Planetside 2

[Malakili]

Ok, so your point is that you are not a part of the majority, a majority that, as one possibility, wants to spend their free time shutting their brains off from the stress and rigors that dominant the rest of their lives because being good at a video game isn't that important to them.

Let me ask: Is the point of a video game to entertain?

Sure?  I don't really know what that means though.  Its not really entertaining for me to shut my brain off though.   No matter what I do, I try to improve at it, thats just how I roll, whether its professional or leisure.

[Typhon]

[snip]

There is no reason not to just allow people to play the game with all weapons available right from the beginning.   If you seriously feel like the game is any deeper because it makes you collect COD bucks before you can use a weapon, we are different on a fundamental and irreconcilable level.

Let me be clear that I'm ok with games that have progression, like RPGs.   But when you are tacking on progression because a bunch of rats like to press the XP gain lever over and over again, I start to develop a twitch in my eye brought upon from trying to control my rage.

What I remember from COD: MW that many of the earned weapons were actually not as good as the weapons you started with. (I could be remembering wrong, and there were some weapons that were better)
What I remember from COD: WoW the Tommygun was really all you needed unless you were going sniper and sniper opened up very quickly. (but I was a scrub player, so maybe there were better weapons at the top of the tree)

So, if a developer recognizes very good reasons why weapon progression doesn't make sense in his/her game, then it doesn't make sense and some other means of "progression" should be considered to appeal to the inner player rat so as not to break the game.  Achievements don't really appeal to me (unless they provide something tangible - even if it's just a vanity item), but they don't hurt anything, so I think they are worthwhile to tack on to games.

In a PvP game that focuses more heavily on player skill it definitely makes sense that all players have access to a base level of weapons that are as good in most situations as any weapon available.
In a PvP game where leveling is part of the competition it doesn't.

Whether or not there is progression is not binary.  It doesn't have to be weapons.  It doesn't have to be levels.  ... it's just been that way for 90% of the games that exist.

I think conversationally we both have our soft spots.  You hear "progression" and think Diku/WoW loot and say, "not in my open world PvP game you don't!".  I hear, "open world PvP" and think,  "one faction wins! (Shadowbane), population imbalance (DAOC) and 2 am raids (DAOC)".  Obviously I'm focused more on my points.

[Mrbloodworth]

One of Planetsides rules was no power progression. Everything, was progression to expand options.

Not sure why you guys are debating it.  They had this in 03.

When you have all the systems it had to use for balance, you do not need endless numbers to fight or counter endless numbers on things. If they change this basic tenant in the new version, it won't be Planetside.

[Lantyssa]

It'll be as much Planetside as EQ2 was EQ, anyways.

[Nebu]

If they change this basic tenant in the new version, it won't be Planetside.

I know that you loved Planetside, but the most stupid thing they could do is to make Planetside 2 like Planetside.  Planetside wasn't the money maker that it needed to be.  It lacked a hook to hold subscribers from the mainstream.  It was very much a niche game.  If they target that audience again, this game will underperform... again. 

[Mrbloodworth]

If they change this basic tenant in the new version, it won't be Planetside.

I know that you loved Planetside, but the most stupid thing they could do is to make Planetside 2 like Planetside.  Planetside wasn't the money maker that it needed to be.  It lacked a hook to hold subscribers from the mainstream.  It was very much a niche game.  If they target that audience again, this game will underperform... again.  

Yes, but that was not the reason.

The problems it had were: No update path due to engine and pre-development choices (Built as a one off game, Did you know the game had NO streaming from the disk and all assets were preloaded?). No command level or emphasis on empire level goals. "Quirky" Physics and shooting model (Due to the time it was made and how they overcame limitations of the time in regards to player counts). Unneeded expansion that added more terrain to an already huge world and had bad level design to boot. Erosion of the team based foundation. The subscription model. Stagnation due to all of the above. Emphasis on kill/death or appeasement of session based players.

There was nothing wrong with the game progression system, style of game play, balance, accessibility or variety of play.  This is why people LOVED the title. The above is why people left.

If you put a DIKU RPG combat/grind in my shooter, ill hunt you down.

[Speedy Cerviche]

Yeah I would agree with that.

Planetside was a solid concept, but it had a bad technical foundation and bad execution, making it overall a fairly poor game that did not compete well with other leading FPS games and did not justify a subscription.

With a better engine, some design and mechanical fixes, and regular quality/interesting content updates it could work.

[Sky]

I'll also have to agree with BW on that one.

[Typhon]

[snip]
If you put a DIKU RPG combat/grind in my shooter, ill hunt you down.

I'm not arguing for this.  The Planetside 1 progression path that gave more options but not more power sounded fine to me.  What I heard Malakili describing was a game with no progression (although maybe he wasn't saying that).

I'm arguing that just saying "open world PvP" and not defining systems that prevent one faction from dominating the entire game leaves me cold.  I won't play a game where it's up to the player base to figure that shit out.  Population imbalances, 2am raids and making the winner more powerful are the more obvious pitfalls.  Counter to that, creating a game that is just about meaningless little skirmishes is the other side of that coin.  I also don't want a game that comes down to keep trading.

Somewhere there is a design that accommodates both (negative feedback on winning, but making players strongly want to win).  I think that the game I'm describing has another system with a power progression - but doesn't have a feedback to combat.  To progress in that system, you need more land.  To get more land you need to win at combat.  The more land you hold, the harder it is to hold that land (or get more).

[Mrbloodworth]

Somewhere there is a design that accommodates both (negative feedback on winning, but making players strongly want to win).  I think that the game I'm describing has another system with a power progression - but doesn't have a feedback to combat.  To progress in that system, you need more land.  To get more land you need to win at combat.  The more land you hold, the harder it is to hold that land (or get more).

That was already in with the addition of the lattice system, the bases having chained effects, and capital cities and locked continent benefits. There just needed to be more.

IE: You can't pull a heavy tank with out a tech base connected. ETC... It was also very a very good idea to cut the lines to any Tech base your opposition had.

[Malakili]

[snip]
If you put a DIKU RPG combat/grind in my shooter, ill hunt you down.

I'm not arguing for this.  The Planetside 1 progression path that gave more options but not more power sounded fine to me.  What I heard Malakili describing was a game with no progression (although maybe he wasn't saying that).

I'm arguing that just saying "open world PvP" and not defining systems that prevent one faction from dominating the entire game leaves me cold.  I won't play a game where it's up to the player base to figure that shit out.  Population imbalances, 2am raids and making the winner more powerful are the more obvious pitfalls.  Counter to that, creating a game that is just about meaningless little skirmishes is the other side of that coin.  I also don't want a game that comes down to keep trading.

Somewhere there is a design that accommodates both (negative feedback on winning, but making players strongly want to win).  I think that the game I'm describing has another system with a power progression - but doesn't have a feedback to combat.  To progress in that system, you need more land.  To get more land you need to win at combat.  The more land you hold, the harder it is to hold that land (or get more).

I'm definitely arguing in favor of a game with no *character* progression, but progression in itself isn't going to make me stop playing if its done in a minimally obtrusive manner.  It seems to me that a lot of the pitfalls you are talking about can be AVOIDED if there is minimal progression.  Casual and hardcore players get no advantage in terms of gear or skills, so in a given fight you have more or less equal standing.  As for the design in the last paragraph there, I'd be perfectly happy with that kind of thing. 

As for the progression that gives more options instead of power, I'm ok with that in that it won't drive me away from a game and I prefer it greatly to power progression in a PvP game.  That being said, I'd still prefer just to give everyone those options from the beginning instead of arbitrarily making them play X amount of hours before they get access to it.

[LK]

Sure?  I don't really know what that means though.  Its not really entertaining for me to shut my brain off though.   No matter what I do, I try to improve at it, thats just how I roll, whether its professional or leisure.

Entertain: to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse.

OK, so you take everything you do seriously. Why is what entertains you what should entertain someone else? That is to say: why would you judge other people based on how seriously they take their entertainment?

Addendum: I see you arguing a lot for what you want rather than what's best for the game... at least, a successful game designed to be played by a mass audience. If we were talking about a game designed exclusively for you and people like you, we wouldn't be talking about Planetside. We'd probably be talking about something like Football or Basketball or other games designed around personal and team skill.

[LK]

No command level or emphasis on empire level goals.

It has been my experience that a large percentage of people do not play games for empire level goals. Your faction and empire are a cosmetic choice, one of expression or exploring the capabilities of the faction / empire (Ohhh, lightning gun!), rather than one derived from loyalty and servitude. WoW experimented with this for Silithus World PvP. It died shortly after the "new" wore off and people had no personal reason to be there.

[Speedy Cerviche]

That was already in with the addition of the lattice system, the bases having chained effects, and capital cities and locked continent benefits. There just needed to be more.

IE: You can't pull a heavy tank with out a tech base connected. ETC... It was also very a very good idea to cut the lines to any Tech base your opposition had.

Exactly, and it was balanced because heavy tanks, while cool and giving you more tactical options & a slight strength advantage, could still be taken down pretty easily by no-tech infantry taking cover and using easily available anti-tank weapons, so teched up teams didn't have a huge advantage vs no-tech teams. Add a good point reward system where taking down a heavy tank on foot, gives you a bonanza of points compared to sitting in a heavy tank and mowing down people, and skilled players will stick to basic but crucial roles like anti-tank, healing and hacking, instead of just bee-lining for killing machine vehicles. Voila, balance.

Success should give you access to cool, fancy tech items, vehicles, buildings & other prestigious gimmicks, but they shouldn't be overpowered to basic items. Also losing teams should be given incentive to gun for high flyers with their just as effective basic weapons, to keep them in check.

Voila, incentives & balance.

[Mrbloodworth]

Apples and oranges. Can you please stop using Wow as a comparison, its faulty from the core. Wow for the most part is not PvP, Its PvG (player VS gear). It has had even less incentive for caring about your faction than Planetside did, its ENTIRE reward system is for the individual.

Planetside had, before same server cross faction alts were allowed, had a very strong loyalty base for the factions. Even propaganda machines. The Lack of commitment or caring as you put it, was because there was nothing to care about (anymore, it had one, but also needed more).

Thats the part of the point.

The other part is irrelevant to loyalty, and pertains directly to longevity of the game. If there is no empire level goals, there are no long term goals, only short term individuial, or squad/outfit level ones.

It is exactly what WW2OL address with campaigns, and it is what Global agenda addresses with the AvA seasons.

[Malakili]

Sure?  I don't really know what that means though.  Its not really entertaining for me to shut my brain off though.   No matter what I do, I try to improve at it, thats just how I roll, whether its professional or leisure.

Entertain: to hold the attention of pleasantly or agreeably; divert; amuse.

OK, so you take everything you do seriously. Why is what entertains you what should entertain someone else? That is to say: why would you judge other people based on how seriously they take their entertainment?

Addendum: I see you arguing a lot for what you want rather than what's best for the game... at least, a successful game designed to be played by a mass audience. If we were talking about a game designed exclusively for you and people like you, we wouldn't be talking about Planetside. We'd probably be talking about something like Football or Basketball or other games designed around personal and team skill.

 When push comes to shove in real life am I going to judge people on their entertainment, no.  But on an internet forum dedicated to video games, in a thread talking about a specific game (an a bit generally a genre since there isn't much info to go on yet), damned if I won't argue damned forcefully for the kind of game *I* want, and throw around jabs at people who I think are driving games that could be the way I want them to be junk I'm not interested in playing

Whats "best for the game" is totally irrelevant to me if it isn't a game I want to play in the first place.  

Also - I don't think the game I want is anything like a sport, its in fact almost the exact opposite of sport-like PvP (e.g Starcraft).  I like those kinds of games,but this is totally different.

[Nebu]

If you put a DIKU RPG combat/grind in my shooter, ill hunt you down.

Don't blame me.  Blame the masses for preferring these mechanics.  The success of PS2 will depend entirely on how many people they can attract and keep in the game.  If that number of players is greater with a PS affixed to a diku grind, then what's to keep the developers from moving in that direction.  I'm all for making good games, but this is a business.  A business with a huge up front investment.  I'd think that market research would show that your greatest chance at success would be at linking FPS mechanics to a popular character development scheme.

In other words, I hope that you get the game you want with lateral progression that doesn't alter a power curve.  I want that as well.  I'm just not convinced that is what this game will ultimately be.   

[Mrbloodworth]

Wasn't blaming you. But DIKU RPG Shooters have shown time and time again to not hit any sort of critical mass, RPGers get whooped, and Hardcores won't touch it. Again, Plantside was ahead of its time and extremely unique. Its problems was not this.

I think smead knows this, and because hes letting current subscribers in the alpha/beta first, they won't let him forget it.

[Malakili]

If you put a DIKU RPG combat/grind in my shooter, ill hunt you down.

Don't blame me.  Blame the masses for preferring these mechanics.  The success of PS2 will depend entirely on how many people they can attract and keep in the game.  If that number of players is greater with a PS affixed to a diku grind, then what's to keep the developers from moving in that direction.  I'm all for making good games, but this is a business.  A business with a huge up front investment.  I'd think that market research would show that your greatest chance at success would be at linking FPS mechanics to a popular character development scheme.

In other words, I hope that you get the game you want with lateral progression that doesn't alter a power curve.  I want that as well.  I'm just not convinced that is what this game will ultimately be.   

Thats fine, I just won't play it.  But seeing as there is almost not a single other game on the market coming up that even has the chance to be something I *really* want (Tribes Universe I guess), this is one of the few hopes I have.

[LK]

When push comes to shove in real life am I going to judge people on their entertainment, no.  But on an internet forum dedicated to video games, in a thread talking about a specific game (an a bit generally a genre since there isn't much info to go on yet), damned if I won't argue damned forcefully for the kind of game *I* want, and throw around jabs at people who I think are driving games that could be the way I want them to be junk I'm not interested in playing

Whats "best for the game" is totally irrelevant to me if it isn't a game I want to play in the first place.  

Also - I don't think the game I want is anything like a sport, its in fact almost the exact opposite of sport-like PvP (e.g Starcraft).  I like those kinds of games,but this is totally different.

I don't see how the environment should give you a pass on how you conduct yourself. Are you implying you're a different person when you sit down behind a keyboard and write your thoughts?

If not, should I be taking you more or less seriously when you judge other people on their entertainment and speak only for your needs *while in a discussion about what would be best for Planetside?*

[Malakili]

*while in a discussion about what would be best for Planetside?*

I was not under the impression this discussion had anything to do with that, this discussion is and has always been for me "What do I want the game to be." 

I'll be leaving now, and when you guys figure out the formula for the 100 million dollar earning Planetside sequel, let me know.

[LK]

this discussion is and has always been for me "What do I want the game to be." 

And that's the problem right there, and I'm willing to bet isn't exclusive to you.

It's a very compelling mystery what a successful "Planetside" would be like, one I'm certain the game industry hasn't solved. That's what I want to talk about.

[LK]

It is exactly what WW2OL address with campaigns, and it is what Global agenda addresses with the AvA seasons.

OK, let's address empire goals. First, we need to identify not only how you can make an individual care for the group they are a part of, but why they should. Whatever the goals are is irrelevant. What matters is subscribing a person to them so that they put personal goals aside for the goals of their empire.

The disconnect I'm having is: What type of person invests their time in long term goals in a video game?

[Sky]

I know step one in creating a successful PS2.

"Embrace the niche"

If you try and pull a Trion, it ain't gonna happen. The fanbase for a PS2 is going to be a niche of several niches. It's a difficult sell to investors because you're looking at a WWIIOL or Eve pitch, rather than, well, anything else. With VCtards getting their panties all moist over ZOMGville and WoW-killers, good luck. But, if you can do it right (addressing many of the faults BW lists with the original product, mostly from a technical standpoint), you can stake out a solid five+years earner and enough goodwill for a PS3.

But, you know, the game development is not rife with good business decisions.

[Malakili]

It is exactly what WW2OL address with campaigns, and it is what Global agenda addresses with the AvA seasons.

OK, let's address empire goals. First, we need to identify not only how you can make an individual care for the group they are a part of, but why they should. Whatever the goals are is irrelevant. What matters is subscribing a person to them so that they put personal goals aside for the goals of their empire.

The disconnect I'm having is: What type of person invests their time in long term goals in a video game?

Ok - I'm back in this discussion, and I'll try to do it on your terms.  My response last time was a bit harsh because this isn't the best day ever and my temper is short.  Anyway, on topic:

Ok, I wrote some stuff up and didn't like it - starting over...

I don't know how you can "force" people to care about their team/empire/side goals.  I think its less about making them care more for the empire goals above their own and more about aligning the two.  Its incredibly difficult for me to think of mechanics to achieve this because for me its just how I am in a team game of any kind, I suddenly want my team to win regardless if its something like Team Fortress 2, Pinochle, Pick up Basketball, intramural floor hockey.  Maybe I've been under the illusion that people like these kinds of games for the team element, but I just always assumed that was the draw, because its why I play or played them.  

ETA:  This applies for me in games like WoW as well.  I liked raiding because it gave me team goals, take down this boss, learn this encounter, etc.  It even gave my crafting professions a bigger purpose (make flasks for the raid).  I could've jumped ship for some slightly better guilds if I wanted at some point, but my guild wat *my team* and I wanted to stick with them through good and bad (and we had plenty of both).   When I quit raiding in WoW there was already the heroics + badges meta game in place, but even though I could continue progressing my character, it just got stale and boring really quick because I didn't have that bigger picture to care about.

I'm open to suggestions, but I have to agree with Sky a bit.  I think if you are going to make a game like this you need to at some level assume a playerbase that wants to play your game, rather than trying to "trick" people who don't actually like your game (and by this I mean the empire v. empire game), into participating through some kind of hand waving.

[Speedy Cerviche]

You can make people care about the team in a FPS by having team success unlock new vehicles, weapons and other prestige items.

Your team captures X factory base and now you can make your own X model heavy tank assuming you have enough resource points or whatever. So if you want to drive around in X heavy tank, you need to capture and defend that kind of factory city.

You want to try a new experimental prototype heavy tank? Well now you need to capture the tech lab that's on the factory lattice. So when your commanders try coordinate an attack on this factory, you have some interest in following orders if it will help ensure success.

[01101010]

Bring back Sporkfire and Smokejumper and I'll be happy 

[Mrbloodworth]

Bring back Sporkfire and Smokejumper and I'll be happy 

And ant bombs.

[UnsGub]

I don't know how you can "force" people to care about their team/empire/side goals.  I think its less about making them care more for the empire goals above their own and more about aligning the two.  Its incredibly difficult for me to think of mechanics to achieve this because for me its just how I am in a team game of any kind, I suddenly want my team to win regardless if its something like Team Fortress 2, Pinochle, Pick up Basketball, intramural floor hockey.  Maybe I've been under the illusion that people like these kinds of games for the team element, but I just always assumed that was the draw, because its why I play or played them.

Well for starter you force them into a team/empire/side.  PS and Eve already do this and it works.  PvP by default has an opposing team(s) of one or more.  Humans are drawn to groups from the planet, nations, cities, family, etc.  American pro sports is all about location.  Location\timezone draw is common in MMOs already.  Just put in some type of structure made up or real and people will join up.  PS already had a working system for balancing out number per side so one could join the zerg or find 5 to 1 or 1 to 5 odds.  There is a draw for team play as it provides challenges and rewards that are not possible for an individual.  American pro sports already breaks down team and individual rewards very well and the top of the list is the number one team in the world.   There is really no need to "force" people.  There are whole industries setup to supply people with news about teams in sports.  CAOD is a good example from Eve.  Make group A, B, C and someone from one of the groups with say their group is better then the other groups and rest is history.

[Malakili]

I don't know how you can "force" people to care about their team/empire/side goals.  I think its less about making them care more for the empire goals above their own and more about aligning the two.  Its incredibly difficult for me to think of mechanics to achieve this because for me its just how I am in a team game of any kind, I suddenly want my team to win regardless if its something like Team Fortress 2, Pinochle, Pick up Basketball, intramural floor hockey.  Maybe I've been under the illusion that people like these kinds of games for the team element, but I just always assumed that was the draw, because its why I play or played them.

Well for starter you force them into a team/empire/side.  PS and Eve already do this and it works.  PvP by default has an opposing team(s) of one or more.  Humans are drawn to groups from the planet, nations, cities, family, etc.  American pro sports is all about location.  Location\timezone draw is common in MMOs already.  Just put in some type of structure made up or real and people will join up.  PS already had a working system for balancing out number per side so one could join the zerg or find 5 to 1 or 1 to 5 odds.  There is a draw for team play as it provides challenges and rewards that are not possible for an individual.  American pro sports already breaks down team and individual rewards very well and the top of the list is the number one team in the world.   There is really no need to "force" people.  There are whole industries setup to supply people with news about teams in sports.  CAOD is a good example from Eve.  Make group A, B, C and someone from one of the groups with say their group is better then the other groups and rest is history.

I don't really disagree with this, but Lorekeep seems to think otherwise.

[Sky]

Allowing multiple factions on a single account is definitely on the list of PS fuck-ups. I know it was a tough decision with the server merges, but still.

Also, with the blood bowl stuff, I can't help but wish there were a game that played like PS with the WH40k license. I'm not sure GW would allow such awesomeness, though.

[Ratman_tf]

No command level or emphasis on empire level goals.

It has been my experience that a large percentage of people do not play games for empire level goals. Your faction and empire are a cosmetic choice, one of expression or exploring the capabilities of the faction / empire (Ohhh, lightning gun!), rather than one derived from loyalty and servitude. WoW experimented with this for Silithus World PvP. It died shortly after the "new" wore off and people had no personal reason to be there.

Silithus was excrement. WoW has bungled world PvP pretty goddamn badly.

[LK]

I just always assumed that was the draw, because its why I play or played them.

It would be if the game was made specifically for people like you, was populated by people like you, and had no other type of gamer supported.

You can make people care about the team in a FPS by having team success unlock new vehicles, weapons and other prestige items.

Your team captures X factory base and now you can make your own X model heavy tank assuming you have enough resource points or whatever. ... So when your commanders try coordinate an attack on this factory, you have some interest in following orders if it will help ensure success.

My immediate questions to you (and keep in mind this is in the context of a PERSISTENT, UNENDING WAR):
1. Why would someone join a poorly-performing team, assuming they know it's poorly-performing, when they can join the winners and get all the toys right away?
2. Why would you divide your player base between attack and defense? The ideal place for all players to be is on the front lines engaged in conflict.
3. What would you do to create an incentive for people to defend a base that grants an unlocked incentive that doesn't break personal progression or make the game boring for the player, assuming the front line has moved away from the incentive-granting base?

You can ignore all those and just answer me this: Why would a soldier listen to their commanders about what's best for the team? What stops them from performing an action *they* think is best for the team? Why would a person follow instead of lead?

Well for starter you force them into a team/empire/side.  PS and Eve already do this and it works.  PvP by default has an opposing team(s) of one or more.  Humans are drawn to groups from the planet, nations, cities, family, etc.  American pro sports is all about location.  Location\timezone draw is common in MMOs already.  Just put in some type of structure made up or real and people will join up.  PS already had a working system for balancing out number per side so one could join the zerg or find 5 to 1 or 1 to 5 odds.  There is a draw for team play as it provides challenges and rewards that are not possible for an individual.  American pro sports already breaks down team and individual rewards very well and the top of the list is the number one team in the world.   There is really no need to "force" people.  There are whole industries setup to supply people with news about teams in sports.  CAOD is a good example from Eve.  Make group A, B, C and someone from one of the groups with say their group is better then the other groups and rest is history.

Forcing a choice on a side doesn't mean they're obedient, which is what you need to support empire goals. A player picking a side is often an uninformed choice. The most logical reason someone picks a side is not because of subscribing to a group's ideology (why would they care?), but more personal factors, like what their character can do, what their character will look like, or how that group is performing (people want to be on the winning side). For example, in TF2, what would make someone pick Red over Blue, assuming they had no access to score, class composition, or any other data that indicates the performance of the team prior to joining? They're exactly the same. I would choose Blue because its my favorite color. Different people would have different reasons, but ultimately would be focused on personal preference.

Let's leave incentives out of it for now, because you're only reinforcing my point by giving a person additional data to influence their decision to reinforce a personal goal, which has nothing to do with giving them a reason to do things to the benefit of the team.

What makes American Sports Teams works is a structure wherein any player not acting as part of the team would find his ass fired or not renewed on his contract. They wouldn't be able to play or compete. You can't have that in a video game, though.

To sum up: when creating or managing a team to compete, does the team choose the player, or the player choose the team? What happens if the team had no choice to the quality or skill of the players it received, or its leaders, and was forced to keep people who didn't work for the team? (Answer: Planetside and every open-world PvP game of NPC faction vs. NPC faction ever)

[LK]

I should define Commanders / Leaders as the representative of the team's interests and the one giving the Empire Goals to the player. And man, if that was a computer? Man.

[Malakili]

Can we ditch the sports analogy for a game like this, it isn't even remotely applicable in terms of players. (I think the point about sports FANS might apply, why am I a NY Giants fan? For absolutely no other reason than that I grew up in New York)

I say dump people on the side with fewer players, maybe allow you to specify a friend at team creation, and if you know someone specifically that you want to play with, it lets you join that faction instead, I dunno, thats not well thought out, I'm just acknowledging the need to allow people to play with who they want.  I'd say the factions should be more or less equal anyway in terms of gear.  You mention choosing blue in TF2 because you like blue, but I've hit the random button every single time I wasn't playing with a person I know and been perfectly happy with that, it wouldn't even have occurred to me to join the team based on which color I like more.   Since the "teams" in this game are huge (basically "factions") we don't need to worry too much about individual skill differences because its fair to assume that across the entire faction it more or less evens out.  Even if you have some sort of elite clan on your side, they might win you a few battles, but they won't win you the entire war.

To answer your questions specifically:

1. Because the game is more fun when the teams are even then when one team is roflstomping, for both sides.

2. I just don't agree with this, it seems to me like any large scale strategic game would need some things attacked and some thigns defended at all times, I don't view this as a problem.  People that enjoy being on the front lines can spawn in there, people that enjoy defending can spawn in there.

3. Have enemy presence set of a slight early warning system so that people to spawn into objectives to defend in time if they are X distance behind the front lines, so they don't need defending at all times.   Surprise attacks would still be worth it because you'd have the tactical advantage of having a plan, and of catching them off guard, even if they are spawned in there.

4. Following is perfectly fine, I do it all the time in WW2O.  You should listen to the commanders because its fun to work as a team towards objectives, and you need a leader to coordinate people to do things quickly.  If this is such a big deal for you, don't play.   Yeah, I'm resorting to that for this one.  Why are there raid leaders in WoW?  Why do people give the tank lead in a heroic so he can mark targets in WoW?  This is perfectly common in MMOGs as it is.  If you give people reasonable objectives, they'll do them, if they can't, well they CAN do whatever they want, but they'll quickly find its a crappy way to play the game.   If you just want to be all john rambo and go I KNOW WHATS BEST LOLOLOL, then peace out and the game will do fine without.   

If we absolutely MUST come up with a mechanic to support it, how about something along the lines of  (but not necessarily specifically), "When following an order (like, in an area designated as an attack or defense objective, or something), you gain some sort of health and ammo regen."  Maybe commanders orders could be marked in the physical game world (not just on the map) with some kind of flag that "gives off" the health and ammo regen, call it "inspiration" or some jazz.