Whats wrong with Planetside 2

Sorry Ned but no.
I got about 15 mins in to your video and had to stop there.
If you remove combined arms there is no reason to pull air or armour and you just turn the game into another generic shooter which is not what I and many others signed on for. The coming dome shields are a extremely bad idea and will probably be make or break for me in the game, there is a place for pure infantry fights it's in a biodome there are nine of them which is plenty.

I am of the opinion that HE didn't need a nerf on tanks or anything else. The problem with this game in my opinion is lonewolf low battle rank soloist's who don't join outfits and when something kills them often come to the forums the proceed to ***** and moan. Because they ***** and moan very loudly the devs listen nerf something but only after they have got their moneys worth from it. It's a joke in my outfit if someone asks should they buy a gun we ask is it on sale if they say yes then we no thats for the nerf bat.

You could solve the vehicle issue by making them more powerful but limiting their numbers

So instead of waiting 10 minutes, you'd wait for 5 minutes?

The object of the game is to obtain certs. This is what I got from one of their departments. Everything else is a moot facade. That would explain a lot of the problems. So you should be out there maxing your cert gain instead of in here arguing moot points.

Don't forget that some people (like myself) can't continually shell out money for a subscription based game. Also that this is an MMO, it's pretty common for players of this genre to dedicate an immense amount of time into it anyway. (Like WOW or City of Heroes) My question at the moment is, what if they do suddenly switch to a subscription only game? What would happen to all of the free to play players? We just get the boot? That'd suck. Also if what you say about the pay to get ahead aspect is true, then if everyone had to pay in order to play, then no one would be ahead (which is good, but you forget that people like being dominant over other players). Sure it may not be fair to f2ps that people who play get some sort of advantage but the wonderful thing about the free to play model is that we are free to put money into the game without being forced to, people like to express their freedom of choice. Oh and let's not forget that even though I may be a free to play player, I don't mind giving the creators of the game my time because I get the joy of playing and that's enough for me.

PS. It's my understanding that BuzzcutPsyco wasn't a very pleasant person and he left because something he liked was changed. But anyway, the "true metagame" is being worked on, just have some patience dude.

Question, why don't you get your fellow outift members to come on the forums to help fight the stupid ideas and possibly give betters ones (or promote good ones that you guys like)?

You should see if he'll like the Nexus Battle Island.

It's too late, the game has gone down an irreversible route. They should have made the classes more specific - like not being able to carry a butt ton of weapons around with you. Want an LMG, then you sacrifice the Rocket launcher. Want a turret? You lose your main weapon, etc.

Vehicles were wrecked. Too many spawnable and too OP. Had there been less available the effect would have been less noticeable and would hopefully inspire teamwork if something showed up that needed dealing with.

Too many nerfs, no metagame, no clear direction on where this alpha is going (yes this isn't even at Beta stage yet since the core mechanics of gameplay haven't even been decided yet)

F2P model sucks - how do you think a game can develop when it's in game store is the top priority and development is decided on the fly (and perhaps the reason the game is in the state it is in now).

Maps - awfully made out and too slow to react to changing them for the better, especially base designs. Need more continents. Stupid helmets might attract some followers but without actual meat to the game, you'll find a lot will simply stop playing.

You can go on and on really. Games broken so best we can hope for is they can glue it back together as best they can.

People are always going to complain, about everything, thats just life. SOE are the ones that decide what goes in the game, SOE are the ones that have the actual stats for everything know if x should or shouldn't be added, so yes it lays at their feet when they **** something up. Just because one guy makes 50 threads a day about the same thing doesn't mean SOE has to listen to him, if they did then they chose to.

I'm not going to get into specifics, like you, because I'm not trying to derail, like you, but at the end of the day, SOE are the ones that made the changes, not the players.

They (soe) should've never gave this a planetside title. It's been a lie ever since. Call it anything but planetside and half the arguments would cease.

Better isn't it? I also just used 5 as an example. The time could vary by various variables, base size and type, how large the attacking team is against the size of the defending team in the territory etc

But those 9 biodomes are all the exact same. Infantry fights need more variety, and tanks can still roam free in between bases and slug it out. Its not a death knell for armor, its an expansion on the infantry game.

You don't have the right definition of combined arms..it doesn't mean everything can kill everything else. In fact some of the best modern examples of combined arms are aircraft and attack helo destroying bunkers and tanks for example. Too bad you spent so much time in the vid complaining from a false premise.

Combined arms is about different combat arms mutually supporting each other to achieve synergistic more effective effects. It's all about an infantry squad leader using his 3 tanks to lay direct HE fire to suppress a point, or bringing up two sky guards to deter the enemy air, or calling for a phoenix fire team to set up an ambush point along a channelized avenue of approach.

I watched your video and while I agree with you a great deal there are several things which I would comment on:

Gameplay:

- There are plenty of Anti air options, lock on missiles, bursters, mounted guns, machine guns, you always have options when dealing with air, the problem is if someone goes to the effort of dealing with it and you're never going to balance around that.

- Removing combined arms sounds horrible to me, if you do that how do you feel like each fight contributes to the greater fight. Separating the engagement into their class will most likely result in disjointed gameplay, it also means if you're lacking in a particular area via expertise or numbers then the other aspects of the fight can't continue.

- Faction controlled territory, we both agree it's a requirement, without it there is no goal, no objective it's just a continual grind for certs which doesn't lend itself to teamplay or organisation. This should be their number 1 priority because it will literally kill the game and after 8 months we're almost at the point of no return.

Business model:

- I'm not a great fan of the cert system, but having progressive unlocks is horrible, an example of this would be BF3 where as a pilot you had to unlock flares after lock on missiles. Likewise I don't want to unlock a bunch of crap I don't want to use just to get to the one item I do.

- The biggest problem with the free to play model in PS2 is that most people want certs and to get the most certs that involves fighting. This doesn't reinforce team play or tactics and as there is no real incentive to following peoples orders then you may as well just be running pointlessly around killing guys because your score per hour will be higher if you do. Which is why when a territory is getting rolled you will quite often see a faction fighting at a bio lab the entire time even though it's completely surrounded by enemy territory.

- I think one of the critical things here is the fact that there is no specialisations, everyone can do everything especially when for example a base tank is not that different to a fully upgraded tank. Sure it's going to be slightly more effective, but then the difference is hardly night and day.

Faction Balance:

- One thing I think you missed with regards to resources is that it very much becomes a rolling scenario, if you've got population imbalance it's easier to turn territory, which means it's easier to acquire resources, which means it's easier to out air or land your enemy. Personally I've been calling for resources to be shared with your faction based on the number of players since closed beta.

- Completely agree about faction specific weapons and vehicles, balance be dammed lets have all the Vanu vehicles using hover technology for example and then they can work on balance later.

- I understand the the whole TR fire fast, NC hit harder thing, doing this with 2 factions is relatively easy, but when you add a third it becomes problematic. To this extent you make the same mistake SOE initially did by saying well lets make Vanu weapons accurate, but don't fire as quickly as TR and don't do as much damage as NC. This essentially made them rubbish all round, which was probably one of the reasons for the indistinct weapons we now have. I would also like to point out Vanu weapons feel horrible, they don't sound or feel good to use.