Planetside 2

[Mrbloodworth]

Its a huge change to the game play ( Like animation removal ) that will impact the game. They are likely saving about 4 bits and a few thousand polygons. woo? This way people can jump out of planes, shoot bazookas, and jump back in the plane. How awesome.

[Ghambit]

But wait, I cant show off my gear if I'm just standing around?  Ummm, 
What will I spend my RMT on then? 

[Speedy Cerviche]

The textures they save on not displaying weapons will be used for a variety of zany hairstyles and accessories (monocles anyone?) available at the RMT store.

[shiznitz]

Well then, as long as I can buy a purple dildo sword a la Saint's Row, I can live with that...

[01101010]

I think what irks me a bit more is Matt's nonchalant way of addressing this stuff. "oh and we don't have vehicle boarding animation" was said in the same tone as someone describing the color of the pavement during Mardi Gras parades. Then he is shocked that they matter because to him and the team, this is the stuff deemed superfluous enough to not give a shit about... which I see everything but the pew pew in this game becoming very quickly.

[Ingmar]

If a solo player can't contribute/feel like he's not getting destroyed constantly, game fails. Full stop.

[shiznitz]

If a solo player can't contribute/feel like he's not getting destroyed constantly, game fails. Full stop.

True.  Every MMO that has even a modicum of success these days (and years) has a solid solo game option up to a certain level.

[Venkman]

Solo Planetside sucked. But it kinda needed to. They really didn't have enough to sink it into clever AI scenarios that mimic'd real world game play. I actually remember soloing not being all that bad if you were smart enough to watch what others were doing, didn't embarass yourself so they invited you in, and then paid attention to chat.

If you weren't willing to try and fit in, you weren't really right for the game. And besides, there's a whole other genre for you anyway.

Whatever happened to PS2 just being an engine upgrade of PS1? Did they toss the engine and inherit/buy/license something that has fewer capabilities? Aside from raw ignorance, that's about the only reason I could see them even contemplating these arbitrary changes.

[Ingmar]

The reason they're contemplating these changes, is they want customers. PS1 vets are not a customer base.

[Typhon]

To say it another way, "it's just an upgrade to PS1" is bullshit they fed the fans of PS1 so they didn't throw those potential sales away, with, "COD and Battlefield made a load of cash, what IP do we have sitting on the shelf that we could use", being the business plan.

[Slayerik]

The reason they're contemplating these changes, is they want customers. PS1 vets are not a customer base.

Hmm, wonder how many people tried PS1?

[Speedy Cerviche]

Solo Planetside sucked. But it kinda needed to. They really didn't have enough to sink it into clever AI scenarios that mimic'd real world game play. I actually remember soloing not being all that bad if you were smart enough to watch what others were doing, didn't embarass yourself so they invited you in, and then paid attention to chat.

If you weren't willing to try and fit in, you weren't really right for the game. And besides, there's a whole other genre for you anyway.

huh? This is the hardcore mindset of someone playing a small/elitist game where everyone is a vet player...

if PS2 is actually a success, has a few 100k players and growing at a healthy clip due to positive rep and ongoing development, then any player should easily be able to login "solo", hit instant action and spawn at some part of the map with heavy battle involving hundreds of players where he can easily join the frontlines at start pew pewing at guys in different colours.   

[Nebu]

if PS2 is actually a success, has a few 100k players and growing at a healthy clip due to positive rep and ongoing development, then any player should easily be able to login "solo", hit instant action and spawn at some part of the map with heavy battle involving hundreds of players where he can easily join the frontlines at start pew pewing at guys in different colours.   

I agree with this completely.  My biggest concern with this game is the ability of the vocal minority to turn off potential casual customers.  In order to be a commercial success, this game needs to be approachable and fun for the casual player.  The PS1 base wants a game that will fill their desire for hardcore clan on clan battles that are meaningful.  I don't know how you can design a system that both satisfies the hardcore PS1 base while also being approachable to the uninitiated person contemplating giving this game a try casually. 

I have to imagine that the marketing people want to target the casual crowd to make their sales goals while also placating the hardcore base with just enough nostalgia to have them believing it's a streamlined version of the original.  What that means for the final product could be interesting.  In attempting to make everyone happy do they alienate new players, their base, or everyone?

[Surlyboi]

Fuck that shit.

I soloed or duoed a lot with the ex and we kicked a fuckton of ass. It could be done, you just had to play smart.

That said, killing the little details that made the game, like visible weapons and boarding animations is just stupid and does fuckall for getting more people to sub to the game.

Like Haemish said, "LOLSOE".

[Nebu]

Fuck that shit.

I soloed or duoed a lot with the ex and we kicked a fuckton of ass. It could be done, you just had to play smart.

Well... are they targeting the MMO crowd or the FPS crowd?  The FPS crowd won't pay a monthly sub fee for their fix and the MMO crowd is pretty terrible at PvP.  

The fact that you could compete as a solo may speak to your ability.  I doubt the people I see in MMO pvp would be as successful.  If that's the case, they won't be around after the free month. MMO gamers are fickle and will only play the role of the 'sheep' if they believe it will eventually lead to them getting to be the wolves.  

[Sky]

PS1 had a strong solo game. Not sure if your experiences are colored by playing with an outfit.

From just tagging along with outfits in my rexo/thumper setup to 1v1 stealth sieges; there was a lot you could do solo that was both fun and contributed to the bigger picture.

The things I liked least about PS were people playing for experience rather than tactics; and tangentially off that, people not defending critical bases.

And the caves.

[Malakili]

Well... are they targeting the MMO crowd or the FPS crowd?  The FPS crowd won't pay a monthly sub fee for their fix and the MMO crowd is pretty terrible at PvP.  

The fact that you could compete as a solo may speak to your ability.  I doubt the people I see in MMO pvp would be as successful.  If that's the case, they won't be around after the free month. MMO gamers are fickle and will only play the role of the 'sheep' if they believe it will eventually lead to them getting to be the wolves.  

I think the bigger issue is just type of approach required.  You will get to be the wolf - if you actually try.  If you just expect to get there by simply investing hours, then you won't.  You probably need to actually learn to play the game and make good decisions about where to go and what to do - especially if you plan on playing solo in a team game.  

[01101010]

SOE seems to honestly think they will be able to compete with console shooters. At least that is how it feels, especially when I hear Higby speak. I am really just completely stunned that some of the original dev team from PS are actually onboard with this bastardization of the game. As someone said in PS-Universe: welcome to Battlefield: Auraxis. Played for 2 weeks, forgotten about in 2 months...

[Mrbloodworth]

Sub fee is not an issue for PS2. Stop bringing it up. Its about the only sensible thing about this design. Its the number two issue for many that tried the game, the #1 issue was responsiveness, compared to smaller session based games. The overall design was not the issue. Fodder system proved this.

Planetside was about team play and moving your empire forward on the field. Battlefield is about Soloists and personal kill counts. This is not Through mindset of the users, but insistence of the game design. This does not remove your ability to solo play the game, or simply log in for some pew pew, its simply not the focus of the game, nor will you be the most effective at changing the course of the war. This was PART of the design, it was part of the beauty of it.

There is no way to code for someones personal ability to play a genre, its a non-issue. It is not related to the game ALLOWING you to play solo. You can not attach the two things.

You guys are bringing up issues that didn't happen.

I agree with this completely.  My biggest concern with this game is the ability of the vocal minority to turn off potential casual customers.  In order to be a commercial success, this game needs to be approachable and fun for the casual player.

PS1 WAS assessable to casual players, once they got past the pay wall. The support side of the game, as well as systems like instant action, auto outfits and open squads* all helped this.

* Open squads. Once you log in, you are greeted by a window that listed EVERY SQUAD in the game, the location, and what roles they need. You could do this from anywhere in the game. No outfit required. You could be just as detached to the squad as you can in every session based game.

[Nebu]

I think the bigger issue is just type of approach required.  You will get to be the wolf - if you actually try.  If you just expect to get there by simply investing hours, then you won't.  You probably need to actually learn to play the game and make good decisions about where to go and what to do - especially if you plan on playing solo in a team game.  

Do you really believe that the average MMO gamer will get to be the wolf with practice?  I don't believe it for a second.  That's like saying that the average driver will become racetrack certified with time and practice.  Some people have a natural gift for gaming.  Many of those people gravitate to FPS games.  I consider myself a pretty solid MMO pvp'er and I get DESTROYED by Schild and his friends when I step into an FPS.  Having the skill to adapt to both twitch and a tactical environment is a skill set that a minority of gamers possess.  I don't know how SOE plans to keep them in a target rich environment.  

In other words, about 15% of your potential customers will be skilled at your game.  How do they plan to keep the other 85% paying the bills?

[Mrbloodworth]

What the hell is this wolves shit?

Planetside was balanced. It was a horizontal progression, there was no power increases*. YOU CAN NOT CODE FOR TIME SPENT WITH ANY TITLE. There is no nanny state for gaming, other than facebook.



* Planetside 2 has power increases. Joy.

[Nebu]

PS1 WAS assessable to casual players, once they got past the pay wall. The support side of the game, as well as systems like instant action, auto outfits and open squads* all helped this.

Here's the hurdle I'm trying to get past.  I loved BF1942 and played the hell out of it for years.  I didn't last a month in PS1 and I love both shooters and MMO's.  Why wasn't the game sticky for me?  I would think that I'm their target audience.  I enjoy tactical shooters and I love MMOs.  Still, I feel like this game is designed for someone else.

[Mrbloodworth]

Because you are a soloist. I know this, because we have gamed together before. Love yah, but dude. If you can't personally Rambo in, drop 10 guys, hack the console and fly away in the sunset. You don't last long. You can do all that in traditional Session based games were it does not matter afterwords.

MMO's are the antithesis of playing alone together, you are a unique snowflake. You can't loose. Rock on you diamond.

 

[Nebu]

What the hell is this wolves shit?

Planetside was balanced. It was a horizontal progression, there was no power increases*. YOU CAN NOT CODE FOR TIME SPENT WITH ANY TITLE. There is no nanny state for gaming, other than facebook.

We're talking past each other.  I'm not talking about wanting a power/gear curve.  I think that stuff has no place in a pvp game.  I'm saying that MMO gamers want certain things. If SOE wants to attract their attention, they're going to either make concessions to improve their subscriber numbers or be satisfied as a niche title.

[Mrbloodworth]

Fuck MMO gamers.

About the only concession to the MMORPG fans given was the Bloom, support roles, and long TTK.

[Nebu]

Because you are a soloist. I know this, because we have gamed together before. Love yah, but dude. If you can't personally Rambo in, drop 10 guys, hack the console and fly away in the sunset. You don't last long. You can do all that in traditional Session based games were it does not matter afterwords.

MMO's are the antithesis of playing alone together, you are a unique snowflake. You can't loose. Rock on you diamond.

 

I played DAoC as part of a dedicated group for almost 6 years.  I don't think you know how I play pvp games.  Besides, how I play has no bearing at all on the discussion I'm trying to have.  I'm asking how SOE is planning to make this a 500k sub game?  I don't see them doing it by reskinning PS 1.  There just isn't the market for a game like that beyond the first month or two.  

[Mrbloodworth]

DAOC was an RPG.

[Nebu]

Fuck MMO gamers.

FPS players won't play PS2.  They have no incentive to play a slower game for a monthly fee.  That leaves MMO pvp enthusiasts as the most likely target for increasing your player numbers.  

Did I miss something?  PS1 wasn't very successful.  Redoing it is going down the same path unless they change their model.  

[Nebu]

DAOC was an RPG.

Well, we sure as hell never played an FPS together.  I'm not even sure what games we played together... maybe Rift? 

[Mrbloodworth]

Besides, how I play has no bearing at all on the discussion I'm trying to have.

Indeed it does.

We have two schools of design going on here.

Battlefield/Session based games:
Solo, power progression, short play times, no teamwork required ( But possible ), Playing alone together. Kill counts main goal. No inclusion of less skilled "twitch" gameplay.

Planetside one:

Team based. Long and short play times supported. Teamwork required for higher level goals. Combined arms. Long term tactics, logistics, cross outfit coordination. Specialization of roles on a squad/outfit level. War over all goal. Inclusion of less skilled "twitch" game play.

FPS players won't play PS2.  They have no incentive to play a slower game for a monthly fee.  

Sub fee is not an issue for PS2. Stop bringing it up.

It amazes me that some of you keep complaining about "Hardcore" when, planetside was much more casual than most FPS are. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more casual. The learning curve was not nearly as bad as most FPS are. Not by a long shot. Larger campaign game notwithstanding.

[Nebu]

We have two schools of design going on here.

Battlefield/Session based games:
Solo, power progression, short play times, no teamwork required, Playing alone together. Kill counts main goal. No inclusion of less skilled "twitch" gameplay.

Planetside one:

Team based. Long and short play times supported. Teamwork required for higher level goals. Combined arms. Long term tactics, logistics, cross outfit coordination. Specialization of roles on a squad outfit level. War over all goal. Inclusion of less skilled "twitch" game play.

Based on precedent, which model is more likely to attract the largest following?  That's the question I've been asking all morning. I believe that it's the first and you're arguing that it's the second.  The only successful implementation of the second that I can recall would be EvE and it's a very different type of game.  Besides, would SOE be satisfied with PS2 getting EvE numbers?  Perhaps they would.

I also think that your love for PS clouds your objectivity.  I never felt like I was part of a war in PS.  Never.  I felt like I was collateral damage the entire month I tried to play the game.  There was nothing about the game that kept me wanting to play.  Nothing.  I should have loved the game yet I felt nothing for it.  I'm still not sure why it left me so cold.  Looking at the numbers, I wasn't alone in feeling this way.

[Malakili]

Based on precedent, which model is more likely to attract the largest following?  That's the question I've been asking all morning. I believe that it's the first and you're arguing that it's the second.  The only successful implementation of the second that I can recall would be EvE and it's a very different type of game. 

Its obvious that the former will, but its also obvious that the former already exists.  So, PS2 should try to do something different, and well, and deal with the fact that they aren't going to sell CoD levels of boxes, rather than trying to be CoD + MMO and pleasing absolutely no one.

[Mrbloodworth]

Of course the first. Because there is no other precedent. Ps1 had to many things blocking it. The best showing they had was Fodder program, that went over gangbusters. I have never once argued that BF/COD was not successful.

I also think that your love for PS clouds your objectivity.  I never felt like I was part of a war in PS.  Never.  I felt like I was collateral damage the entire month I tried to play the game.  There was nothing about the game that kept me wanting to play.  Nothing.  I should have loved the game yet I felt nothing for it.  I'm still not sure why it left me so cold.  Looking at the numbers, I wasn't alone in feeling this way.

Likely the shit I have been talking about.  Monthly fee. Bad responsiveness compared to other games. And you are a staunch soloist. Why play PS when you had BF?

[Nebu]

Again, we're talking past each other.  I'm not trying to discuss what would be the most interesting or the best way to design the game.  I'm asking if this type of model can be a financial success?  I honestly thought that WWII Online would be massively successful... until I saw its implementation.  It's an incredible game with a very limited market.  I fear that PS2 will be the same. 

[Mrbloodworth]

Implementation is key.

Planetside, for the vast majority of users. Failed on implementation, not design. Hence why this throwing out the baby with the bathwater annoys me to no end.

Update the implementation. Modernize the payment models. Do not make a persistent Battlefield. We already have M.A.G.