[Suggestion] Time for a new map?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Sky_collapsed BL, Feb 9, 2019.

  1. Sky_collapsed BL

    I know devs are focusing on Planetside Arena but i think it would be good to have a new map for PS2 sometime in the future.

    What I would like though is a map that can have some naval warfare elements and a more mixture of environments.

    I know currently the maps we have do have some mixtures of environments but what i'd suggest is rolling the best of those maps into a more naval warfare orientated map, I mean it won't be 100 percent naval warfare but it would be a good mix of naval, ground and air warfare.

    As for the design of the map I'd like a mix of Indar, Amerish and Esamir in it but there should be a sea portion of the map with say 3 to 5 sea bases and i think it'd be cool to have small and large river systems going through the map that would allow different sized ships in.

    Obviously this idea would require new vehicles so I don't know if it would even be possible but it would at least be something that could make PS2 a bit more interesting and might get more people into the game who knows.
    • Up x 1
  2. OneShadowWarrior

    Way overdue with new maps! The first Planetside had so many more, including caverns.
    • Up x 1
  3. TR5L4Y3R

    they are still working on oshur ..

    PS1 had many maps yes but none the size of a ps 2 map ...

    i doubt naval will be as thing with the teams resources ... at best we may get amphibius vehicles ..
    • Up x 1
  4. r4zor

    [IMG][IMG]
    This is actually false. Not sure about each maps size but at least Ishundar and Cyssor were AT LEAST as big as PS2's maps. IIRC they even were 10x10km.



    Nevertheless, their "progress" on Oshur (which according to the first announcement dev stream was quickly put together as a continent geometry in a few days) shows new continents can be quickly made. Just not balanced and with all the extra props, which obviously takes much longer.


    PS2 lacks new continents and the PS1-Style diversity. Already said that back in beta but people like you were in denial. It's actually interesting that we now have 3 unfinished continents(!!!) lying around on PS2 dev's servers:




    - Nexus Battle Island (see old YouTube videos of almost finished(!!) Nexus. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=planetside 2 nexus )
    - Searhus (there are props in the game files hinting to Searhus and yeh, this: https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/what-news-on-oshur-and-searhus.239907/ )
    - Oshur


    But still nothing with a nice META like good old PS1 (Proper continental locking and unlocking, continental benefits that actually mean something and bring a reason to capture continents).




    [IMG]



    And this is the post release world map (2003) without the caves and battle islands. By the way the weather actually worked and meant something. So the green dots with directional arrows was the way storms were moving across the world.
    • Up x 2
  5. Sky_collapsed BL

    I guess my idea would be more of an expansion pack i suppose since it would need new vehicles, new attachments, persk, etc but i think naval warfare could be something that could freshen PS2 up nicely so i think it would be well worth doing rather than just adding one or two new maps with maybe some amphibious vehicles, go the full distance and have full on floating bases out at sea, full on aircraft carrying ships, frigates and smaller fighting ships that can fit in small river systems.
  6. TR5L4Y3R


    naval to me is too limiting and very specific of a battleplane .. you just need to look on any RTS featuring them how a map would be needed to be build in order to have hard naval be viable .. that and and some naval units being about bombarding coasts and bases from range ..

    i heavily doubt it would be worth at this time, as planetside has still the issue of keeping its new players were i don´t see naval change that at all but instead just raise the learning- and grindcurve ..
    also what about the players who don´t like such gameplay? as many are there to play the infantry or vehiclegame .. how accessible would you see floating bases for vehicles?

    that aside how strong would you see naval vessels to be, how many players should be neccesary to crew them?
  7. TR5L4Y3R


    you don´t know jack about me so keep your sweeping fanboygeneralisations to yourself ..
    • Up x 1
  8. Demigan

    New maps is like pissing yourself to keep warm. It's going to work for a minute but you'll be freezing a lot sooner than before.

    PS2 should be using the space it already has rather than divide the playerbase even more and not fix the problems that would plague these new continents just as much as the current one's.

    Going for new continents because the previous one had it without thinking of the consequences is a bad way to handle improving the game, especially after we already had Hosssin divide the playerbase and then fall into disuse and hate.
    • Up x 3
  9. r4zor

    Well, the are working on getting Oshur into the game so there's that. And with current continent lock methods the playerbase won't be spread too thinly. That's a rather strange assumption to be honest.
  10. r4zor

    Way to go over the top with your reply.
    But since you ask so nicely: I may not know much about you, but I know that you know a) crap about the lack of Meta in this game and b) PS1 not well enough :p
  11. TR5L4Y3R


    i didn´t start it, did i? ...
    i know enough about PS1 to judge that it was not a game i would want to play ..
    i know enough about PS2 to judge that it is flawed but provides good enough fun for a pleb like me ..
    what you think to know about me matters jack ..
  12. r4zor

    Only thing I said in the OG post was "people like you were in denial". And yes, you are right now in denial of one of the core problems of PS2 opposed to it's predecessor:
    - being an unfinished game that was released way too early and with loads of "patchwork fiddling" attempts to bring any meaningful meta into it
    - being a sequel that literally tossed away most core meta concepts and dropped them for a more Cod style gameplay.

    You say you wouldn't like the PS1 way, but how would you know if you never truly understood it? Not talking about gunplay or some of the "tedious" things like having to do ANT-runs, but there were many really great things left out of this game, which is why I explained this game desperately needs more continents.

    Take the "finished" battle island Nexus: If it was implemented with a lower PopulationCap it could replace all the derping around in VR/KoltyrVR queue that happens everyday on Miller.
  13. TR5L4Y3R



    ... "i know enough about PS2 to judge that it is flawed"

    ... can you be any more of a fanboy and ignore stuff on purpose ...

    ... again you don´t know jack about me and the first thing you do is to lump me in with whatever people you seem to disagree with ..
    ... showing your emotional irrationality to this discussion ...

    also it´s not codstyle but battlefieldstyle ...

    and who are you again to know weither or not i understood it? .. what does it matter if i understood it or not when i don´t consider its coregameplayloop to be enjoyable? ..
  14. Demigan

    Yes and they should stop with it immediately so they arent wasting time on something that will speed up the game's demise instead of focussing on things that will improve the game.

    "divide the playerbase even more" can have two meanings:
    1: it divides them literally over each continent, meaning less players per continent on average. As you point out the continent lock system makes this interpretation useless.
    2: It divides them emotionally, as they now have another continent they can either hate or love, meaning there will be more time spend on a continent they dont like and more often people will leave in large numbers when the 'wrong' continent comes up.
    Gee between the two interpretations one makes sense and the other doesnt. I wonder which one I meant...

    Also Oshur has all the signs of being a hated cesspit. It is supposed to be an aircraft-oriented continent, but the aircraft game is still a mess. If the ground picks enough AA the aircraft wont enjoy it, if the groubd doesnt pick enough AA the ground will not enjoy it, and the people picking the AA will often not enjoy the job regardless of their success as failure means death and success means hanging around with a now useless weapon. Between aircraft its even worse, the most lone-wolf aircraft beats any aircraft unless a lot more people and oranizing is spend to counter the ESF. And the inverted skillcurve found nowhere else in the game makes ESF a nightmare for most players to try to enjoy and for only a few something to enjoy as they get to basically grief everyone else without ground or air being able to counter them effectively.

    If we would score Oshur on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "it'll kill the game within months" and 10 "it'll save the game for years to come", it'll score about a 3. It divides the playerbase, it's core design choice can do nothing but blow up in their face and it sucks away a ton of development time and money in a dead end while it could be spend far more productively.
  15. r4zor

    Slayer: But what "coregameplayloop" are you talking about? You stay mysteriously vague here instead of explaining your gripes.
    I obviously don't think everything was fine (as stated above) so your "fanboi" slant is moot, but there are definitely concepts worth picking up in order to make the interactions in this game, the fight for territory, more meaningful.

    It's actually a shame you rather resort to such childish ad hominem's instead of providing meaningful discussion content.




    Demigan:
    PS2 needs new content to keep the players interested, get old players back into the game and maybe re-launch the game with upgraded graphics (dx11) and new features (Oshur), so I concur.
    Simply saying "players won't like it so they'll log is like sticking your head into the sand. You're completely ignoring the possible positive benefits it could have. Besides, players could also log off - by your definition - due to boredom, due to the same continent over and over due to specific alerts etc. IMHO not a convincing argument as to why no new continent should be added.
  16. TR5L4Y3R


    then don´t act as if you would know my thoughts ..

    the gameplayloop i´m talking about besides the need to power bases with nanites
    get to base with vehicles to have the following stages

    - vehicle v vehicle between bases ...
    - vehicle and infantry v base surface ..

    couple gripes here are how sunderes worked back then compared to now in PS2 because unless you had your own combatvehicle to fight other vehicles you likely spend most time driving from base to base and iirc sunderers had limited range to who was able to spawn to them ... and OMFG were bases wide open to airattacks ..

    my primary gripe however is in base undergroundfights and the problem is that many bases looked poorly designed with next to no cover ..
    like you had stairways were people mostly stood around and tried to grind their way into the spawnrooms (also not to forget that you had to ACTIVELY capture a point and were else defenseless) until the baseresources eventualy ran out .. otherwise it was grinding your way from one hallway with no cover to the next hallway with no cover being only seperated through doors that you had to hack ..
    also the weaponchoice between the factions for infantry was just ... meh ... and yes i get it it´s an old game and all but considering how much work they put into maps they could have either added a couple more factionspecific weapons and/or more weapontypes shared between factions .. like why can only TR have rapidfire gattlings or NC have their supershotgun? ... and no it doesn´t need to have the ammount of variants PS2 has .. but even then the gunplay with its RNG looks just horrible and tacked on where i think it would have been better and just copy the gunplay from games like quake or unreal back then ...

    also the inventorysystem PS1 used is simply outdated .. if i want to do a non class costumisationloadout i would pick what blacklight retribution offers and throw away the need for trunks ...

    and seriously ... the certsystem ... in a pay to play game
    and i HATE to grind for certs in PS2 as a F2P already or the many other more linear progressionsystems in various games ...
    ... having the need to level up in a manner like RPG´s .... for an actiongame ... yea screw that ...


    just watched this among others ...


    .... oooofff .... yea no i rather play UT onslaught then ..
  17. Sky_collapsed BL


    Yes because real time strategy games are the same as an FPS game.


    There are many reasons as to why PS2 is struggling to keep new players and it's not adding more vehicles to grind, in fact having a new way of doing combat might even get more people back into the game.

    As for how many crew a ship would need it would depend on its size.

    an attack boat would basically be a one seater boat that is relatively easy to be destroyed but has the potential to a lot of damage just like current air vehicles and it could easily be operated by one.

    A frigate could be operated by 3 or 5 maximum, one driver, one forward personnel weapon operator, one forward anti air operator, one rearward anti air, one rearward anti personnel weapons operator with slots for 3 to 5 passangers. The strength of it would be similar to lighting.


    The aircraft carrier ship would be the big one but it would be quite limited in where it can go but basically 8 weapon slots, 4 anti air, 4 anti vehicle, the ability to spawn air craft but I would say ONLY light aircraft, to get heavy aircraft should still only be at warpgates and etc. In terms of strength, basically like the transport vehicles but with massive weakspots built on. Shooting parts of the ship below water can and imo should deal 2-3 times more damage than shooting above water sections of the ship.

    As for the accessibility of floating bases, that's what ships and aircraft would be for, not that hard to figure out accessibility
  18. Demigan

    Oshur is new cont(in)ent, not a new feature.
    If you read what I wrote you would notice that I'm pointing out that even if Oshur is successful, it's going to have a negative effect on the game. People would no longer accept some other continents they accept now and leave when those continents rotate in. As soon as the novelty of Oshur wears off and the grimy reasons why the old players left in the first place pokes it's head out again they'll leave and have even less reason to return the next time the devs might make an actual good update. The newer players would also get their faces pressed hard in the same problems that plague the game now, and lose even more faith in DBG ever fixing them. Why would they trust a group of devs who wastes so much time and effort on something that will keep the playerbase happy for less than 1/3rd of the time they put in?

    The solution should have been obvious unless you stick your head in the sand (right back at you): Don't build more continents but focus on making the current continents more enjoyable. Add new capture mechanics that rotate between bases with each continent lock to keep each base and fight much more unique as a battle may end much more differently than it does now and offer different tactics for re-engaging. Make use of all the unused space we have right now through PMB features like being able to create a lattice-link to another base or adding small FOB's to territories where you can fight over and allow both defenders and attackers alternative spawns for both vehicles and infantry that could be supported by PMB's. Add player-made objectives through a system of deployables that players (including vehicles) can put down to change the landscape of a battle and give their opponents things to hunt for to progress. Make bases more layered experiences where the attackers have to try and peel off layer by layer of defenses to capture the base, giving more satisfaction even when a base is "stalled". Create mechanics (such as being able to create your own lattice-lines) that allow players to see more bases that are closer to the enemy warpgates without having to zerg the enemy.

    But hey, you can also ask for a continent that will have the exact same problems as before, and is going to be based on the worst balanced part of the game for it's core gameplay, and then expect this to somehow cure the game. That's not sticking your head in the sand! /s.

    Also if you give Trollslayer's posts a bit of a read instead of going off the deep end because he adds a bit colorful language in his posts. At least his language is colorful, yours is downright insulting with all your "childish", "everyone else has to be in denial (because I don't understand them)" etc.
  19. Talthos

    Personally, I'd much rather that they prioritize the remaining performance issues (and making sure the DX11 update actually delivers on most of its promise) before adding more continents.

    Kinda hard to really enjoy new content, if the lack of optimization just brings our hardware to its knees.
  20. Sky_collapsed BL


    Mine runs fine on medium? Don't even have any frame drops during battle.

    I can't say my experience is that the optimization is poor and the game brings my computer to its knees. Maybe that's only true for people trying to run it in 4k and everything maxed out but I feel the performance is acceptable.

Share This Page