What happened to PS2 hype machine?

Agreed, but keeping games alive for years and years is very hard. Team Fortress 2 and CS:GO come to mind as some of few games to accomplish this, and adding PlanetSide 2 among their ranks is going to be very difficult. Basically, these games' communities have become contained not just within the game and forum, but across social media and everyday life. At the point that a game's community is so large, so vocal, or both, that they are able to sustain the playercount through their own spreading of the game via word of mouth is the point at which game population is no longer an issue, and I think the devs and mainly the community need to work for this. A lot of people ask about advertising and worry about decreasing population, but how many of those actually promote the game within their own social groups? Probably close to none.

As a side note, whether it contributes to the games' popularities or not (though it is very likely a main factor), one thing TF2 and CS:GO have in common is that they have systems of players trading with eachother and being able to profit from the game itself if they play their cards right. I think that, with VERY great care and attention to the opinions of the playerbase, this could work in PlanetSide.

Wo wo wo... now that is a brazen lie. The correct statement (which I wish all people who use it would learn) is as follows:
"A vast majority of the Vocal Minority."

I personally have no issue with this system. Sure I think it should be closer to the ballpark of 5 DBC(DayBreak Cash) but that's just my opinion. Personally I was glad that DBGC(DayBreak Gaming Company) gave me an option to spend the money I had sitting there for well over a year (collecting dust.. er... memory leaks???) in a manner that was neither aggravating nor regretful.

I had fun with this system and it helped me to clear out some of thoes "odd" DBC ( really? you guys ought to think about renaming your currency for Acronym sake...) that I would not spend on the sales that I found to be "valueless". It also offers an opportunity for people to "rage" in a healthy manner (as in not flame for weeks on end about being outplayed/gunned/smarted).

This, however, I will agree with.

When these promised changed came to fruition, I must admit that I was quite disappointed.. but I knew that the game had to make money.... which brings me to one (of a numbered few) stabs in my back.. the DBC ( that acronym again... rly guys... change it) was changed by a whopping 1... just 1...

My main gripe about this game is that I cannot spend money on it (or am rarely able to do so) without some feeling of begrudging.

EA and IW games aren't just successful because of massive hype. They are successful because they are "reskinning" same proven game recipe. Planetside 2 wasn't based on anything proven. It was based on idea of massive open world battles, a concept which sounds good in theory but in practice it flopped.

Unfair battles are inherent to open-world PVP and uneven battles in Planetside lead to crappy FPS experience.

Only game with successful open-world PVP I know of is Eve Online. Open-world PVP works because players make their own organizations instead of being forced to join NPC faction like in Planetside. When developers of EVE tried mixing open world PVP with NPC factions (players had to join one of existing NPC empires to participate in faction warfare) the concept flopped. Too bad Planetside devs ignored the lesson from Eve Online.

I tell you one thing: Everyone is encouraged to download the Battlefront Beta. I guarantee you that they will all come back to Planetside. Battlefront is simply terrible, end of discussion. It's an insta-deinstall if you ask me.

So let's explore this a little...

I assure we have no less passion for the game than you guys do. This is our livelihood and what we spend the bulk of our time on.

You say the marketing is poor, but please elaborate why you believe that. Saying it's poor with no context isn't really helping.

I have to completely disagree with you on Bounties. That is not the general feedback we got regarding it. Yes some folks gave a resounding a no, some gave a "That's cool," and some just shrugged their shoulders. We aren't going to say it's some smashing success but enough of you are using it that calling it against the vast majority of players I don't think is accurate.

Cert prices were honestly just brought in line to be somewhat consistent, nothing more. In general things went down but yes a few did go up.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Good analysis.

PS2 would benefit from a few other game modes which would cost very little in Dev time, but add a lot of variety to the game. Small balanced teams in small TDM and CTF maps, for instance. Both TDM and CTF maps are staples of games with long shelf lives. Casual players and new players love these game modes, because they're easy and balanced. Heck, you could even have tank TDM or air TDM, lots of possibilities. How about air only CTF: would you go with a scythe or a lib?

The good news is that no one needs to create new classes, weapons or bases, simply port the ones already in PS2 into new game modes. I can't imagine that creating new maps and game modes using the same bases, classes and vehicles would take that much time.

Also, letting players design, sell and share maps, camo, helmets, etc... also allowing players to start their own PS2 servers, like TF2 and CS/CS:GO community servers would lengthen the life of the game.

The forumsiders will whine loudly at these suggestions, but all it would ultimately do is to allow more choices for players... hard core PS2 big map/big battle veterans can continue to head shot each other from 500m to their heart's content in Hossin.

Personally I would play a lot less TF2, CS/CS:GO if i could play PS2 in small balanced maps.

If only there was a dislike button...

Just to mention it, they recently started commercials in German late night TV again. About 11pm till morning you'll see PS2 every once in a while.
Ads on web pages are way more effective for an online game anyway.

And that's how you do it, gentlemen.

And he's spot on about the advertising. If you're playing the game you're less likely to see advertisements for it. Marketing has become almost absurdly efficient. Gone are the days when you put up an ad in every magazine you could find, and while some companies still do that, it really has more to do with status than actual advertising.

Daybreak seems to run pretty lean, especially after their acquisition. Let's not be too hasty to assume they aren't advertising. Hype isn't advertising.

Yeah, a CTF alert like "Get this data from facility xy to our HQ!" would be awesome...
I have to disagree with the rest. We are here because this isn't a arena shooter like CS.

Hah! No. Battlefront 3 is an actual attempt from DICE to experiment with new mechanics they couldn't get away with in their Battlefield games due to setting. Those complaining it's too much like Battlefield and that it should play more like the older Battlefronts don't quite remember that the older Battlefronts WERE Battlefields with the Star Wars setting from their surface to their very core. Battlefront 1 and 2 were born from the popularity of a mod for BF 1942, and Lucas Arts ran with the concept, producing the most successful Star Wars video game franchise because it lived up the latter part of the IP's name, Star WARS.

Similarly, the only things separating Planetside 2 from Battlefield is the persistent world, class abilities (HA, infil, and LA specifically) and the MAX. Oh, and aircraft, but they're more like helicopters unhinged from orienting on the Y axis, which causes much of the problems getting into the air game. Exacerbating these balance issues is the availability of vehicles - Battlefield can balance the armor/aircraft vs infantry ratios - Planetside 2 can not, which is why tanks are fragile and largely ineffective anymore. Same with aircraft. Planetside 2 MUST be balanced around infantry play as a result. Battlefield can afford to make vehicles powerful because there will only ever be so many in use at a time. This is why vehicles are generally fragile, lack splash, and every single infantry unit should have some effective means of countering vehicles - C4 ain't it, it's a dummy check only LA can really capitalize on, not a real AV option, and another reason why medics are generally a rare sight.

Planetside 2 is fun because of its differences from BF however... except HA, which break the rules of heavy unit balance in a first person shooter. Any maybe tanks being underwhelming. The rest are just... poor design decisions where the only lessons to be learned come from the predecessor - Planetside 1. DBG seems to be erring more towards those lessons as they find people asking for them - ANTs, nanites/resources powering bases are a more recent, looked forward to example.

Agreed on the HA part, and partly agreed on the vehicle part.

Vehicles must be rather weak because of how easy you can get them since there is also no limit.
But it is favoring Infantry so much it goes simply beyond what would be reasonable.

- Most bases are designed to keep vehicles out of the fight and force infantry and the occasional aircraft to do the work.
- Some Infantry weapons have more EFFECTIVE range than tanks, NS engineer AV turret being the prime example.
Also Ravens, Vortek and Lancer. Phoenix can shoot around cover at 300 m range. TR.... is still shooting mostly useless flares at longer ranges. Because **** TR.
- If Infantry has the high ground goddamned tanks are helpless. 1 Medic, 1 Engineer, a handful HAs on a hill and no tank can even hope to get past, except by avoiding that position like the plague and driving around.
- Funnily enough the two sturdiest vehicles in the game are the Sunderer and the Galaxy. Not the MBT, not even the Vanguard (except with shield) can take that much damage. ******* troop transports can tank more than tanks and with dual furies on the Sundy even be considerably more dangerous at times.

The more sensible option would be to make vehicles stronger but scarcer by making them more expensive and thus harder to get.
I'd be willing to pay 2.5k nanites for my tank, payed up front in several installments, if it can finally live up to its purpose and expectations for it. Especially if I don't need to be afraid of some ******* jumping out of a Galaxy or Valkyrie dropping 2 bricks on me from where I can't see or similar absurdities.

I think small maps could take a lot from planetside 2 as it would put less people on the large ones, and make the game basically just Blacklight: Retribution, however I think for VR training, being put into small TDMs that grant no XP and being able to try out the weapons and other unlocks for free in an actual fighting environment would add a lot to the game.

A CTF could be good but if the flags were carried by single players, it would just be a hub for griefers who take the flag and run to the enemy.

Tank/air exclusive alerts is one I very much like.Imagine alerts that are the same as now except that maxes, tanks, aircraft, consumables, or some combination thereof are free. Also, with the new construction systems, having alerts revolving around the nanite/mineral/auraxium/whatever-its-called deposits with free or cheap tanks would be very useful.

I've also made a thread containing my idea of a King-of-the-Hill style game-mode (called it foreign object drop) here. This gamemode is sort of how I picture a CTF having to work in Planetside to not get ruined by 12 year-old "spies" that think it's noble to switch factions to advance another's endeavors.

As far as community-driven software goes, it could work very well in Planetside. We already have cosmetics being made by some users, and expanding this could work well. We could use the Public Test Server, or a new server, to introduce new content. Mods could be coded, then approved by devs to see if they work with the game, then put on a new test server for feedback, at which point players vote on whether or not they would like to see the new item in the main game, and if 75% think it should be implemented, and the Devs agree, it is moved to the PTS. Then, on PTS, all the bugs are ironed out with it until it finally gets put on live, once again with the approval of the developers. Having development of the game outsourced to members of the community could bring in at least a small number of capable programmers to the development team, which would be beneficial to the game as a whole.

What game are you playing? In 90% of the bases tanks still can shell the spawn-room...

Actually.. the method PS1 used to limit tanks and justify their power was the requirement of a dedicated driver and gunner. This is a consideration. In all honesty, the Lightning and the MBT are redundant, with the Lightning only really existing to be pulled from small outposts or when no tech plant is available, otherwise, MBT > Lightning. This is kind of flawed reasoning though. In PS1, the Lightning followed the same rule of being pulled without a tech plant, but it was also the one-man tank versus the much more devastating multi-man MBTs. It also came with a machine gun such that it could engage infantry and armor alike.

And of course, it should be said that the terrain was more favorable towards armor-infantry play as well - flat expanses bordering dense forests meant tanks were free to remain mobile, but there was always ample cover for infantry in the field (and bases weren't built such that no one could shoot in or out,) so even with the large splash afforded to tank cannons, they still might only score one kill per every one or two shots, depending on the size of the tree. It's ironic, but the hand crafted approach of continents seems to be actually working AGAINST vehicle/infantry balance.

Except for subterranean nanite analysis I'm pretty sure that tanks can SHOOT AT all the spawnrooms.
Surround them and actually keep people in there? Doing something useful and actually killing people? Not so much.
But I wasn't talking about spawnrooms anyway, but pretty much everything else, because spawncamping simply shouldn't be a thing. They should influence the fight between the spanwroom and the objectives, not shoot shielded doors.
And even if I was talking about that - spawnrooms have several exits, a lot even have a teleporter. In addition to that infantry can shoot out of them while being invincible. VS spawnrooms especially would be very hard to camp with vehicles, but luckily most VS seem to think the Lancer is crap.

My proposal for the spawncamping crap would be that everyone leaving a spawnroom for the first time gets nano-armor cloaked for 5 seconds. If they want to shoot before thay lose the cloak they have to decloak for 0.5 seconds first though.

And locking down a spawn with vehicles simply doesn't happen. They might put down a couple shells and explosions on your door, but the ones keeping you in there have a rifle in their hands and sit behind a rock 15m in front of the spawnroom.

Yeah but folks, the TDM and CTF concepts were created by game creators as an additional meta to the single-player game already created. Deathmatch started as early as the Atari but really took off in Doom, Quake and Unreal. But those modes are player/developer created metas in which points are awarded differently than just following the singleplayer experience. Remember that developers are gamers too and usually they're gamers that want to make games. They're no different than the rest of us who just want to immerse ourselves in the very product these people want to create.

Planetside 2 offers us a magnificent realm in which to immerse ourselves and to create whatever experiences we want to have. It is a massively interactive sandbox that offers many facets of content through infantry, vehicle and aircraft play; not to mention the MASSIVE communities that have spawned from this game. There are communities for factions, for servers, for outfits and for specialized play, like tanking, flying, harassing (on reddit) and anything else player created.

The difference is EA has done an excellent job of repackaging the same interactions as BF1942 over and over and over again. Their audience are the sheep. Sheep that WANT to be be sheep. Sheeple need to be directed. They need the carrot in front of the horse, with blinders on. That's their audience. Planetside 2's audience is treated differently. You're a horse. Here are some ways for you to get a carrot. Now go forth and explore the serengeti, make some friends and discover the other ways to get the carrot!

It is a very different outlook and encourages a very different method of operating. Not saying the PS2 crowd is more developed than the automatons that play BF. But, as an old veteran of CS beta, TFC, TF2, CSS, BF1942+, I can tell you that the sandbox / choose your own adventure style appeals to me far more than: Go here, now go there, now go here, pick this up, grab that, go over there but not too far...you're out of bounds, no, no no.....now you're dead. We already choose checklist living in our day to day lives, why oh why would we choose that in our video games too?

While I don't work in DBG's Hype dept, or have access to any current or historical marketing data or data of any kind, I can tell you based on my experiences that the awesomeness of this game reaches people the old fashioned way: Word of Mouth. Telling your friend how amazing this game is. That's how I found my way here. Everyone has a different meta. Being herded into micromanaged outfits is unfortunately how most people start out, but it doesn't have to be that way. And who knows, it may be a great form of basic training to help players learn the absolute basics. Though I did learn more about this game far after BR100, but I digress.

Helping people who choose to create and maintain communities through leadership tools and empowerment practices is perhaps what the PS2 team could improve upon, given the historical approach, if that is still their intent. I would look at how the MMO games do it because PS2 to me is an MMO.

But the bottom line is, PS2 is about creating and experiencing worlds. And it's a game in which players (should they choose to) become empowered to create communities and enhance their immersion.

Right now, everyone in this thread has access to communities, great and small, and it is up to them to tell their friends about how amazing Planetside 2 is, if they so choose to. That's basically what I told my friends. They all had kids, so they stopped, but RL does that to people. Otherwise they'd be jumping their harassers with me and mine. Which brings me to my meta: Harassers, Tanks, Vehicles in general, and now that I play on a computer that can handle smashing graphics, in-game cinematography and photography have been added.

What's your meta and are you doing all you can to experience it? Do your friends know? And if not, why not? If so. give them a high five for me.

When I get tired of the 70-30 or 80-20% battles, where do I go? CS of course, like the rest of the gaming world. CS:GO had something like a million players one week recently when I checked on steam.

If you want PS2's big maps to stay around for a while, small casual maps that take 10 or 20 minutes to play might do just that. Small CTF or TDM maps that are designed by players could have more and more new players getting into PS2, certing up weapons and shields and then coming out to play in the big maps.

Attracting casual players is the key to PS2 not dying completely.

Hm, you got a point there. The question is, can we create something like this without losing what PS2 really is about?

There are times where I consider if the MMOFPS is something that can actually work long term, in the open world setting anyway.

MAG did well then bled dry due to lack of updates and being way ahead of its time, as in, the PS3 could barely handle it. It featured matches that pitted 128 players versus 128 players, but to keep the console from erupting into a small mushroom cloud, everyone was cleverly divided into platoons of 32 and further down to squads of 8, with 64 players operating on each side of the map. It was glorious to see a massive battlefield, over time, littered with smoke plumes, but ultimately it was like having four 32v32 matches working in tandem, and the success on one front influenced success on another. It basically meant one map in fact equaled four, because each side was different. And then there were smaller maps, the smallest being 32v32.

As far as I'm concerned, MAG was a slightly deeper game in terms of objectives and gun play. There were no classes, just a weight system that determined what you could bring, heavier armor costing more than lighter armor, but light armor could haul ALL the good tools because it cost next to nothing though it left you super vulnerable. The game was severely lacking in vehicle play however. Also, it was console - meaning controllers, meaning it was pretty much $#!% to control because I'm a PC gamer. The three factions followed similar doctrines to PS2 even - one was RoF, one raw firepower, the other "balanced." The parallels to PS2 were kind of staggering, like they kind of recognized PS1 existed and drew inspiration from it.

The problems with PS2 are many, but to draw differences from MAG - in PS2, some classes are simply more effective than others. The medic I'd consider lowest on the totem pole. I'd gladly trade in my rev tool for anything else, and I do. I only go Medic when I want to go hard mode on myself because my K/D is like 7+. There really aren't that many side objectives in PS2. There are vehicle terminals, maybe the occasional equipment terminal in some random building, but it doesn't feel like one side has to break down the defenses to invade a base as it did in MAG. I appreciate the Amp stations with the multiple capture points and local spawn rooms because they offer a semblance of this feeling of progression. Sure tech plants have their dual generators, but the problem with that is... unless my team has access to the facilities on both sides of the tech plant, chances are they're not knocking out both generators. Too easy for the enemy to come in from behind one of the generators with armor otherwise.

Of course, bases are horribly designed anyway.

Also, the final plus to having match based games on scales of, say, 128 vs 128? DBG would only need to focus on making smaller maps, and they could afford to create structures appropriate to the defending faction even. I'd love to storm through a Vanu Sovereignty base, not a metal shack with NS labeling all over it.

But these are just ideas. I feel PS1 largely failed due to the lasting stigma of BFRs (people wanted mechs... they just released beyond OP) and generally being out dated with time and seeing no updates. PS2 lasted a little longer, but honestly, that's probably because there are more gamers now and high-speed internet is more widely available. Back then, it was dial-up and there was a stigma attached to playing video games, so the pool was considerably smaller.

I know the world wants an MMO(PVP)FPS... it just has to be done right. Unfortunately two or three iterations isn't nearly enough attempts to get the basics down to a science that works. We can't automatically assume MMO(PVP)FPS works in an open world setting, but we can't write that concept off yet either. This is practically the EQ of the MMOFPS. It works, but it's unrefined for appeal to the masses.