What differentiates this game from other FPS now that the focus is all on infantry?

With the increased focus on infantry, and the near uselessness of armor in esamir, and the huge emphasis on numbers rather than skilled sqauds, what incentive is there to stay with this game compared to other FPS out there?

Why shouldn't I just migrate over to Battlefield 4 when that is released? It's very similar to PS2, it's got gun camos, decal customization, it's got actual combined arms (shocking right?), the sniper class is actually useful, it isn't pay to win, It's got a stronger emphasis on teamwork, and it can actually run at over 60fps without having a $2000+ rig and overclocking the **** out of it.

The reasons for staying with PS2 are getting smaller every day. Now with the new black camo and the NS helmets, it will become near impossible to differentiate enemy players. The cluster**** that is Esamir is going to provide even more rage upon death after finding out the person you though was an ally was actually an enemy in disguise. Now that is plain and simply pay to win.

PS2 is becoming more like other FPS to appeal to the COD and BF crowd. What I think they fail to realize is that the COD and BF crowd will always prefer COD and BF, so PS2 is just temporary entertainment. I can't wait for the Hossin release, so player population will be thinned out greatly, then when COD and BF release, thousands will leave and that might just mark the end for PS2. The population on servers will drop to low, and action will be severely difficult to find. Even more players will leave to due to this, and just like that, PS2 will die.

32 maximum enemies across a whole map doesn't mean anything to you?

Played a few rounds today of BF3, full server - felt empty compared to the battles I had today on Esamir. BF3 does many things better than PS2, but I just can't get past the scale. They just don't compare.

Size ...

There always has been better small squad FPS than PS2 out there .. The game is about scale .. if you wanted 12 v 12 combat etc then God know why you would be playing this game in the first place, tonnes of games do that scale better than PS2 ever could.

So yup a lot of people play because of the size.

Well, let me think..... the map is bigger? (OK, it's a dismal copy/paste design that any decent game developer would be ashamed of but still... it is big).

No but seriously: the only reason why I play PS2 is because: a) I don't have much time to play and PS2 is very casual friendly and b) because there are many things that you can grind for which keeps it moderately interesting for a while (especially if you don't have much time to play).

One of the main reasons why I never played most shooters for a long time is because of a lack of any meaningful character progression... after a few hours you've got everything you need, then you play for 3-4 days and then you get bored (at least if you're not a very boring person who enjoys endlessly playing the same 3 COD maps with the same crappy weapon etc.).

JetF*****gPacks, that thing Spoiled me, can't play anything else!

What PS2 has over BF4?
Free DLC and you don't need to buy the next BF in a year from now.

It'll balance. Be patient. Fewer vehicles, and the developers might reconsider whether being able to carry FIVE rpgs (re-stockable from ammo packs) is really a balanced solution.

Be honest though, prior to the changes plenty of people just drove from A-B. Camped spawn. Got out only if they had to. I still see plenty of vehicles, they just no longer determine the outcome of base fights unless you bring them in from the next base down and go AMS hunting. Is it better or worse? Dunno - depends on what you like doing. But at least it's a different flavour for a while.

First game I am aware of that even matched BF2 32v32 and with its map size, and that is now 8 years old.

That is what you get from being hobbled by 16v16 last gen consoles and the abomination that is BF3 and its 'biggest maps eva'.

It is undoubtedly becoming more and more unplayable as it tries to be every game for every gamer and fails, alongside selling instagib CQC weapons with zero skill levels to use.

Making it 'an infantry focus game' irrelevant, more like instantly exploding meat bag game.

Another thread had someone referring to PS2 being out for 8 months and still being in beta, not being up to much still and therefore losing player base as they get sick of how it is.

Couldn't agree more as with every GU I am more and more appalled at how bad it is getting, with less and less interest in playing.

Most days bothering to log in to get free certs is too much to ask, playing for more than 20 minutes if I do is a monumental effort over booting up a FUN and ENJOYABLE single player game.

Great game in wide open spaces with a chance to react at distance and/or take cover, horrendous grinding torture when in confined spaces being farmed by tanks/aircraft/SMGs/shotguns.

Are you serious? i spent my entire playtime on saturday (most of the day, sad i kno but i had nothing else to do) inside of my tank and 90% of that time i was fighting other vehicles, tanks, harrasers, sundies and shooting down esfs and libs. Im just realy confused as to why you say esamir is infantry only. Tanks are not dead, theyv never been more alive on miller.

Well, I don't know of any other game with playable transvestite scientists....

Numbers have ALWAYS been more important than 'skilled squads' (whatever that might be...).

In a situation where you have same numbers, the faction with more organized people will win.

So size matters, but not only size.

I've seen a lot of zergs being crushed by organized outfits, just because zergs demoralize, they don't push coherently, they don't focus important objectives (i.e. enemy spawn sites, AMS, beacons...)

About differentiating enemy players: come on guy, you just need to watch at the red name on top of enemy, or red crosshair, or the absence of friendly triangle in top of it.

Well lets look at COD. Ltd number of players and when a game comes out its utter rubbish. Full of bugs and every year they offer nothing new apart from more bugs and no customer support. I will never buy another cod on PC or PS.

Bf, well never got into it, always felt detached from the game play and it never gripped me like PS2 dose.

Ps2 may not be perfect, but they are always trying to improve and develop the game and they do this and don't charge you a penny to play? They also listen to the players, some times to much and not enough if some cases, but they do listen.

There still two other continents to play the way you did before, but they and fair play for this, have tried something new and put a lot of money and time into it, in which again you get it for free. You may not like the new design, others may love it, but you still have other maps to play on.

They haven't released a new Shotgun for months.

1. Players complain about getting farmed by vehicles.
2. SOE puts walls up around the bases
3. Players complain that vehicle/infantry combat is segregated
4. ???
5. Players are never happy, and SOE should never listen to us because we're dumb as ****.

It seems like you only made this thread because you're determined to quit the game, and just need people to reinforce your ideas on Planetside 2. You can do what you want, Forumside isn't Parentside.

.

You are wrong about the directions that changes are taking the game.

The changes to Esamir a huge "nerf" to using tanks as artillery since they have severely broken up long range line of sight in many places. Which is annoying for a prowler because artillery is the only thing they are good for. In tank combat they are not much better than a lightning although killing lightings is about all they are really good at.

In terms of using tanks as tanks they maintain mobility and now have better cover for advancing.

Farming ground with air is as easy if not more so than before since anything that breaks horizontal line of sight is great for pilots.

Planned changes to resource system in future are intended to give tanks something that is actually worth doing other than just tooling about being an inconvenience to people who are playing the objectives or shelling spawn rooms.

Only thing that really makes me rage and want to quit is the continued horrible cpu performance that seems to get worse every patch. Although GPU performance is good enough that I could probably play ultra with same performance.

I agree about a small force (not too small though) being able to stop a zerg, but it usually takes a couple territories for a zerg to get tired. You just can't stop a full force zerg coming out of its warpgate. Eventually it will push through.

And you never see a smaller force capturing a territory from a bigger one.

The freedom. The freedom to roam over a massive map and encounter any of the 2000 people playing on it. At any time.

Freedom to:

- leave a base by the back door and run away (if you want)
- Roam about picking off targets.
- Flank at huge distance.
- Play a huge number of roles in a massive world.
- Join a task force made up of 3-4 platoons and have proper organised team play ... or just go off by yourself.

etc etc etc.

Despite the lattice, Freedom is still the key. No other game could offer anything like PS2 - 10+ liberators in the sky over a base, a wave of galaxies, a flash race with 50+ people, Charging infantry sweeping across the ice etc etc.

And anyone who thinks the new BF games (BF3) offer superior team play is insane. BF3 took team play and chucked it in the bin.

I find the copy/paste map and weapon design of this game disgraceful and utterly pathetic and I'm not even a developer. To call it shameful is being very kind. SOE's design philosophy is an utter pox.

How much did you pay to play PS2 again?