Voice your opinion! What do you think SOE did wrong?

I've only played PS1 since F2P, I find it overall superior to PS2. Both have already failed, but PS1 is better and PS2 failed harder. I still play PS1 more than PS2 even though PS1 is practically dead. I actually care about PS1 and will probably remember more while I don't give much of a dam for PS2 and only play it very casually. PS2 will not reach PS1 ever. PS2 is too fundamentally flawed to easily fix and and in the end it wouldn't be worth it. If PS1 ever went open source (like that will ever happen), I would jump there and likely wouldn't look back to PS2 that much. PS1 affected me than PS2 more in the short time I've played it. PS1 remade and improved would have been better than what PS2 is. And unlike some people here, I am not a PS1 vet, I played PS2 before PS1, so I'm not affected by nostalgia nearly as much as some of these other people. This was more a PS1 > PS2 post, but it's some of my thoughts on the two games. And I realize this post a mess, sorry.

Now if only PS1 NC weren't pants on head incompetent (that's a very nice way of saying what I feel) then I wouldn't be forced to play TR as much so I get some competent teammates. PS2 NC are more competent than PS1 NC. Heck, maybe even COD players are more competent. And I know there are video game AIs that are far more competent than PS1 NC. The amount of rage PS1 NC incompetency has caused me is humungous.

Lattice:
I don't know who you are referring to as "PS1 fanboys" (Aren't you the "PS1 fanboy" constantly mentioning PS1 spitires, motion sensor, etc.?), but i wanted a PS1 styled lattice (And i'm still convinced that would be the perfect middle ground solution between ghost capping bonanza and funnel syndrome). But SOE connected ALL facilities, creating this restricting rushlane spiderweb which is not PS1s lattice. It's exactly like if PS1 would have included towers in the lattice. Which is really, really stupid.
But everyone who knows PS1 (the people you described as "fanboys"?) also knew that when we asked for a lattice, we mean the PS1 lattice, not the connect-every-single-tower PS2 lattice.

Spawncamping:
So because the devs used a bad method to try and solve spawncamping (walls the defenders cannot get up to, no underground rooms, unclear design), the idea of fixing spawncamping is bad in your view? WHAT? Seriously, i don't even understand the point you're trying to make there. Also since cont locking esamir allways has some action on miller and emerald (the only servers i play).
Spawncamping still is a huge issue in this game and the horrible base design is to be blamed. And just because SOE isn't able to fix the problem properly doesn't mean it's not a problem. Do you like spawncamping or what?

Meaningful caps:
Free stuff for base captures? Not sure what you mean here, but the general consensus from PS1 vets allways was that DEFENDING needs to be promoted more and maybe made more "meaningful" (like a lump sum of xp for defending for example). Assaulting bases is piss easy enough as it is, and defending isn't nearly enough rewarding to make people play for the damn objectives instead of nobbing around with 70% overpop on remote bases.

Cont locking:
Nobody who spent more then five minutes thinking about this mechanic wanted ONLY that. It was the understanding of many people advocating for it that it would come together with the intercontinental lattice. And THAT is what will bring the fundamental, basic game mechanic into this game. THAT is the important thing here. Locking is just the question of what to do with a continent once a faction managed to cap all bases. Which for some asinine reason SOE decided to put in before the continent lattice...

Nobody playing PS1:
The game is more or less broken with CC disabled, party drops and bugs that double or triple your damage with certain weapons on certain continents. On top of that it is COMPLETELY UNMODERATED(!), there is no support AT ALL. There is simply no way to remove one of the usual barcode hackers that allways showed up to ruin any good fight going on when i tried PS1 again.
So don't give me this "nobody plays PS1 because it's bad" shtick. SOE is letting it rot knowing damn well what a dickmove that is.
And that is truely an unprofessional and dickish move, and best of all, hiding it behind "welfare"
. "Here, free PS1! You can't play it because of bugs that weren't there before we touched the code and our refusal to moderate it AT ALL, but hey, you're not allowed to complain! It's free!". Yeah, thanks, a free turd is still a turd.

I'm sorry this turned into a fairly offtopic wall of text, but i felt your assault on PS1 vets was completely stupid with the examples you gave. Also it's weird when someone who has this "We need PS1 xyz" stuff in every, single, post is calling other people "PS1 fanboys". I mean, once again, aren't you that?

Thank God the OP is not calling the shots at SOE. I DISAGREE completely with EVERYTHING he wrote.

Only thing I hate in this game is infiltrators.
Who the hell thought that invisible one-heashot-kill snipers were a good idea?! WHO!?!? GIMME DA NAME!

- Remove C4. Give everyone access to rocket launchers.
- Remove hunter & nano cloaking, only keep stalker cloaking.
- Remove class system. Give everyone access to the medtool / engitool / recondart etc in the pistol slot.
- Give everyone two pistol slots and two primary slots (rocket launchers become a primary).

That would be a start.

To go further:

- Double infantry health & shields. No more OHK weapons.
- Reduce MAX damage vs infantry to 1/2. Increase base bullet resistance to 95% and 100% with kinetic armor. Remove charge. Give them limited mouselook speed.

- Remove spawnroom shields. Add SCU's to all spawnrooms to make them destroyable. Keep the "restricted area" painfields as a deterrent but reduce their damage to 1/4, ramping up over time.
- Move basefights underground. Add underground sections to all bases, twice as large as the above-ground area. Capturing the courtyard should be the first step, not the end of the battle.

Game Coding or how the gamer was written. As it was explained to me, SOE does it differently than most. They code a game looking towards the future. Good on paper.

Problems as I have seen it, is that computer systems that seem to run most all games just fine, fall short on PS2. My old system being one of those. I've also see posts on here where people who have pretty decent machines are asking for advice on how to get the game running better. Most replies are a lowering of game settings. Mostly graphics settings. On machines that run all their other games totally fine.

I tried to get 3 family members of mine into PS2 this past week. All gamers, with nice machines. Two of them weren't happy at all with how the game ran. Said, screw it, they'll stick to the games they already play. That included BF3 and BF4.

I know you just can't stop and re-write a game. Looking towards the future, however, I'd follow everyone else. Part of building a good player base, is a game that will run well on your "average computer", like most all other games. I had to spend better than $500.00 to build a machine to play PS2. My other machine played all my other games just fine...including BF3.

While i think writing MMOFPS engine is a very challenging task and what SOE has done is quite impressive, they wasted so much potential it's not funny. It looks like they went 'ok we got the engine, now copy **** from BF, coat it with a thin layer of PS scifi paint and push it out the door' and called it a day. Also them ignoring performance issues in what is a one of the most demanding genres and unsatisfactory utilization of multicore archs proved disastrous in the long run.
Question - why there are 50 small bases every 300m (oh look, render threshold) completely not suited for 50+v50+ meatgrinders? Because due to the performance reasons they tried to spread the pops as thin as possible among as many bases, to skirmish levels with 1-2 squads tops. Of course that's not how people actually play (zergstomping is easy and it works really well) so the FPS was atrocious. O:MFG brought performance to levels assumed optimistically by the devs at the release.

Session shooter. Meta is thin as it gets and you can not give a **** about anything and play. That attitude is not a problem per se, but there is nothing out there if you want more.
Nothing to do for people who enjoy dirty work like recon or logistics. Look at EVE. Everything is in the hands of players. There is a fog of war. Want info? Send a sneaky little recon ship to probe enemy sectors. You need to do a lot of work to have your outposts and fleets in top notch condition.
I am not saying that PS2 should be as complicated, but if the game was done right, it would have 2 distinct layers satisfying both TDMers looking for frags and people enjoying logistics and more abstract layers of strategy. Logistics people make sure streaming people into battles is smooth and efficient, TDMers melt faces.
Also look how infiltrators are shadows of themselves from PS1. If you want to be a sneaky little bastard breaking things, you really cant. What are you going to do, steal a terminal or a turret that can be restored by 2 classes in under 10s? That's it? There is no infrastructure to speak of. No radar networks, no jammers, no redeploy routes that need to be maintained.

Scoring system explicitly reward farming. Flashy '+100xp HEADSHOT BONUS!!!' popping on screen feed your inner hamster and tell you this is the proper way to play this game. Support xp and ribbons changed things a bit but killwhoring using all kinds cheese is still THE playstyle. Find the shortest route to enemy group, melt as many faces as you can, respawn repeat. Any downtime or inefficient action means you mlg ready SPM going south. Why would you scan the flanks full time and drop darts where needed? You are wasting time, crappy xp, no progress towards auraxium.

Lack of deep specialization and spammable force multipliers pulled at the drop of the hat. It doesn't even really matter if they are not individually strong because often they do experience safety in numbers.

No attrition once the critical mass is reached, which removes a whole layer of tactical complexity. Enemy flooding you with a sea of people? Good luck swimming upstream to cut the source.

Leaving a gun in the game that can do this. Balanced? Yeah right.

I would quit playing if this happened, all the different classes are necessary and give the game depth. There would be no structure.

This might actually work as it gives people a reason to **** of the spawn rooms and go defend something rather than just sitting there shooting through the shields. Too may dinks worried about their KDR it seems. I could care less, I throw myself right into the **** when it helps our platoon. Meatbag FTW!

More like PS1, less like CoD, BF, Titanfall, etc.

Longer respawn times, tanks with dedicated drivers/gunners. ANT's Station Power. Less redeploying.

They listen to much to peoples on this forum.

Closing this up since the thread was necro'd. Please create another thread on the topic if you'd like to discuss it.
Please also keep these in mind when posting: Forum Guidelines, making sure all posts and threads created are constructive.
-04