Planetside 2

[Speedy Cerviche]

Umm but Planetside didn't work and it wasn't great either except in the minds of its fairly small hardcore playerbase. It was not a commercial success which is the point of these games.

Most of the stuff you are so attached to, and mad is being removed would never had made it into a normal game, but was put into PS because basically SOE was designing planetside in some kind of bubble and then got slaughtered by superior FPS games like BF1942.

Spawning naked and having to run over to a terminal to equip yourself? Pointless exercise at best. At worst you ended up being spawn camped and unable to defend yourself (something some of you masochists would probably calll "tactics", most people would call unfun bullshit and /quit).

Getting bent up over AMS is kind of silly, they are just putting all that functionality into another vehicle, and the Galaxy as a flying spawn transport fortress is a better aesthetical and gameplay concept with more potential for fun/action than an AMS  spawn truck anyways. Or at least give it a chance to see it in action before consigning it to failure.


If they can't deliver on the sophisticated resource/sovereignty layer it will all be moot because SOE will fail again. It is what is desperately needed in the game to give it and edge on BF3/COD, it won't be able to compete as a shallow clone, nor will it have any commercial success full of the quirky nonsensical/obsolete mechanics of PS1.

[Mrbloodworth]

Umm but Planetside didn't work and it wasn't great either except in the minds of its fairly small hardcore playerbase. It was not a commercial success which is the point of these games.

Planetside was hampered by the current technology ( but was still ground breaking ). Its massive scale, mismanagement that also lead to rampant hacking and zero media attention and stagnation for YEARS in terms of content/additions ( They even killed the fodder program, the idiots ), bad additions to the game, and a wonky net code and physics and the requirement of 15$ a month.

It was not hampered by its overall design. It was Planetside BECAUSE it was different. It makes no sense to make another M.A.G and call it Planetside. You are arguing for the Status Quo. I know you like to keep marginalizing people that disagree with this current design direction, but there would be no sequel with out the current Fans. There is a reason the current creative director is mining all the planetside info feeds and community sites. Once you get this, we can get back to discussing the design they are putting forward, and how it compares to the original. And what parts they are removing from the original to court the masses, and how this is a mistake in this extreme they are going to. Such as gutting team play requirement, and adding more solo aspects from session based games where it does not matter when the timer/tickets are over.

I support a good number of the refinements they are making, its needed. Some of the additions/subtractions cut right to the core of the games original design and water it down way to much.

I'm all for people calming there is no innovation in games, and there are no unique titles. Then arguing stats Quo.  Just do not do it with this title.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Planetside 2 is getting solid buzz across the PC gaming world, it's not just the Planetside 1 community driving it. It seems to me your emotional investment in Planetside 1 is clouding your perspective. I would wager money that PS2 beta signups outnumber current PS1 players by several orders of magnitude. Lots of people out there who liked the concept of PS1 but couldn't get past the sub-par gameplay/engine (such as myself). They are all keen to give PS2 a shot.

[Mrbloodworth]

I do not deny any of that. Especially considering PS1 players get first dibs on beta. They problem I am having is they seem to be removing the concepts of the original. Horizontal progress, Teamwork, WAR game. In order to appeal to session based players. Diluting the original concepts. It also feels like they are designing this on paper, with little experience of the original and its systems. Such as the comments about the AMS or support roles being boring. As much as you may dislike being on the receiving end, Denial of equipment and spawns is a tactic of war games, removal of them is a staple of session based games.

I'm all for them making, at its core, a solid responsive shooter. Just not at the removal of core concepts, and uniqueness.

My fear is that, at that point ( Beta ), many of the decisions are unlikely to change, despite feedback.


For instance. Why do we need spawn on squad? What problem is this solving? PS1 had the Orbital drops, that had SOI restrictions and a built in reinforcement timer.

The answer is. Because the Battlefield series does it.

Is that a good reason to you? Even BF:2142 ( Highly patterned after planetside ) had Drop pods.  In PS1 If I wipe out 4 out of 5 people in a squad they don't spawn back on the 1 guy that survived. That's how it should be. Not reinforcements pooping out of asses. Especially not fucking fully equipped MAX units.

[Slayerik]

It's BS that they are pulling the AMS. Give the galaxy the ability too, but it was awesome to roll in with an AMS right when your side needed it. No driving a galaxy through the woods/valleys to avoid detection.

[01101010]

Planetside 2 is getting solid buzz across the PC gaming world, it's not just the Planetside 1 community driving it. It seems to me your emotional investment in Planetside 1 is clouding your perspective. I would wager money that PS2 beta signups outnumber current PS1 players by several orders of magnitude. Lots of people out there who liked the concept of PS1 but couldn't get past the sub-par gameplay/engine (such as myself). They are all keen to give PS2 a shot.

So another flash in the pan shooter is going to be hyped up and washed out in a few weeks after release and outright destroyed by the next rendition of Call of Battlefield?

And it is the concept of PS1 that is getting eviscerated here. Like Blood said, Planetside was a war game with players as integral soldiers on an ever changing territorial battlefield, not some skirmish shooter where everyone plays 10 minute rounds and whoever is left standing wins the neighborhood. I don't deny that Planetside had some things very very wrong with it, but the overarching, overlapping war themes were not one of them and in fact was a major thing that set it apart from other shooters.

This whole thing is starting to piss me off again... Wish they would just remove the name Planetside from the game and call it something else. The name carries too much weight and has too large a shoe to fill.

[Ghambit]

I for one look fwd to the impending bitchslaps in PS2 general chat when people try to make a "session" out of a campaign and the commander in charge pitches a fit.
MBW has a point in this regard.  You really cant turn a large (effective) wargame into a session-based conflict.  It doesnt work.  The sides that win the map are the sides that get their playerbase to realize this simple fact.  You show up?  You're in it for the long haul and you'd better do as you're told.  You dont spawn in for 30mins to "capture teh flagz" (and whichever one you feel like it) and then logoff.

I have fond memories of cursing out idiots (not even in my clan) way off mission when we were on an op.  And once resources are involved things become even more strained.

Even titles like 2142 or BF3, the real game doesn't shine until you get into serious scrim matches.  These last all night on dedi. servers.  We use the casuals for target practice and they typically aren't seen much after that.  They buy the game, but dont play it essentially.

In PS1 it was the little things that made it charming (pod drops, hacking, ams, etc.) but it wasn't the little things that would've made it a great game though. 

[Speedy Cerviche]

MBW has a point in this regard.  You really cant turn a large (effective) wargame into a session-based conflict.  It doesnt work.  The sides that win the map are the sides that get their playerbase to realize this simple fact.  You show up?  You're in it for the long haul and you'd better do as you're told.  You dont spawn in for 30mins to "capture teh flagz" (and whichever one you feel like it) and then logoff.

I have fond memories of cursing out idiots (not even in my clan) way off mission when we were on an op.  And once resources are involved things become even more strained.

Even titles like 2142 or BF3, the real game doesn't shine until you get into serious scrim matches.  These last all night on dedi. servers.  We use the casuals for target practice and they typically aren't seen much after that.  They buy the game, but dont play it essentially.

In PS1 it was the little things that made it charming (pod drops, hacking, ams, etc.) but it wasn't the little things that would've made it a great game though. 

PS1 only became serious tactical business after all the "session" players left and the playerbase had been distilled down to a hard core who all played the game so this sort of mentality was adapted as the game's culture (not SOE's goal). I remember when I tried it in beta it was pretty easy to login, spawn at a heavy action tower and pew pew pew for 30 minutes. Maybe I was fodder? I didn't care, I just wanted to frag some people. I've played action games competitively online, I've been senior leadership in PvP clans in MMORPGs, I know there are additional levels on intensity that can add a lot of the gameplay expeirence for those who want to delve into them, I'm sure this depth will still exist in PS2 for those who wish it, and they are the ones who add flavour to the world by driving the meta game, which is what PS2 needs to distinguish itself so I really hope SOE adds the sophistication necessary.

[quote Mrbloodwort ]
For instance. Why do we need spawn on squad? What problem is this solving? PS1 had the Orbital drops, that had SOI restrictions and a built in reinforcement timer.

The answer is. Because the Battlefield series does it.
[/quote]

I don't think it will effect much, but spawning on squad is a mechanic to prolong a solid battle (it won't do much if you are getting steamrolled) . It's a mechanism that adds a bit of quick fun in and encourages teamwork amongst casual players who are goaded into joining squads and spawning on each other. I really don't think it's a big deal and it's not necessarily the new default spawn option either. Sometimes in a battle you will want to use a bases' fixed spawn point, or maybe a galaxy spawnpoint overhead, instead of spawning on a squadmate who might be taking fire from multiple directions.
 

[shiznitz]

Spawning on squad is ok as long as the respawn timer is a minute or so.  It is unlikely for a lone guy to survive that long against a superior squad.  In PS, one squad usually wiped the other.

The point about session vs  campaign is a good one that distills the difference pretty well.  The resource part of the game could be what keeps this from a full session-based play model. 

I wish the design was PS1 plus new stuff as opposed to what looks like a complete re-concepting with only the names in common.

[Mrbloodworth]

PS1 only became serious tactical business after all the "session" players left and the playerbase had been distilled down to a hard core  

No. The game was a war game IN SPITE OF the session based players.  The original design was a Team based war game.  Uber kill counts meant jack, and shit. You cant sit here with a straight face and say Planetside one was designed from the ground up to appeal to 30 minute skirmishes. It didn't even have a K/D count UNTIL late in its life. Every, single Vehicle was balanced for a crew, ever single balance decision was balanced from multiple damage sources. 98% of Meta actions required multiple players. Its is not even like any other shooter in its design ( With exception of WWIIOL, but PS is way more actiony ).

The reason they left is they found out real quick that run and gun just won't work. Its teamwork or be spawn camped. ( Other than they may have found the sub, and shooting/physics sub-par )

I don't think it will effect much, but spawning on squad is a mechanic to prolong a solid battle

Yes it will. No its not. Its a mechanic to allow user to join a battle quickly due to the short nature of session based game play. Because jogging from one end of the map to another wastes 5 minute of a 30 minute match.  In a war game, it will affect EVERYTHING. There is zero reason at this point not to spawn on a squad mate. Access to gear is null ( You spawn fully equipped ), the ONLY reason you will not spawn on a squad mate as of now, is if he is inside. That's it. In war games, the flow of troops MATTERS. The flow of gear MATTERS. Denial MATTERS.

PS1 Has instant action, that will place you in a tower near the most active hotspot. That's your 30 min gamer option.

[Nebu]

A war game would be about large scale attrition and each individual player would feel like a pawn with little impact.  I doubt any smart developer would expect to make a lot of money with an online wargame.  The key is to make skirmishes 'feel' important to the players. 

[Speedy Cerviche]

Wow you are making planetside out to be some kind of super sophisticated simulation. I think you have it confused with ARMA2 or something, PS1 was always supposed to be mass market. Just because it became a weird little niche game detached from mainstream FPS gaming and developed its own little quirky subculture doesn't mean SOE is embracing that. The only reason PS2 is even getting a shot is not because SOE loves the hardcore PS1 community so much (trust me, I spent a long time gaming in another obscure corner of SOE land, playing "infantry online", they don't give a fuck), but it's because there's some SOE execs (Smedly) who love the concept of Planetside and are going to bat for another shot at making the original idea work, convincing other execs that if done right it will also make a lot of money.

Twisting design flaws like single hitbox (making OHK impossible), or poor vehicle crewing concepts (driver + gunner in a tank? Seriously? Pretty fucking easy to do both with WASD+mouse) into supposed points of sophistication is bordering on absurd. Scrounging for basic equipment, spawncamped while they are trying to get their rifle is unfun gameplay. You can start your resource restrictions at the vehicle level when you start modelling resource layers/logistics. Then you create a strawman of trying to make every other FPS game besides PS seem like a quakelive deathmatch? Some really unconvincing arguements here.

[UnsGub]

or poor vehicle crewing concepts (driver + gunner in a tank? Seriously? Pretty fucking easy to do both with WASD+mouse) into supposed points of sophistication is bordering on absurd.

They have one person along with multi person ground and air vehicles.  Are saying it is a good design to eliminate all multi person vehicles?

[Mrbloodworth]

Jibberish

 

[shiznitz]

I guess the question I would ask SOE and the PS2 developers is why will people who love CoD play PS2?  That seems to be the market they are going after, yet those are mostly console people, not PC.  If they are not hunting for a share of CoD market, then why copy CoD elements?

[Speedy Cerviche]

They have one person along with multi person ground and air vehicles.  Are saying it is a good design to eliminate all multi person vehicles?

Not all, but medium tanks don't need seperate driver/turreter.

[Mrbloodworth]

They have one person along with multi person ground and air vehicles.  Are saying it is a good design to eliminate all multi person vehicles?

Not all, but medium tanks don't need seperate driver/turreter.

This is exactly the problem. Right here. Session based thinking/Design. Teamwork in design removed.

I'm going to quote something from one of the many papers about the design of Planetside.

1.3 The Greatest Power is Teamwork (1+1=3)
This design principle is one of the greatest, but also the one most at risk because it is so far removed in recent times. In the early days of PlanetSide we were bombarded with the power of Teamwork. There
were support players piloting galaxies to get their troops to the fight. There were Pilots doing escort. There were the indoor-armor MAX players who required non-MAX to repair them, open doors, and
access terminals. Much of this is still in the game, but it’s deeper than that. In the early days the most powerful vehicles in the game were multi-manned vehicles. Tanks were kings,
but they required a crew of two or more. They also required repairmen, but nothing was better at pushing a front. Lightnings were OK vehicles, but a Vanguard or Magrider was far more dangerous. This
fit with a simple principle – a vehicle that required two players to operate successfully should be more powerful than a vehicle that only requires one player to operate. It makes sense. It rewards teamwork
with a 1+1=3 philosophy, giving advantage to outfits and factions that promote teamwork. This design has crumbled over the years of PlanetSide, and there are two reasons for it. First, as more
cert points are given to players, more options are given to players. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it affects teamwork because you now need fewer people to accomplish a goal. With more cert
points, every member of a team could be an Advanced Medical. Every member could be an Advanced Hacker. Every member a pilot. As the number of certification points expands, the differentiation
between players decreases as more and more roles can be filled by a single player. The concept of “tradeoff” diminishes as everyone becomes a clone with very similar or identical certifications. In effect
what happened was that the purpose of the certification system was eroded and its value diminished. The second reason this has crumbled is the increasing power of single-player vehicles. BFRs are the
biggest example. They’ve been nerfed over the years, but the most obvious reason for them hurting the game is that a single player can occupy a vehicle that is very difficult to kill that could absorb or dish out
a lot of firepower. This is disproportionate to multi-manned vehicles. Also, single-person aircraft have become far more significant over the history of PlanetSide. This is a topic I will cover more later, but for
the scope of this section you just need to understand that as more vehicles and power become accessible to individuals, the necessity AND power of teamwork diminishes. The game becomes more of
a simple one-man army approach as opposed to a complex network of teamwork and cooperation.

Source. One of the better understandings of the design and principles.


Also going to leave this here: Planetside: The 1% Because, you know. Ps1 Players had nothing to do with it.

[Ingmar]

I think watching MrB's meltdown over this is going to be more fun than the actual game.

[HaemishM]

SOE. Meltdowns are the only fun they know how to create.

[DayDream]

One other thing to remember here.  Battlefield/CoD or whatever series might be a fine game, etc, but copying it brings its own host of problems.  You don't get all of those fans to stay automatically.  Those fans already have a game they love to play, it's the game they're currently playing.  If you want to get all of those fans, you must make your game better enough at the things that game is good at that they switch from that game to yours.  Only a very few fans will switch because your game has something their current one doesn't.  And they will switch because they aren't actually that satisfied with their current game.

Also, I don't know the specifics, but likely some of the builders of those games have prior experience, both on a personal and organizational level, and use that experience in building those games.  SoE does not have that experience.

[Venkman]

What did you expect SOE to do?

A couple of things.

- PS was then and 10 years later still is unique. Any other MMOFPS that launched was just a massive lobby with session-based maps.
- They don't have anywhere near the marketing budget nor brand strength to take on COD nor BF.
- Their target audience is the original PS player who now has 15mb+ broadband rather than just transitioning now from K56flex.
- The PS brand is synonymous with the PS game play. Taking core parts of the game play out makes a gimp BF on fast track to the bargain bin.

I have said myself I don't know why this game is coming out. There wasn't a big market 10 years ago, and quite possibly not a big one now. There was something special that was right on the cusp of awesome that was killed by the business model, modems, and crappy post launch support.

However, since they're back in, they need to harnass what was there and do it better. Because they ain't takin' on the big players. Nobody thinks of PS in the same breath they think of any FPS game. So SOE has to tell a story about why people should give a shit. "Looks like Halo but plays like BF without the destruction and support roles" does not a marketing campaign make.

[Ingmar]

- Their target audience is the original PS player who now has 15mb+ broadband rather than just transitioning now from K56flex.
- The PS brand is synonymous with the PS game play. Taking core parts of the game play out makes a gimp BF on fast track to the bargain bin.

I think you're wrong about your first point, which also makes the second part very, very questionable. Their target audience is anyone and everyone they can get to play it; the idea that they would be setting out with a goal to make a product to attract a group of gamers from a semi-failed game from 10 years ago is not sensible. That's the kind of market case that will never get off the whiteboard at a company as big as Sony.

[Lantyssa]

I have to agree with Ingmar.  PS1 players will help generate some free chatter, but they want a much larger audience.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Like I said before the buzz on PC gaming forums is pretty solid for PS2 from what I've seen. You can find excited threads about it on just about any gaming forum. Lots of people who are aware of the Planetside concept who didn't want to deal with the game's many faults (and pay a 15$ sub for the priviledge) are definitely looking to give PS2 a shot. I would wager the beta sign up last month had very robust volume of applicants.

If SOE manages to satisfy this initial crowd with solid gameplay, smooth and bug/lag free engine, and some meat in the MMO persistance elements, it could grow quite nicely through positive reviews and word of mouth.

[01101010]

I have to agree with Ingmar.  PS1 players will help generate some free chatter, but they want a much larger audience.

at the expense of the PS1 players... PS1 players are aware of what made the game work and the best parts were not the shooter parts - it was the system. SOE seems to be handwaving the system in favor of a "SHOOT EM UP -HEADSHOT!! BOOM!! LOOK AT MY K/D!!" playstyle. Oh well... at least I got to play the first one in its prime.

[Ghambit]

It does indeed seem as though many studios are simply using past profit performance to squash ideas that involve 'taking what works' and just translating it into a proper medium.  It's like they sit there in their meetings and say "hey, that game back then didn't do well... so like hey, let's just do the opposite and we'll make huge bucks!"  "And and and, let's do the exact opposite that the asshats who kept playing our game suggested... 'cause you know, they're daft for having kept playing a game we made."

Classic case of upper management blanket design choices that don't have a grasp on reality.

Anyways, I find it telling we have yet to hear about what exactly is gonna make PS2 'persistent.'  They've got all these fancy graphics and explanations for various units and bullshit in the game, but they cant say definitively how the game is gonna work, less than a year from launch.     Someone needs to go back to GameDesign school and re-learn how to write a design doc.  This also tells me they sold the idea to SOE by simply saying "we gonna make game unlike PS1, so gimme monies!"

[Malakili]

I have to agree with Ingmar.  PS1 players will help generate some free chatter, but they want a much larger audience.

at the expense of the PS1 players... PS1 players are aware of what made the game work and the best parts were not the shooter parts - it was the system. SOE seems to be handwaving the system in favor of a "SHOOT EM UP -HEADSHOT!! BOOM!! LOOK AT MY K/D!!" playstyle. Oh well... at least I got to play the first one in its prime.

The main problem isn't even *really* this playstyle, just that it actually works better in session based shooters like CoD.  If you are going to layer on a massive strategic meta game, then it just gets in the way of this play style.   And then you see them implementing these measures to allow for the more session based gameplay anyway.  If that is your game, just make a CoD game in a futuristic style with a normal server, map rotiation, etc style.   I think a major problem in MMOs lately is that they do a ton of stuff at a mediocre level instead of just picking something and doing it great.   No one is going to care about a mediocre faster paced shooter with a mediocre strategic meta game.  You're better off having a great slower paced shooter with a great strategic meta game.  

The popular games do something, and they do it great.  Minecraft, Call of Duty, Starcraft.   Hell, even WoW is the best distillation of DIKU we've seen, even if you can argue its slipped up a bit since Cataclysm.   A game that does 1 thing, and does it great, is a better game that does 20 things, all of them average.

[Lantyssa]

at the expense of the PS1 players... PS1 players are aware of what made the game work and the best parts were not the shooter parts - it was the system. SOE seems to be handwaving the system in favor of a "SHOOT EM UP -HEADSHOT!! BOOM!! LOOK AT MY K/D!!" playstyle. Oh well... at least I got to play the first one in its prime.

It's not like either of us is commenting on the merits of their choices, just what their business sense tells them to do.

[01101010]

at the expense of the PS1 players... PS1 players are aware of what made the game work and the best parts were not the shooter parts - it was the system. SOE seems to be handwaving the system in favor of a "SHOOT EM UP -HEADSHOT!! BOOM!! LOOK AT MY K/D!!" playstyle. Oh well... at least I got to play the first one in its prime.

It's not like either of us is commenting on the merits of their choices, just what their business sense tells them to do.

Indeed. And we both agree... it is SOE, so it is inevitably going to be a smoldering heap.

As someone who put in 12-18 hour days for the summer PS1 was released, this redesign just feels like a slap in the face. Wouldhave been better off calling it something completely different, because about the only thing the same is the name and the faction names along with their equipment labels.

[Nebu]

If PS 2 is a shiny version of PS 1, the game will fail.  They need to reinvent the game to attract more players or else the title will be doomed to niche status.  While niche isn't a bad thing, I'm sure it's not what the investors would like to see.

[Malakili]

If PS 2 is a shiny version of PS 1, the game will fail.  They need to reinvent the game to attract more players or else the title will be doomed to niche status.  While niche isn't a bad thing, I'm sure it's not what the investors would like to see.

 

The problem is that if "reinventing" means making into a generic arcadey shooter, then it will be neither as good as the existing arcadey shooters, nor different enough to be worth playing for other reasons (i.e the neutered Strategic meta game).

[HaemishM]

What did you expect SOE to do?

- Their target audience is the original PS player who now has 15mb+ broadband rather than just transitioning now from K56flex.

No, it isn't, no matter how much original PS players want to believe it. Planetside 1 WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. Period. End of story. As dumb as SOE is, they aren't going to make a sequel to an unsuccessful game only to try to capture the dwindling player base of a game that was not a success. They are going to try to capture the player base of 2 of the most successful franchises in gaming history. I'd wager that's the only reason this game is getting made - because Battlefield 3 sold 10 million copies and every version of COD since MW2 has made like a billion dollars. The only reason PS1 was still around to be mined for a shooter IP and the only reason it's being used as the IP for their attempt to capture some of those sweet FPS dollars is because it happens to be John Smedley's pet IP. If it wasn't, you'd likely see some other IP.

[Ghambit]

So if they wanna creep players and box sales from games like BF3 and CoD, why are they making it F2P?  Your 10million players means nothing if they only play for 1 week, for free, and dont dip into RMT because the game lacks depth.

Then again, seeing as how they're dumbing down playstyle choice and making things more generic, it makes sense to F2P the biz model because that'll be the only way to distinguish yourself - with money.  Ahah!  I see the genius now.

[Kitsune]

PS1 was not a great success because of just two things: The lack of meaningful updates, improved networking, and anti-cheating technology because all of the programmers apparently bailed early on, and the fact that $15/month is too god damned much for a FPS.

A re-released PS1 with a new client to allow for needed technology upgrades and a price drop would own.

[Speedy Cerviche]

No, it isn't, no matter how much original PS players want to believe it. Planetside 1 WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. Period. End of story. As dumb as SOE is, they aren't going to make a sequel to an unsuccessful game only to try to capture the dwindling player base of a game that was not a success. They are going to try to capture the player base of 2 of the most successful franchises in gaming history. I'd wager that's the only reason this game is getting made - because Battlefield 3 sold 10 million copies and every version of COD since MW2 has made like a billion dollars. The only reason PS1 was still around to be mined for a shooter IP and the only reason it's being used as the IP for their attempt to capture some of those sweet FPS dollars is because it happens to be John Smedley's pet IP. If it wasn't, you'd likely see some other IP.

Thank you for putting it succinctly.

I for one will be quite happy if SOE manages to pull off an open world, unlimited player sci-fi BF3, with an extra MMO layer of persistance, resource and logistic modelling. If done properly, well designed and well executed, it could be a helluva game.