Why this game is failing and we Vets called it

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Desann, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. Desann

    First off, I love PLANETSIDE. I played the first game for years and beta tested Planetside 2. I have spent hundreds on this game over the years with subscriptions and holiday deals. Now, here we are post arena flop and everyone is scratching their heads wondering what happened?

    I will tell you what happened: YOU STOPPED BEING PLANETSIDE!!!!

    The SECOND the dev/management decided to push this game to be like other games is the second this game and arena(wtf) died. Us veterans on Planetside 1 warned you all about this. Here are some problems summed up into points to make this all easier to digest.

    1. Lack of planets: Planetside 1 had i think 11 planets and a handful of asteroids(caves) to fight in...still have F O U R maps...i mean come on...

    2. Lack of diversity between factions: Planetside 1 had a distinct feel between the factions. People complained and this game became Red vs Blue vs Purple...everyone basically has the same guns, except they are different colors...

    3. 4th faction: Planetside 1 players hated the concept of the "4th faction". The game negated this through a subscription model and locking your account to a faction for a period of time. How did Planetside 2 handle 4th factioning....by literally making a 4th faction ie Nanite bots..../facepalm...

    4. Base defense/Engineering: Planetside 1 allowed players to literally beef up a bases defenses by investing points into fortification engineering. This allowed engineers to upgrade guns, add turrets(spitfires...multiple spitfires), barricades, mines, etc. Players could literally defend a base against a much larger force if done correctly...planetside 2 ignored this suggestion and chose to have bases be the same regardless.

    5. Meaningful base bonuses: Certain bases provided helpful bonuses that would benefit your team. IE the dropship center, interlink facility. This created a strategic side of the game and made the gameplay deeper than just getting to "the next fight". Bases in planetside 2 are really just battle arenas in a giant sandbox...speaking of sandbox.

    6. Lattice system/territory control: Planetside 1 allowed for more options to capture territory. Planetside 2 used to have this, but opted for a funnel approach to keep low-attention span gamers constantly engaged. Well, that diminishes the PLANETSIDE-NESS of territory control.

    7. Geo caves: Caves interlinked planets from within, further increasing the attack lanes from the enemy. Also, they provided a refreshing area to fight with less vehicle spam due to the nature of the crystal formations, lava, low ceiling height, etc. I remember Planetside 2 mentioning caves years ago....but we got $10 no helmet appearances instead...

    8. Factional buggies...seriously where is my thresher?

    9. BFRs: although controversial...lets face it. BFRs wouldn't have been as bad as....ARENA...i mean at this point, what do they have to lose? just add them...they were cool!

    10. Base building: Base building was extremely fun with the hives. They became a beacon of activity and actually gave remote bases a purpose. Now you are restricted to building outside of any real useful area and can call a cheesy orbital strike with a relatively short range...its just not the same. Bring back the Aegis shield generator, ORION turrets, etc. Give infantry more stuff to deal with open map threats!

    11. Command and control: This game needs to have a better command and control system. Having a separate ranking system outside of Battle Rank ie Command Rank (like Planetside 1) shows players who is interested in leading. Some gamers are very good soldiers, but horrible leaders. Commanders also need tools to help direct squads instead of 4x smokes to drop on the map and a spawn beacon. I used to have a whole writeup on this, but the forums are alot smaller these days...

    12. Nanites/resources: Bases used to require nanites to operate. In Planetside 1, if your bases nanites depleted, the base essentially died and all defenses went offline. This was an offensive tactic, to surround the base until they depleted. Adding this in planetside 2 forces factions to keep supply lines open or risk the loss of major facilities....something something strategy, meta, big picture....

    13. Que system: Seriously...the game is so low population now. I tried playing the other day and sat in the que for 20 minutes...makes me not even want to play at all. People need to pick a faction and stick to it. If your faction is getting its butt kicked...too bad GET OVER IT.

    14. Factional Loyalty: honestly, I don't know if this is recoverable with the FTP system and the 4th faction. But again, subscriptions and server factional locking...stick to a team. Been Vanu since 2007! Spandex get tighter every year!



    Anyway...probably a waste of my time and anyone who bothered to read it...maybe...just MAYBE the dev team will take note from a Planetside 1 player. Again...at this point WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE?
    • Up x 4
  2. pnkdth

    +1

    I think the moment the devs tried to make all things equal they lost what Planetside is. Instead of working on ways to make each faction MORE unique they added weapons previously unique to one faction. These days the only weapons which are cloned over to another faction (or is available to two factions) is TR's extreme RoF weapons and NC's 200 damage weapons... And I will not be surprised when they announce VS/TR style MAX arms for NC + a 200 damage weapon for both VS/TR. Makes sense from a F2P business standpoint and it is how they've solved every other balance "problem" before.

    At this point, I do not really care about balance or anything. The wave have already hit its high watermark and we're rolling back out into the sea. Find ways to do you, enjoy your company, and generally be awesome to each other.
    • Up x 1
  3. Pelojian

    the devs single biggest mistake was catering to one particular form of play or playing favorites/least favorite.

    in any game with multiple play styles and clearly favoring one for a long time just sabotages the game as the other play styles get upset when they release the pattern of balance is favoring one side which then proceeds to curbstomp every other playstyle.
    • Up x 1
  4. OneShadowWarrior

    Really good Post!

    Yup, everyone loved the original Planetside nostalgia, all we ever asked was the first Planetiside with better graphics. They tried to much to make Planetside 2 like Call of Duty or Battlefield, instead of embracing their uniqueness.
  5. Demigan

    I'm always surprised at how even the worst idea's of PS1 are tauted as magical mcguffins that could have instantly saved the franchise.

    Just the first point. "Hey people let's spread the population and their preferences over even more continents without actually solving the problems that make people think the game is a boring grind! That will work!".
    Yes yes you try to come up with a few other points but barely any really solve anything, and many even demand more questions. Take point 6: PS1 had a type of lattice system but you say PS2 used to have "more options to capture territory", which can only mean the Hex system which has all the stragetical and tactical opportunities of a wet tissue being used as a weapon and it was decidedly not how PS1 did things. In fact I just found a developer from that time who basically had the exact same idea's I've had about the Hex and lattice system: http://spawntube.************/2017/02/ps2-origins-lattice-system.html

    Points 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 are horrible.

    Points 2, 8, 9 and 13 are good.

    Points 7, 11 and 14 need more explanation about what you really want with them.
  6. AlcyoneSerene

    Haven't played Planetside 1, but I have played modded Starsiege:Tribes 1 online for a long time. The problem with the suggestions is both of those games I'm pretty sure were very similar in that both had horrible gameplay-FPS mechanics (judging by the videos, by 3rd person view options and associated problems of corner peeking).

    The fun strategic parts of them, of vast open sandbox worlds with bases and base building of all types, generators, multiple classes, vehicles, squad coordination, many factions, etc., translated much better because they compensated for the otherwise lacking gameplay mechanics that Planetside2 has clearly improved on immensely.

    This isn't to say interconnected lattice worlds wouldn't be awesome, or multi-story complex base designs, more maps, merging construction with existing owned bases, etc., but the main point here is: I don't think lacking these elements are "why this game is failing."

    Legions:Overdrive, the unofficial successor of Tribes franchise did exactly what Planetside2 did - improve on the gameplay mechanics, resulting in a much better game from what was otherwise something extremely dated and outright horrible.

    Devs there experimented with construction items and adding some of the complexity of the original, but we as a player base community rejected them since they didn't add to the fun gameplay. Why? It becomes too much idle strategizing, too much PvE, at the cost of fun PVP engagements. Players went as far as designing ridiculous non-combat maps that would test one's skill with the gameplay alone: jetpacks, flight dynamics, rocket/nade jumps, addon pack abilities, teleport pads, jump pads, etc.

    It also divides the players too much, which in a sandbox environment lacking a matchmaker ranking (a good thing, it's either a sandbox or an arcade shooter) makes for extremely uneven fights, particularly so for those without competent squads. The chaos and high density population in itself balances things out.

    So, again, sure some of those ideas would have been awesome - more planets/bases, interconnected lattice systems, but I don't see them as causes of the downfall, specifically because with a more evolved baseline gameplay mechanic, it changes the game's focus and in a good way, so that any addition has to be carefully selected as to not detract from it.
  7. Issa

    I wish they would bring a version of PS1 back , I know its old , bug filled but I still loved playing that more than PS2
  8. Desann



    The open territory capture systems would be better handled with a better command and control system.

    Its Strategic
    Operational
    Tactical.

    Right now we have a bunch of tactically savvy gamers with no strategic purpose. So the solution is to force funnel a bunch of individual thinkers into "lanes" to get fights going. Instead of giving outfit leaders tools to better coordinate with other outfits and come up with a strategy to win.

    I miss the all medic infantry charges over open ground, the sunderer balls taking territory through the hex, because you could actually do that. Or the base builders that helped their team win by fortifying in a hard to reach area and generating Victory Points (I used to do that).

    Don't get me wrong, Planetside 2 was cool, at first. But slowly it crept into Battlefield-callofduty-REDvsBLUEvsPurple and lost its identity.

    Also, when I have to wait in que for 15-20mins when only a few hundred people are playing...no thanks.
  9. Demigan

    How would this command and control system work? And don't forget that a natural flow of combat ("A bunch of individual thinkers into lanes") is far more important than forcing a command structure. This command and control structure would need to be a natural thing. A newbie who just started with the game should easily roll into this system and not have to wonder why third lieutenant twice removed from the Big D's outfit is currently screaming into his ear to pick up the pace while he's got no clue why or what is exactly asked of him.

    While I see the value that Outfits, Platoons and Squads can have eventually for now all I can say is: *** them, *** them to hell. They aren't worth investing in yet.

    The natural way for players to grow in a game is as follows (ignoring the few people who get invited by friends and are taken on a constructive tour):
    1. Join the game, play solo while you figure out controls, objectives, how maps work etc.
    2. Find allies they meet regularily and play together with. This playing together is based on being able to support each other in a mutually beneficial way (instead of being in competition with each other over kills).
    3. Decide to team up with these frequent allies in squads so you can find each other more easily and communicate with them. This step could also mean joining an outfit together.
    4. Experiment with leadership of a squad. If they have a taste for it they can start leading platoons and outfits as well. This step could also mean forming your own outfit together.
    5. Look to further leadership by leading as big as possible groups, in PS2's case coordination with other platoons and outfits to achieve your goals.
    Points 1 and 2 are the most important here. These form the basis for players to be drawn in and experiment with leadership, but also offer the leadership the groundworks to actually perform their leadership as they can ask their followers to perform certain tasks. This is missing in PS2, partially because people think that the squads and platoons are supposed to be the teamwork. Except that how squads and platoons currently work they effectively segregate players who are willing to work together. If you are standing next to a random or someone from another squad/platoon your options to work together through these systems is limited. Teamplay in PS2 is also mostly about more guns in the same area rather than what players can do for each other. This needs to change.
    First we need more ways for players to naturally support each other in ways that are fun for both. Medics shouldn't need to put their guns away and stare at allies to heal them for example. Players should be able to buff and support allies and debuff enemies without needing to stop with the main course of the game: Fighting in an FPS.
    The way things are scored should also change to reflect this. Scoring 99% of an assist should reward you more than the guy who finishes the target. Assists should also start counting as fractions towards directives. Counters should count important statistics that are harder to farm so no more listing of infantry kills but list things like MAX's, vehicles and aircraft destroyed, objectives like generators destroyed or were nearby and defended it when it was destroyed etc. Even better would be to combine scores of friendlies nearby into your score and vice versa. Make player XP earned depend for a large part what you as group do, rather than what you as individual do. "Yey, Bob got lucky and killed 3 players that we attacked together, I still get rewarded almost as much!". Something like that should be the reaction, rather than "*** that I didn't get anything but some assist XP despite dealing 70%+ damage against half a dozen of extreme menace players".
    Squads, platoons and outfits should only be there to enhance what is already there, they should never ever be the sole way to do teamwork, and should even less be about only working together within your own squad or platoon but not with other randoms, squads and platoons directly.

    You can still do the Medic charges, which were more frivolous than stragetical, and sunderer balls happened because they had too much power overall and showed a glaring fault in the game where spamming a single unit without much more coordination than "hey everybody let's go over there" was more powerful than actual stragetical and tactical thinking. A problem that persists to this day but has somewhat been remedied.

    But the Hive's? Those were anathema to the game. A single dude hiding out in the corner or a map, effectively avoiding combat and discouraging it even more, could earn more irriversible victory points than his entire faction could gather from slow and hard work to gather mostly temporary VP's. That situation was a horrorshow that was killing the game faster.
    Is the current PMB system good? No. It gives too little reasons to use and the time investment requires such a large reward that it is impossible to balance correctly as it'll either be too powerful or too weak. Simple solutions would be making them take over lots of the performance that the redeploy system now fulfills: Quick travel between bases and area's for allies so that you can quickly get into the fight, teleporting vehicles and aircraft as well. Rules to make the bases invulnerable until the area they are in is capturable and/or if the base is situated a certain distance from enemy occupied territory should prevent requiring constant watch or high-powered automated defenses until the battle naturally rolls passed such bases. The primary defense of a PMB should be just the same amount of players as you would see for any normal base. If VP's return then these bases shouldn't just generate them for existing with a HIVE in them, they should provide gameplay. Generate a vehicle or item instead that needs to be brought to a particular point (The enemy warpgate for example) to score a point. This makes PMB's and HIVE's a more active element in the game and also rewards both placing PMB's close enough to the frontline to be useful without having to place them within OS range of enemy bases. On top of that it keeps the PMB's relevant should the frontline shift away, and also allows PMB's behind enemy lines to have value.

    There are some elements of those games, but they are relatively minor and far from the real problems PS2 faces. Variety, objectives, battle flow, proper ways to do teamplay with anyone, proper communications that offer information in ways that players can easily oversee information relevant to them and ignore irrelevant information, rewards and representation of statistics the players get, balance between infantry, vehicles and aircraft are the biggest problems this game faces. Practically none of these have anything to do with the Battlefield/COD style gameplay elements they've been adding recently.

    Yes that sucks. One of my idea's is to create splinter factions. If a faction reaches too large a population a splinter-faction can be created with it's own territory instead of forcing players to wait in a queue. This means that TR could fight TR if they become big enough and prevent zergs just wiping the continent. It also creates the situation that double-teaming just means that one or more of the double-teamers is getting stabbed in the back by the created splinter-factions.
  10. ZDarkShadowsZ

    My biggest gripe with this game has been how the uniqueness of each faction has diminished over the years. Faction-specific traits have ended up being given to all factions, or made into NS variants.

    When I first started playing this game I was under the impression that factions were split into 3 different unique categories:

    TR - Fast-firing, highest mag, fastest moving vehicles with lightest armour
    NC - Slowest moving vehicles with most armour, lowest firing, but hardest hitting weaponry
    VS - Best accuracy, fastest reload speeds, highest AoE weaponry, less/no bullet drop on some weapons. In terms of damage and RoF, a bridge between TR and NC

    Then I find that VS have not one, but two faster firing carbines than TR. Only the Lynx is faster. Yes...I know there's likely other statistics that could be argued against the Serpent and VX6-7, but I'm focusing on RoF specifically here. I could understand if it was just one, but two!? Not to mention one seems almost entirely like a better (and cheaper!) GD-7F clone.

    Each passing year, faction-specific weapons and traits have vanished. TR's Striker got changed and its original traits were remade into the NS Swarm, albeit a few adjustments added. Same with the T4 AMP which was then adapted into the Emissary. TR's machine pistol was no longer unique to the faction. NC's laser-guided rockets were incorporated into the NSX Masamune. Though I suppose it could be argued this was already part of the MANA AV turret, so I guess it's debatable whether or not it was ever truly unique to NC.

    The NC's Vanguard shield was remade into the Forward Vanguard Shield. I personally preferred the old version, though I do understand why it was changed... I think the changes could certainly have been better. I still feel like it should be automatically granted to NC. TR and VS got Anchored Mode and Magburn auto granted to their tanks, why shouldn't NC?

    VS's latest utility allows them to remove lock-ons. The tank is already highly manoeuvrable, why add this to a utility meant to just recharge magburn? It seems so out of place.

    There are a lot of other things I could complain about. I'm sure I will receive a lot of disagreements on ones I've mentioned which is fair, but they're my own personal feelings nonetheless.

    Overall, again, uniqueness and faction-specific traits are slowly going down the pan. I get people like balance, but every faction should have weaknesses besides its strengths. These were the trade-offs players originally signed up for. Tougher vehicles for slower movement speeds. Fast firing, high-mag weapons that spray all over the place. Little to no bullet drop, or AoE weapons with reduced damage/velocity. Before long, the only thing different about each faction with be its colour and model shape.
    • Up x 2
  11. tigerchips

    I was in the queue yesterday and 20+ minutes before i gave up. I started out at 41 in the queue and then gave up when i reached 16 as it wasn't going anywhere. There was only a 1% overpop so i really don't get it.
  12. JudgeNu

    Yes the game is failing after 7 years...after 7 years PS2 is still the best shooter.
    You have SOME valid points but overall they just show differences between your experience with PS1 and your expectations of PS2.
    PS2 is still in its current state better than anything else.
    I do get it though. I think ill be upset if PS3 wont have anything i enjoy, but i dont think that can happen. *crosses fingers*
    I like new games
    I dont really want to play PS2 if PS3 will be better overall.


    There are things you mentioned about PS1, which i never played, that may have been a hindrance to the game.
    The result being 'Faction Stacking'.
    Also the defending a base with just a few players sounds so VS. 'Elitist arrogance'
    I play PS2 mainly for the scale of fights. Large populations.

    Honestly i think Faction Traits are still generally intact.
    What VS player uses weapons that have NC traits? Maybe the NC with a VS alt idk.
    Hovering High Speed Boost Perching atop almost anything Vanguards when?

    I do like the sound of fortifying bases.
    Also i never experienced the no lattice and have wanted to or at least a shifting lattice system that is determined by certain factors we could or could not control such as transitional bases that have the option to select an alternative path.
    The implications of this idk.

    I also believe in Faction loyalty and i play NC through the bad and the very bad but i dont know that this is trending these days.
    Gamers dont log in to lose and then be insulted for losing.
    I could go on and have in another post, the recent' Alert Win Rates' post, but i think it doesnt make much difference.

    https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps2/index.php?threads/alert-win-rates.252769/
  13. Johannes Kaiser

    Wonder what their numbers are for opening up a new continent. Does it require a queue of 100 players or what?
    People don't like to wait, it's that simple. As has been stated above.
  14. Movoza

    I kind of didn't read this. I don't think I need to.

    All games will fail at some point. This game has been around for a long time and I've seen these kinds of posts popping up again and again. "It will be gone within a month! Maybe even a week!", "The game is destroyed because such and such" and "You removed the previous game breaking thing, I want it back or the game will be gone!". Yet the game lasted years and years.

    The end is now really in sight with the mentioning of PS3. Does that mean you're right? Maybe you and other vets finally are right, but chances are you're not. It took years of this kind of rambling before this end looks actually close. Simple fatigue and a new game on the horizon might do it, as well as the reduction of staff. They clearly don't want to maintain this game beyond the very basics.

    So did you call it? Probably just for the wrong reasons. Even then you might be a year or 2 off before the actual end.

Share This Page