down the base or destroy spawn tubes, but now we have to make sure the enemy is 'having fun too' with infinite spawning ability, spawn safe-zones, and painfields, like in Battlefield?

---

I assume all of this is because PS2 is nothing like COD and BF, right?

Are you just, like, in denial or something? Oh right, we have more players, it's TOTALLY nothing alike. Except for the fact that the gunplay, vehicle play, and every stupid terrible feature in this game was ripped from both of those games with intent of making it dumber for casual gamers like yourself, whereas every feature from Planetside 1 had a modicum of depth to it was deleted? Because it's 'nothing like Battlefield'?

If you reskinned the game to be in the same setting as Battlefield and got rid of the moronic zergs of players, this game would be almost exactly the same.

Frostiken, I know you get testy this time of the month, but spilling delicious, Magrider-fueling tears all over this thread will solve nothing if you don't know how to do it.

Everything you just did was an informal logical fallacy called the "begging the question"; you started with the assumption that they were similar and went from there, finding "evidence" to support your claim.

You see, simple categorical match-ups between series' game concepts is rather pointless, especially when you're matching general trends or tendencies and not hard numbers. For example;

In addition to the above begging the question, here you use equivocation to get your point across. Not good. Additionally, you are wrong; recoil is still present to a great extent in almost every weapon, even in the controllable ones. If it was higher, then ranged combat would be significantly harder for no real reason (extending TTK's at range to the point where it would be pointless to engage at range), and most players would immediately tend to differ to close combat to circumvent this drawback. This is what occurred in Planetside and other older games where recoil was much higher. Fortunately developers have since learned their lesson and reduced uncontrollable recoil to a much much more understandable level.

Originally I decided to not dissect your post, but you made me mad, so here goes;

In addition to you stating your opinion as if it were fact, you are wrong. "Classes" are not the property of Battlefield, nor are they the territory of Evolve, Left for Dead, Call of Duty or Team Fortress. I personally detest the Planetside inventory system, as you could take enemy ES weapons, put clashing items (Rocket launcher/sniper, etc) together and the like. The class system provides much more structure and is more streamlined than that, and in an FPS that is really important.

As it stands, it takes you 12-15 seconds to respawn at an AMS and base, at least a minute for beacons and you need friendly support to spawn from a slow galaxy. Hardly "short". You're talking about excessive respawn timers that serve no purpose other than to punish you, even though in this game and the last, death is often out of your control and unavoidable. It also causes havoc with combat flow, which I have to say, Planetside 2 does much better.

A generalization.

I frequently have battles between bases both on foot and in vehicles. Granted, not often as I like, but to say they don't happen and then claim that the whole game is instanced is ludicrous.

Almost all the vehicles were made because they didn't have a loadout system

Unlike here, where multiple jobs can be done by totally different vehicles because players can customize them, planetside vehicles were more-or-less preset, using prebuilt variants for other roles. Ultimately, simplicity beats complexity for the sake of complexity.

Also, you're forgetting that several of the vehicles take drastic hits to their effectiveness with only one player, and it is not an exaggeration that 2/2 tanks, 3/3 liberators, 3/12 Sunderers etc will wipe the floor with their single-occupant counterparts. Again, you are dead wrong.

Hundreds of games have "hold the points" gameplay.

Is Planetside 2 now more like Halo? Halo has vehicles doesn't it? And supersoldiers with shields? And sticky grenades? And mines? What about the civilization that worships a long-dead alien race? Halo has all of those.

You know why PS2 isn't similar to Halo even though I listed elements they had in common? Because the implementation, pace and concept of the games is completely different, and people who compare the two are mocked, and for good reason.

Honestly, I've participated in many dozens of online forums, and rarely have I seen confirmation bias as overt as this. Pull your head out of your *** and make an argument, not an appeal.

You're begging the question again, assuming that the way the old game did it before was good.

You can be killed instantly by tank rounds, BASRs, Pump shotguns, grenades in their inner blast radius, the Dalton, the Halberd and the Bulldog with a dead-aim hit. That's something like a twentieth of the weapons in the game.

What you're alluding to (incorrectly) is the flawed netcode and latency, which in CQC environments can make people with high ping feel as if they're being instagibbed by other, low-TTK weapons.

Begging the question, again.

I like the system present here now, what are you going to do to fix that? Whose opinion is worth more here? I'll answer that; mine, because I thought about mine for more than thirty seconds.

You can still do that, and in fact it is one of the game's larget problems (zerging unprepared defenders).
You're also forgetting SCU's, that Battlefield safezones are not alike in implementation nor practice, and that promoting the welfare of the losing side is not a bad thing.

Respond when you know how do do something aside from spout logical fallacies and assert opinions as fact. Also, ignoring glaring differences between the two just because it doesn't suit your argument is incredibly dishonest, and it shows you're not concerned with being correct, but with being right

I will say this, however; at release, I believe Higby said that they were using Battlefield as a template and building off of that. Obviously the game is inspired by the series in some aspects, but the similarities drop off quickly after that. They just don't play the same way.

Reskinning the game, sort of by definition, doesn't change the way the game is played.

tl;dr: Cool story, bro.

^This sums up this thread pretty well

I swear, reading these threads for decades really drains you.

"Armor lock OP!"

"Get rid of Skiing!"

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE CAN'T FOCUS FIRE TITANS?!"

"Monkeylord is needs too little mass in FA! Bring it back to the way the original did!"

"The Torians took all the ascension crystals before I could!"

"They should really just remake MoO3 and resell it as a clone of MoO2."

etc.

All of those are direct quotes.

I think I might have a masochism disorder... it's the only explanation I can think of for continuing to return for more.

I was going to reply to this thread. However after reading Frostiken's...........whatever that mass of crap was, and Paragon's well written reply, there is really nothing else to be said.

I think PS2 is more fun when I avoid the ForumSide.

I now see where you were going with this. As for myself, I miss alot of the features of Planetside 1 as well, but they're not coming back. They needed a game that would appeal to the FPS players of today, not the Planetside 1 players of long ago. It's sad, I wish it weren't so, but Planetside 1 was never as popular as CoD/Battlefield so there must be some merit to the features that CoD/Battlefield introduced into the genre. I don't blame them for not taking a massive risk with the features and gameplay design to shake up the industry and make Planetside 2 completely "unique". I wish they did and succeeded in the effort, but it would have been a tragedy if they attempted it and failed.

Man I love reminiscing about the Planetside 1 backpack system. I remember scouring the battlefield for the corpses of my enemies and looting all the faction specific weaponry I could find just for the fun of it. Plus, keeping a Decimator in your pack just in case you ran into a Max or tank was awesome.

Personally I used to just hop into a mosquito to get to the battle I wanted. Took a bit longer but still reasonably fast. Now I just respawn jump because I don't like wasting my air points(even though I hardly use them and they're basically maxed out all the time. Don't judge me, it's a sickness.)

I feel this was a design decision for monetization purposes. Irritating because I can't justify equipping an implant that I may or may not use that is always draining my "implant energy". Which is weird because I have like a hundred implant energy rechargers and I "could" technically waste a bunch of implant energy without denting my supply, but I just don't use implants because I can't get past the fact that I'm wasting a consumable resource on an implant that I won't be making use of 99% of the time.

It was always hilarious when a lone stealther snuck to the Control Panel and stopped a 15 minute hack right before the base was going to flip. Guard duty is boring as heck though, I can see why they changed that capture mechanic.

Err, Planetside 1 DID have the ability to magically resurrect dead allies. Except no one used it because everyone just released as soon as possible to get back into the aforementioned "Long respawn queue" as fast as possible. It was a descending spiral of "No ones going to revive me so I'm just going to release as soon as possible" and "No one waits for a revive so I'm not going to bother reviving people", in addition to the fact that for the longest time the game gave you nothing for reviving or healing people led to practically no one getting revived. That is, unless you were in a tight knit squad. I don't blame you for not knowing there was a revive feature really.

They did have painfields in Planetside 1.

I made a second post, it addresses your...er...ill call it a concern.

This a 100 times over this!

I would LOVE to have more variety between the factions.

The issue is with more varity comes more QQ about this faction or that faction. I just wish SoE would stop listening to the QQing forumsiders about nerfs that should never happen.

Also, I think SoE sometimes forget that this game is set far far in the future. That in itself gives them soooooo much poetic lisence with what they can put into the game its unreal. You made this game Sc-Fi SoE, lets see some creative thinking.

This bit was my favourite.

I love this game. Halo can go fist itself with a cactus.

Sorry but judging by your ignorant post it is clear that you never played PS1 for a longer period of time, otherwise you would understand Frostikens points and not try to dissect them with unrelated crap.

If you had played the original you would know what has transferred over and what was definitely cloned from COD/BF/etc. And there is a LOT that has been taken from these games that has actually made this game worse than its predecessor.

\

"You don't agree with X, therefore you don't understand it!" Heard this hundreds of times, and 9/10 times it is done, it is an excuse to not address what is said.

Wrong. You definitely either misunderstood EVERYTHING Frostiken referred to or you didnt play PS1 for longer than a month, otherwise you would know what he is referring to. And I just couldnt be arsed to answer your wall of text because I had no time.

But fine, here it goes:

The class-system we have now is very much akin to BattleField and differs greatly from PlanetSide 1.
BattleField 3: 4 Classes: Assault, Engineer, Support, Recon
A similar system can be found in Call of Duty. The point is, while the weapons may differ between, say, a BF - Engineer (Anti Tank Launcher) and PS2 Engineer (AV Turret) we still get FIXED(!!!!) classes that are dedicated to a specific role. They have a (relatively) fixed weapon and tool set and allow only little customisation!
PlanetSide 1 allowed you to chose your Armour:
Infiltrator (only Sidearm! very limited inventory),
Standard Exosuit (basic armor when you spawn, 1 Rifleslot, 1 Sidearm/tool, limited inventory space and protection)
Agile Exosuit (2 Sidearms or tools, 1 Rifleslot, better protection and inventory space)
Reinforced Exosuit (2 Sidearms/tools, 2 Rifleslots, large inventory and high protection)
MAX (huge inventory)

Now you were free to choose whatever loadout you wanted. You could have an Infiltrator carrying 5 mines (ACEs) laying mines while cloaked, or you could have a Reinforced Exosuit with lots of support items, mines etc.

Tell me, what is PlanetSide 2 more similar to? We have fixed classes, almost fixed loadouts, limited weaponry per class etc etc.


So Frostiken was right in saying that instead of having a PlanetSide 1'ish class-system we have a more-BattleField'ish class-system!


Besides, what is your problem with having the FREEDOM to choose your own playstyle? What is your problem with having someone have a Sniperrifle and an ESRL?

Wrong again. You can spend an entire session ingame, just hopping from one available spawnpoint to the next without ever having to actually MOVE yourself to the next base. What Frostiken is referring to is that PlanetSide 2 greatly removes the need for logistics and proper base assaults/resecures in this game.
Your fighting at Zurvan but Hvar is being attacked and needs to be resecured? Just spawn over . Instead of actually having to MOVE forces there, using Galaxies, Sunderers etc players can simply "Redeploy". This leads to the exact thing Frostiken is referring to: Making PS2 feel like an instanced shooter, where each loading screen makes it seem like your changing the map (hell, you can even change Continents by "redeploying" instead of actually having to MOVE there).

So again, you picked his point and replied with something not quite related to what Frostiken was referring to. Yes you can have tankbattles between the bases, but imagine removing "redeploy-side" and actually having to move troops forward instead of having teh dumbed down "redeploy" button.

Yes the vehicles were (except for BFRs) preset. But they also (except for Lightning, Switchblade and ATVs) needed dedicated drivers and gunners. PlanetSide 2 does not need dedicated drivers, which makes it more akin to BattleField. And thats exactly what Frostiken is referring to. If it was more similar to PS1 it would have dedicated drivers/gunners but it doesnt have that. So again, PS2 copies BF.

PlanetSide 1 also had more vehicles, that also allowed variation e.g. the Deliverer Variants (Deliverer, Aurora, Raider, Thunderer) each with Empire specific weaponry and areas they excelled at. PS2 does not have that. Heck, one could even argue that going by the amount of vehicles, PS2 is also more similar to BF-type games.

Last but not least, yes, compared to PS1 the current vehicles are BORING. No Switchblades, no Flails, no Threshers/Marauders/Enforcers, no ANTs, no Skyguards, etc etc. These were all interesting and fun vehicles that were unique. Not like the "uh, lets throw 5 different weapon-systems on the Lightning chassis and call it a day" copy-paste vehicles we have in PS2.

Not going to argue with the Halo crap. Frostiken was talking about how the "capture point" system made the game look similar to BF. You again simply derailed it by not directly responding to it.
PlanetSide 1 capture-system: Hack&Hold or LLU or Basedrain.
PlanetSide 2 capture-system: capture points A to E, for a long time this involved a TICKET system based on influence.
BattleField: Ticketsystem (and CTF)

Now, PlanetSide 2 was definitely designed to play like BattleFields ticket-system, instead of being like its pre-decessor! Again, PS2 copied BF-style games instead of sticking to its roots.
Yes other games had it as well, other games had capture the flag etc etc, but it doesnt change the fact that instead of staying true to its core-mechanics, something that is present in BF-type games has been introduced!

Again, he's not talking about the netcode. He's talking about how PlanetSide 2 has a lower time to kill and more one-hit-kill weapons.
PlanetSide 1 had almost no OHK weapons ingame (only ones were Boltdriver versus non-health-boosted Infiltrator and very few vehicle weapons on Infiltrator to Agile class).
PlanetSide 2 has far more, making this game behave more like a "twitch" shooter than what its predecessor was like. Again something the devs thought they "needed" to implement in order to make the game "appealing"....

HERE you have again proven that you didnt play PlanetSide 1 for a long time. Because what you said is blatantly FALSE.

Frostiken was alluding to REVIVE GRENADES and the way you can infinitely revive fallen comrades.
PlanetSide 1 didnt have revive grenades magically resurrecting people, it also limited medics by requiring NANITES in order to operate the Medic Tool. Each revive consumed 25 Nanites ("MedicGlue", stored in cartridges/magazines of 100), thereby limiting the overall amount of revives to the available space in inventory and actually making it a necessity to balance out your inventory. Same thing with vehicles. You simply couldnt repair vehicles ad infinitum, but you were limited to the glue you had in your inventory.

Again, the game is rather akin to BF than to PS1, proving Frostikens point.

Again you've shown that you didnt play PS1 for long. In PlanetSide 1 you could destroy generators, spawntubes, turrets, terminals and medterms of bases that were not directly linked to a base you owned. Thereby you could prepare your attacks on these bases. Spec-Ops could fly ahead, preparing the next bases to be attacked. They could do GENHOLDS effectively denying the retreating defenders a base etc etc.
This is all not possible in PlanetSide 2. Even things like Generators and SCUs are only destroyable at bases that are directly linked to a base that you own.







But I suppose since you "obviously" played PlanetSide 1, you should know all of this eh?




Seriously, if you compare PS1, PS2 and the average shooter you will notice that most of the depth has been removed from the game in order to make it more akin to these average shooters.

Hehehe, we have a veteran over here.
If you think ANYONE here cares about PS1, then you may leave. Being a veteran myself, I'm done with HORRIBLE mechanics and that crappy system of inventories. Go play PS1 if you don't like the Auraxis of the present

SNAP... Imagine the VS with unlimited ammo plasma guns, firing thousands of large masses of ionized gas at the enemy with actually strange and sexxy models. Imagine the TR perfecting the arts of limited energy-based weaponry, and managed to develop a large laser-cannon that may not be as efficient as a VS weapon, but larger and with a bit more DAKKA (By a bit, you know what I mean). Imagine if your faction (I'm assuming you're NC) created the most massive railgun on Auraxis, and garnering enough energy through AMP stations (This is one amazing idea, it gives each special facility meaning to each faction) will allow you to fire the railgun. What it does is that you may fire on any facility on the continent, and you are able to make sure no terminals work, the capture point is more easily captured by your allies, and it shoots a large blue beam of electromagnetic awesomeness that everyone on Auraxis can see That would be sick, I hope SOE introduces a large revamp on November (Mah birthday!) including these changes. Ah, how I would love SOE.

Look at you, the little train that could.

I understood everything he said. He was using a logical fallacy called the "assumed conclusion" (in addition to begging the question) to prove his point, while ignoring the reality. Having read over your post, I see you did as well, and everything I said went over your head as well. You also missed the point of contention entirely, and you didn't pay any heed to my admission that Higby did in fact say Battlefield was the inspiration.

Let me break down this down for you.

There are games "A" and "B".

"A" and "B" both have a similar mechanic.

Does it follow then that the games are similar overall? The answer is no, he argued it it was yes.

Many games use classes, and they usually do similar things because of how gameplay is usually structured. I could easily parallel this game with, again, Left 4 Dead or Team Fortress 2 and have it be just as relevant to a discussion of similarities; i.e. not at all. Classes mean jack squat when they're such a common practice and are used to such varying ends.

Have fun redeploying to the enemy base. Oh wait, you need to actually move up as a team to get there, don't you?

And regardless, I conceded that I would like to see more of this than there currently is, so your point is really kinda' moot no matter how you look at it, considering I agree to an extent

What about Liberators, Valkyries, the Harasser, galaxies and sunderers? Forget about those?

And again, fully-manned crews beat single-occupant ones any time.

I assume you're trying to equate quantity with overall quality, which is blatantly untrue. Planetside 2 does everything it needs to with less, wich in my opinion is better than having two dozen specialist vehicles.

I would like fewer NS weapons on vehicles though, those are lame.

I agree from an aesthetics standpoint, I really like the Planetside vehicles, and we could do with more visual differentiation in the current game. Hopefully player studio chassis and the like are successful in this regard.

I really liked the cloaking transport, Phantasm I think. Devastatingly cool.

Because you can't

His point was that Planetside was just a clone of Battlefield because of these features, I directly contradicted that by bringing up the fact that "capture points" are almost universally-spread in FPS games. It's like saying lemons are similar to bananas because they're both yellow. Great, sure, they're similar, but so many people do it and it is so widespread that it's irrelevant in terms of comparison.

So in other words, you agree with my position.

My position; PS2 is inspired by battlefield by admission of the devs, and they sought to diverge from there with MMO and persistent world elements. What you described is perfectly in accordance with what I've said.

Why is imitating a massive successful and hugely popular mechanic a bad thing? Why would you stick with something if it doesn't work as well? And again, you unwittingly concede my point by saying "other games had it as well", as that is the entire premise of this argument.

Fun fact; the shooting mechanics and health system in the first game ate balls. Let me go to the corner and cry myself to sleep, ruminating on this horrid change.

Planetside 2's theoretical TTK's are not actually not that far divorced from the first's (a few hundred milliseconds, on a normal soldier), it's just that the second controls so much tighter, weapons are more accurate/precise, and the like. I would actually like if the TTK were somewhat longer though, and a strawpoll on reddit showed that about half of the current players like the TTK where it is.

Never said that I did.

My point stands. That sounds awful and tedious to the extreme.

And again, revive and healing mechanics are in hundreds of games, and there are some which are almost identical to Planetside's treatment. Try a bit harder.

Sounds like Planetside 2 is doing a better job, considering the above sounds broken as all hell and is easy to abuse.

• 

Next time you respond, keep it to a paragraph, understand the context of what is being said, and keep the informal logical fallacies to a minimum please.

It is actually sad that people can't admit where they are wrong.

I showed you several points where you clearly misunderstood both what Frostiken was referring to and how PS1 did it compared to PS2. And I, like Frostiken, argued that using these points one can clearly see that PS2 is more akin to BF than to PS1.

You are of course right that other things like having three empires, huge open worlds etc etc are more unique to the PS-franchise, however, that was not the point. Noone was going to argue against that.
Seeing the above discussed points, honestly, even you should be able to admit that IN THESE REGARDS PS2 is unlike its predecessor!


As for your other arguments against PS1 (showing you just assume things about how PS1 worked although not having any experience in it - which really is a shame because you might think otherwise if you did!):



You say base mechanics and being able to prepare bases would be "broken as hell", although they definitely were not broken as hell. It worked for over ten years and actually added a lot to the overall gameplay.
Sure some players didn't like doing things like resecuring, repairing etc and they might ignore resecuring bases or repairing Generators. Thats the typical killwhorish-type of player. But others really enjoyed such mechanics and had fun with it, since it wasnt just "time consuming/annoying" for them but they could also use gendrops/holds etc against the enemy as a viable tactic.


Redeployside: You CAN redeploy to the enemy base as soon as a Sunderer is there. So yes, you can spend an entire session just hopping around on a continent using redeploy, without having to use logistics (like in PS1).
Not sure why you can't admit that Many players (especially the last couple weeks) mentioned that redeployside is a bad thing and being able to get anywhere just using redeploying is dumbing the game down. Why is it so hard to see that? Why is it so hard to understand that this takes away IMMERSION, COMPLEXITY & DEPTH from the game, instead dumbing it down to a more session-based shooter level?

I never argued that fully manned crews beat single-occupant ones. Never. Why bring this up as if it was a counter to what I said?
Additionally, while I indeed did not mention Libs, Valks(not even ingame..) Galaxies/ & Sunderers, I was under the impression you would understand that I was talking about MAIN BATTLE TANKS. My bad.

Here, just like in BF, they (MBTs) only require a single person to operate them. They may not be 100% effective but they still allow lone-wolfs having access to the main-gun, just like BF.*



Regarding capture mechanics: But wouldnt you agree that in this regard PS2 is LESS LIKE PS1 and MORE LIKE other games?
The PS1 way allowed more depth in gameplay. Why dumb it down?

Heck, the devs could use the PS1 way PLUS the system we have now, giving us FOUR ways to capture a base. Win win for all!

Because PS2 just copies it, instead of truly improving upon it. Lots of people seem to think that PS2 is doing these things WORSE than BF/CoD do.



TTK: Unfortunately your forgetting the headshot multipliers, making the TTK most of the time much lower than in PS1. Honestly, if you try to argue on these points, why would you leave out such an obvious multiplier like headshots?
Again, this does not refute the argument that TTK-wise PS2 is more like modern shooters than it is like PS1....

And I never argued that PS1 mechanics were perfect By "modern" standards they are worse. Sure. But some people (myself included) also dont like aiming down sights, preferring a more UT/Tribes style approach (actually, PlanetSide 1 was developed by some of the Tribes II developers!)

How is it awful and tedious having a maximum amount of possible revives? Right now a medic squad (with one engineer to resupply) can infinitely revive each other, theoretically holding a position forever (theoretically..). How is this better than having limited revives? How is "magic revive grenades" better than actually having to revive? Its just dumbing down mechanics.

If anything, this PS2 system is "broken as hell and easy to abuse" ! See what I did there?





Seriously, on the bases of all above discussed points (initially mentioned by Frostiken), it is hard to argue against the fact that IN THESE REGARDS, PS2 IS MORE RESEMBLING BF/COD (or insert other shooters so you can be happy!) THAN PS1!


Of course in other points it resembles PS1 again. In some points it resembles a lot of other games yes. Doesnt change the fact that the Devs tried really hard alluding to the BF franchise players instead of staying true to the game.

They could have simply taken the things that were tried and true and altered those that were broken or tedious, instead the randomly chose a few things from BF (like the ticket system) that prove to be irksome or problematic in this game.*



-----
* Having one-man-army-tanks/one-man-tank-armies (again, with the MBT taken from games like BF) leads to a couple of problems in this game:
On the one hand we have too many tanks. Everyone can potentially jump into one and at the same time rack up easy kill with it. This leads to some of the perceived problems like "zergside", excessive camping of buildings with vehicles etc etc.
On the other hand, these vehicles have to be weak in order to be (halfway...) balanced. Many players complain about the weak vehicles. I myself would love to see them getting a buff. But only if - at the same time - MBTs would need a dedicated driver and things like Nanite-Auto-Repair(and that magical health potion called "fire extinguisher") would be removed!

I hope you get the drift. The mechanic was taken from games with 32v32/64vs62 max players, they worked there but prove to be flawed in this game.

If you can't keep it to a paragraph, I won't respond. I'm not here to entertain your ramblings. Quote mining what I say isn't going to win you any brownie points either.

First off, driving into warpgates is on the roadmap.
Classes are equalized for the best sense of balance.
Give examples of more original stuff, especially for directives.
New and, to be frank, sometimes weird concepts are hard to balance and may receive community backlash.
Realism has a place in games. PS2 isn't 100% real, even considering the future setting, but this isn't Final Fantasy.
Devs have reasons for the implant system.
What better way could an infantry unit take out fast moving aircraft besides lock-ons?
Shotguns, with their extremely limited range, are already considered OP by some. I know shotguns have a longer range than in most video games, but that is how it goes. If you weaken them, people will say they are UP compared to SMGs.

I am personally not a fan of the generator sabotaging turret device idea. You could throw grenades towards the generator and blow it up. Some would say that a standard deploy mechanic is too fast. Repairing the device is sitting still holding 1 button. And it sounds like the Payday drill.