What do you Want Planetside 2 to be?

Most players agree that Planetside 2 should be improved. Nevertheless, there will be disagreement on how it can be improved. The purpose of this thread is to establish what the community wants in regard to the nature of Planetside 2 gameplay. The following criteria will be used (one may add more if he wish):

Realistic versus Arcade
This has to do with how realistic a game is. A more realistic game is often more punishing, with advanced physics and enhanced mechanics. Arcade games are more casual, with events happening that verge (and in some cases cross over) with the ridiculous. Arcade enthusiasts prefer realism to be mitigated in favor of fun and balance, while realists counter that the more realistic a game is, the more fun and balanced it is (to them). In addition, they typically say that all fps games are more or less a simulation of warfare, with some games simulating combat better than others, with a perfectly realistic game the epitome of perfection.

Fast-paced versus Slow-paced
This has to do with the speed combat is carried out. A fast-paced game will usually have fast movement and encourages twitch reflexes as well as lightning calculations. A slow-paced game is more tactical and encourages a crawl forward (sometimes backward) while using cover, instead of rushing in and dodging bullets. Some slow-paced games even lack a jump mechanic and avoid bunny-hopping and similar dodging techniques like the Plague. Fast-pace enthusiasts claim that faster gameplay is more skillful and exciting for everyone. Slow-pace enthusiasts claim that slower gameplay encourages better tactics, and that the few moments of excitement are more rewarding.

Low-ttk (time to kill) versus High-ttk
This has to do with the time needed for a player to die. Those who like a low-ttk argue that it encourages reflexes, awareness, and positioning. Those who want a high-ttk say that it gives everyone a chance if ambushed, has a higher skill ceiling, and more variety in weapons.

Complicated versus Simple
This has to do with how much content, both in features and mechanics, is present in-game. Those who like a simplistic game quote Extra Credits, saying that is actually detrimental to depth and scares away new players. Those who want a complicated game argue that if it is eased into, a complicated game can be handled by newbies, and that it remains fun for more intelligent players. In addition, they say that it can have the same depth as any other game and that it allows more content to the player's delight.

Please do not give a listing of specific features you want included; that is the purpose of suggestion threads. However, you may give general pictures of how your preferences can be reached, if you want. All that is necessary is the listing of underlying qualities. Because of the lack of a polling system, likes will be used to determine how popular various combinations are. Hence, please only like posts which give a combination you agree with.

Examples of such listings with popular games (note that I did not play these games, only watched footage of them):

Planetside 1
Realistic
Slow-paced
High-ttk
Complicated

Team Fortress 2
Arcade
Fast-paced
Medium-ttk (some of it is low ttk, others high ttk)
Simple

Red Orchestra 2
Realistic
Slow-paced
Low-ttk
Simple

My Opinion:

My personal opinion is that Planetside 2 should be:
Realistic
Fast-paced
Low-ttk
Complicated

My reasons for this:

Planetside 2 is intended to be a serious game, not with arcade-style impossibilities that detract from immersion. In addition, because of its scale it is the first of its kind to have the equivalent (or at least comes close to) real-world battles fought with thousands. Keep in mind that a game can be both realistic and futuristic, provided that the technology at least seems plausible. Features such as hover-tanks can be considered "artistic license" which enables features not seen in the real world at the present day. Some complain that new weaponry such as crossbows and melee weapons are not included in lore. That is a poor excuse, as just because it is not included in lore does not mean it is excluded from the game, and the futuristic variants would be more effective than modern-day weapons.

I support making physics more realistic. Velocity for all projectiles and vehicles should be increased across the board. A locational damage system for both vehicles and infantry would be good as well, where damage to subsystems or limbs should hinder performance. Hits to the head with shields down should be a OHK with any gun, but there would be a new helmet slot where soldiers could equip additional head protection or vision enhancements. The armor mechanic would be separated from the health bar, like in Planetside 2. Although armor would mitigate damage done to health, it would deplete with hits, and could only be repaired either at a terminal or by a specialized tool.

Planetside 2 should be fast-paced to make the roaring battles even more exciting than they already are, and to make the light assault class a hit-and-run trooper. Bunny-hopping should increase speed rather than lower it, and the light assault as well as infiltrator should be able to perform acrobatics to dodge bullets (such as doing flips off a fence). To appease the slow-pace crowd, a stamina mechanic (which depletes with sprinting or jumping, and which does not recharge with walking) should be implemented. In addition, prone should be added as well as a cover system.

A low-ttk would benefit Planetside 2 the most. This would both make light assault and infiltrators more powerful in close combat, as well as make ranged combat with any weapon more effective.

A complicated game, though it may seem daunting, is the best choice. Planetside 2 simulates war on the strategic scale, and war by its nature is complicated. In addition, it would have more players be involved longer, as they will not grow bored so quickly with the new content. The goal is that the game is as complicated as the player wants it. A soldier would have fun just marching with the army and shooting at enemies. However, many players want a complicated game because they want the challenge of calculations and adapting, such as to weather and using specialized vehicles as well as carefully laid-out (constructed by engineers) base defenses. There should be better weapon customization, and tanks (except for light tanks) should be multi-crew. Empire differences could be more pronounced, extending right down to the chain of command. The possibilities increase exponentially with more content.

I was going to say I disagree with the realism part but I read a bit more of it and I agree. This seems well thought out and interesting. Good post

Great question. Especially to everyone who is whining. Yes I am guilty as anyone.

What would do it for me is if things got real. It would awesome if you actually got into a sundy or lib and was sitting there across from other players until you got to your destination. I think the overall experience would be awesome. And not difficult to do. The game detail is already cutting edge. This little bit more would put it over the top.

You jumped in a lib and climbed into the gunners seat. The small detail is what would really make a difference.

Red Orchestra 2 Simple? Have you even played it?

I specifically stated that I did not play any of those game, only watched footage. RO2 has complex features such as multi-crew tanks, but its gameplay mostly consists of shooting targets at range.

Battlefield 3

The REAL sequel.

A pony.

Arcade
Realistic
High TTK
Complicated

Why? Simply cause i enjoy it.

Arcade is incompatible with realistic. Each describes the level of realism (or lack thereof) present in-game.

This game needs to have the spirit of the original. Arcade and sci-fi while not taking itself too seriously.

They changed the formula to be more mainstream because they made a F2P game that needs to appeal to a much larger audience than the original did. At the end of the day that's why this game plays like it does. You can do plenty of complex things, most of which they are working on. SoE's original goal with this game is to make the base mechanics fun and recognizable to anybody who's played shooters in the past 5-6 years. They did all of that. However the long-term gameplay is shallow but they are working on that, JUST like they said they would in beta.

It's actually pretty straight forward. Aside from the realistic TTK and ballistics, the gameplay itself is pretty straight forward.

The best games out there are actually some of the most simple as the mechanics are what make the game deep and rewarding. Look at any major arena shooter. Those are very simple games. Their simplicity allows the mechanics to be the core of the experience.

When you start adding mechanics that direct the gameplay in certain ways (iron sights, vehicles, complex objectives, character development, perks, killstreaks), you shift the emphasis off of the core shooting mechanics (movement and shooting) and more onto those other mechanics.

RO2 found a nice spot that's pretty simple. The actual mechanics of the game are straight forward. Grab a class and play. Character development is very minimal and objectives are simple. This allows the actual shooting and movement mechanics themselves to be deeper and more involved.

The exact opposite of that would be a game like Planetside. Here it's much more about how you build your character and play to the role you are given. The shooting mechanics glue it all together but aren't the focus.

Whoops double post...

Fair points, the complexity in RO2 does come from the incredibly nuanced gameplay mechanics.
The complexity in PS1 came from the amount of loadout customization and objective mechanics.

Calling either game straightforward or simple however is woefully inaccurate and betrays unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

playable, not broken every other patch

I wanted PS1 with better graphics, minus BFR's.

If BFR's were balanced correctly, they could also be included.

I guess you could be right but in PS1 I never felt they ever got to that balanced state. Mostly they just ruined the fun. At least for me.

Instead of making BFR's heavier versions of tanks, SOE should have given them less armor than tanks but more firepower, stronger among buildings but weaker in open terrain.

(in case you are wondering why this discussion is veering off-topic, this is a disguised bump)

by the end they were not something anyone was afraid of . BFR's were routinely soloed by mossie hotdroppers and really any infantry that got close with an emp.. they may have been fearsome when first introduced , but not so much at the end , they still had moments , but mostly they were a joke . i enjoyed the flight variant , but not because i wracked up massive amounts of kills with it or anything it was jut fun to use .

sorry had to do it ...

extra unintentionsal super bump

Call of Duty