what if...

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Alan Kalane, Jan 9, 2016.

  1. Alan Kalane

    I understand that this may be a very controversial topic but please consider that it is not a sugestion but rather a "what if..." kind of discussion from a game development perspective.

    Probably the greatest difference between ps1 and 2 is that ps2 is much more skill-based in terms of gunfights. In ps1 time to kill was much longer, there were no headshots and pretty much no one-hit-kill weapons. Even bolt action sniper rifles couldn't ohk even on headshot. This was obviously implemented in ps2 to attract the "killer" crowd, players who enjoy being better than others on the individual level. The question ie: wouldn't it be better for the game if things such as

    -headshots

    -ohk weapons

    -low ttk weapons

    -regenerating shields

    were never implemented?
    You must be thinking: this is bull$hit, why would you want these features gone? But just listen to my reasoning and you may change your mind.

    Imagine you're a dev. A good dev has to consider whats the purpose behind a particular game mechanic before implementing it. Simply saying "cuz its fun" is not enough. For example why are medics rewarded for healing others with xp? Because it's the kind of behaviour the devs want to encourage. They want medics to revive others to make dying less frustrating for others.

    Now, what is the purpose of the mechanics I listed? As I said it's to attract the "killer" players(btw if you're one - no hard feelings, everyone enjoys the game in his own way). But ps2 has already lost on this field with other, more skill-based games like Counter Strike( or Battlefield if you like large fights) there is virtually no reason for such players to stay and get killed over and over on unfair terms, like when your enemy is in a tank\plane or just got lucky. These players then criticise the weapon they wer
    killed with as unfair and eventually leave frustrated. I think there aren't many left.

    And what about other players, who enjoy the social or strategic aspect of the game? They often get frustrated when killed by someone better in "adad spam" and with better aim. They dislike getting killed with no chance to react. They criticise "sky knights" and infantry side for their morality system.

    So maybe it would be better if instead of trying to catter to both groups the game only focused on the second group. Ps2 has no future in competitive gaming so why add features which inrease the skill ceiling and-as a result-make new players leave frustrated by the skill wall?
  2. Azawarau

    Id say low TTK weapons add skill

    Hear me out on this

    It forces players to think about thier decisions and react quickly to situations
    • Up x 1
  3. Pikachu

    Low TTK? BF, CS, COD, Insurgency, Arma all have <2/3 the TTK of PS2. Also what do people expect to happen when shot by a tank? They think vehicle weapons are just infantry weapons with different look?
    • Up x 1
  4. Pfundi

    A game back in stone age regarding PCs and Internet connections had less complicated mechanics and longer TTK to prevent too much lag wizardry? You dont say...
    (Thats the very reason for the long TTK in PS2 as well I suppose)
  5. Taemien


    Its forumside. What did you expect?
    • Up x 2
  6. AxiomInsanity87

    All i know is that the more "balanced" in favour of skill this game has gotten, the more it has died.

    The average gamer is 35 nowadays. Adults generally do not logon after a hard days graft to try and be mlg in a game, nor have the time for it or care about gaming "street cred". Not only that BUT it is the adults who will be paying more becasue we have the money, we don't have to ask for pocket money/rely on good behaviour for allowances.

    I am self employed and have it cushty and even i cannot be bothered to try extra hard in a game anymore (although i play to win often).

    This game is all about large scale combat, not mlg wannabe's and skill. IF it is to be all about large scale then it has to cater to the larger audience of casual gamers. The more we head towards purely skill based, the more we cater to mlg wannabes of which are the minority, so therefore less people playing.

    It already does this fairly well anyway, just saying. The construction system for example is there for IF people want to play at that level, but they don't have to if they don't want. The game should always cater to casuals and any skill based implementations should be a side options, not enforced.

    I'm not even sure where i am going with this and i have had a lot of coffee, so i'll leave it there lol.

    I will leave with this though http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/C150_Dalton Why the hell is a 150mm high explosive weapon a skill shot weapon?. There's enough dedicated vets around to show newbs how to deal with anything simply by playing or when they join an outfit. Unerfing the good stuff shouldn't be too much of an issue now that we have plenty who know how to counter rather than cry nerf.
    • Up x 1
  7. SpartanPsycho

    Good for you being self-employed. I agree with what you said.
    • Up x 2
  8. DooDooBreff

    these things missing are only good for players who cant handle the truth...


    that and the FPS culture hadnt evolved into having those kind of mechanics at the time.
    • Up x 1
  9. Alan Kalane

    quote me where I said tank or vehicle weapons in general should be nerfed.

    Yes, TTK in PS2 is long compared to CS but ultra short compared to ps1. Now, consider this:
    -When a game has headshots and other mechanics I listed, it's sending players a message: "You should practice your aim to be good at the game. Your skill is very important. One skilled individual can beat a group of enemies. You can never be as effective if you can't shoot well. Killing other players is the primary way of playing the game"
    This makes players focus more on their individual skill. After all it's how the game was meant to be played. It's a shooter. Shooters should be skill-based. If I can defeat multiple foes by myself it means I am very good at the game. If I can not fight back then the enemy is playing unfair and thus has no skill. I would never use the cheesy weapon/tactic he used.

    -When a game lacks these mechanics it's sending a completely different message: "You do not have to practice your aim to be good at the game. Your shooting skill is not very important, your decisions are however. No matter how good you are you can never beat a group of enemies all by yourself with no advantage. To be effective you should cooperate with others and think how to gain an advantage. Killing is just as important as support and leadership"
    This makes players focus on their strategy and decisions. The game wasn't meant to be a competetive game as it lacks the basic mechanics needed in a skill-based game. It's more of a rpg/strategy with shooter elements. Playing alone is foolish and not how the game was meant to be played, I should join an outfit. If I can not fight back then the enemy did something right. He outsmarted me and thus is better at the game.

    now, the first one is what happens in PS2 and why it's so chaotic with mlg wannabees praising their k/d. Most players play solo and don't think too hard on what they are doing, instead they whine about the OP weapons/tactics and keep playing the game "the right way"

    The second one is PS1 and why it was much more consistent. Nobody cared about their K/D or killstreaks because there was little skill involved in shooting. Most players played in an outfit and kept thinking how to gain an advantage over the enemy with any means possible.