So Daybreak took what was already broken from SOE and thought they could fix it. Maybe they could have with the right content, but like Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times At Ridgemont High, once you've wrecked the car, it's impossible to fix what is broken. Many veterans of the first Planetside held on to the dream of it with just better Graphics and how the hell did SOE screw up on what was already a good thing, before Battleframe Robotics? Leaves us all in disbelief. I used to love looting backpacks in Planetside, the different maps including the caverns, the biggest outcry was more content, so much more can have been done in support of infantry, but instead they went vehicleside and frankly to be honest it went to the crapper. Well I am heading back to Arma 3, where they seem to listen, Daybreak your missing the boat on proper content and making the game look more impressive, it looks clunky and boring.
First at all, DBG = SOE, sold by Sony to Columbus Nova and renamed to DBG. And yes, PS1 is the better PS gamingwise, but NO, I believe the BFRs were a good thing - it was a lot of fun playing them. Just the godmode-like introduction was a major mistake. PS2 is just a different game, based on the predecessor - similiar, but not the same
Caves were always deserted, 95% of players hated the complicated layout. BFRs were the worst thing ever done to the game, made only to appeal the kiddies with giant robots. Ps2 is a different game and it's a great one. My only concern is it really lacks any depth or strategy because it has been simplified too much (redeploy, resources).
You nailed it. TL;DR: PS2 needs to completely rework spawn logistics. I feel like that alone would make the strategic side much deeper, as well as help with the pacing of the game (more on that later). We have 3 good transport vehicles. The galaxy is just used as a giant battering ram, the Valkyrie is just kind of there, and the Sundy is nothing more than a farm feeder and glorified ammo box. None of them really do their job as a transport vehicle. Not because they can't, but because it's easier to just redeploy. I'd like to see groups having to actually organize to move effectively. As it is right now, you can just wait for a squad leader to get to a hex and everyone redeploys on him, along with other abuses, and literally just waiting for a hex to be attacked. I'd like to see players handle the logistics of keeping spawning players in the action, and keeping them safe on the way there. This opens up combined arms as well because those players would need to be protected so they don't get ganked on the way to the fight. So far, we're up to three new strategic avenues that are missing or malformed in the current game. Now; Pacing. Since its arguably less fun waiting to get to a fight than it is to actually be in a fight, we were given our instant gratification system. I feel like this is doing us all a disservice. In good games, there is good pacing. There are slow moments to collect yourself, to mull over strategy or story, and most importantly, to contrast the action. We don't have that contrast as it stands. What we have is downtime spent looking at the map waiting for a spawn. With actual logistics, you'd be in game looking at the world around you while you go to the fight, all the while building up the tension as you see the fight in the distance, or the fleet of aircraft you're flying in. This game thrives on visual spectacle. The mechanics should support that in every way.
I remember the times in PS1 when half the faction got back to the sanctuary, just to organize an attack. Lot of Gunships, lot of tanks with organized transports - you either got the dropship as transport or you had to travel. It took out the speed of the game, but it has some kind of immersion to the game that made it more "real"