Harder to find reasons to stay.

Discussion in 'Off Topic Discussion' started by Deladin, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. On the other hand it lacks tangible rewards for doing so - yes, you get certs and eventually you get new weapons but compared to many FPS games on the market right now they're extremely slow to gain (weapons), meaningless (battle ranks) and the statistics in themselves offer no incentive either (no ranking, no benefit for being effective, good or otherwise).

    Even if you organize a hundred guys to take the base, you get exactly the same rewards as the guy who came in 30 minutes later and stood there for 5 minutes and waited for the base to be captured. Hurrah.

    When you log off, whatever you did today means nothing. It's like killing mobs in World of Warcraft.

    If you look at the evolution of FPS games since the very first ones (including Wolf, D, DN3D etc.) it has been a gradual movement towards rewarding the player with tangible long term benefits that you can compare with other people - and yes, even in some cases raw prestige.

    Everyone wants to be the #1, right?

    It sounds more like your mindset is still ingrained in the PS1 era of things, in other wrods "Let's just randomly shoot things, capture a base and move on and then rinse and repeat it ad infinitum".

    Games have evolved since then and people expect more nowadays.. and why shouldn't they?
  2. Absolutely agree.
    No point defending, little XP or cert reward. You also get spawn camped so you end up getting farmed and losing the base.
    Therefore, everyone attacks, no-one defends, especially since attacking gives more XP and no-one in the game cares about enjoying the game, they only want to grind certs and buy unlocks and guns.
  3. There is no point to playing games, there is no point to frikkin' life
    Atheist: We are here for random stuff happening
    Christian, muslim and jewish: We are here to entertain god
    Hinduism Buddhism: We are here to stop being here
  4. Instead of simply criticizing PS2 for it's lack, why don't you point out where it's been done 'better' and cite examples...

    Cause quite frankly, I've never seen any tangible reward in any game... EVER. You play games cause you have fun playing them. If you play them for any other reason......................................................

    Only if you accomplished nothing during that 30 minute cap.... One would think you were earning points the entire time you were there fighting.

    Again, give me some examples what other games (primarily shooters, but as this is an MMO I'll accept some aspects from MMORPG's as long as the mechanic in question isn't obviously designed solely for RPG or otherwise detrimental to FPS.

    Furthermore, there most certainly is more to fight for in PS2 then say a session based shooter. Both PS2 and other session shooters have XP, progression, and unlocks. PS2's gain and unlock rate is slower, but this is directly related to the fact PS2 is a game with a long projected life cycle... unlike the session based shooters which release a new $60 version every 9 months, and so they need to be on a much faster unlock cycle.

    However where PS2 expands on "reason to fight" (besides the fact it's fun which is the entire bloody point of playing a shooter in the first place) by awarding success with larger resource ticks, facility benefits, and continental conquer benefits.

    Finally, the game is NOT finished. When we get more continents (ie; This next 12 months) then we will see true home continents, 1 per faction, with 3 continents entirely up for grabs, and only 1 safe uncap in the entire world per faction. We will see mission systems added, and web/tablet portals to view and interact with players online while you're away from your game machine.


    If you really don't feel like there is much point in playing PS2 right now... then yah, just take a break. Come back when the next cont or 2 are released, or the mission system. It's not like it will cost you anything.
    • Up x 2
  5. Again, this is seeming like a need for a person to have some arbitrary layer of mechanics on top of shooting to enjoy it. I say 'arbitrary' because the gains that you mentioned really are--BR is meaningless, as you said, weapons variance doesn't mean all that much. I'll argue your point on statistics: the incentive to being effective is just that: you are more effective. I am not sure what additional reward you want for being effective that is--in my own opinion--more rewarding than decimating your enemies quicker, easier, through your skill and the skill of your squad/platoon/outfit alone.

    And again, yes, today, tomorrow, and the day after that you'll be fighting over the same territory, but it's that variance in the makeup of the battle, from logistical differences to the moment-to-moment way each firefight plays out that should be what grabs your attention. If you feel you need some greater reward, or a higher level of permanence, you're not so much a shooter fan but someone who is looking to shoot at things as a means to an end.


    They certainly have been moving that way, not so much during the 90s but definitely by mid-2k persistent unlocks started becoming more commonplace. However, at the end of the day the deciding factor of being #1 is victory, not comparative benefits of you vs. someone else. He who wins is #1.

    Actually if anything you should note that most people who hate this style of game generally seem to be from PS1.

    Me personally, I'm a shooter player. I have been since there were shooters. I enjoy shooting things, and as one would expect of an "endless war" that does mean fighting over the same territory ad infinitum. It doesn't mean random--you move where the fight is, or where it might be strategically better to hit. (Cutting off a supply line, for example)

    I don't need to expect more or require some tacked-on reward other than pushing the enemies back to their warpgates, no matter how many times I need to do so.
  6. This game is just overly simple and it's boring because of it. Just about the kills, nothing else matters. Trade bases back and forth because it rewards XP. Rinse, lather and repeat.
  7. Sadly, even though it's a "huge map continent" it's really the same 4 maps every time with a slight variation. Just think, what if Battlefield 3 only came out with 4 maps? As epic as that game is, it would get boring playing those same limited maps. That type of thing is happening with this game, except it's also infested with "It's a F2P game? Let's go team-kill everybody!!"-trolls.
  8. uhm, Battlefield 3 came with a whopping 8 maps..... none of them over 2sqkm

    Planetside 2 has 3 64sqkm maps


    Just 1 of Planetside's continents (maps) would swallow every BF3 map from Launch including All DLC.

    Just a couple territories would swallow every map in a CoD game




    care to try again?
  9. I read the posts above and came to the conclusion that I don't care enough to write a lengthy reply on why having an extremely limited and "shooting alone will keep the game afloat!" game play will sink the boat pretty fast because it wouldn't change anything and the devs don't read the stuff here anyway.

    In a nut shell, if they don't get real incentives to "hook people" into playing the game, they're not going to have a player base in the long run. The game isn't your average MMO where you can go around solo and play the way you wish, with a constant story and real objectives to play for and perhaps it's enough for the "FPS shooter crowd" but their point wasn't just to try to grab a few players from COD or BF3 but to entice your 'average player' to stick around.

    If any one has delusions that map size or few hundred people in a single combat is enough to hold peoples interest in the long run.. well, good luck with that.
    • Up x 1
  10. y'all are overthinking this ****, why not just log on, smack some people around...once you get bored you log off and go do something else? see, i care about my k/d ratio and base defenses are great for that, specially tech plant, the only way whoever is on the offensive gets the base is if they grow a pair and bum rush us instead of waiting outside the door, which they do...and thats when i get 10 kills per 1 death... so much fun.
  11. Agree with most

    That's called "casual".

    Every player is able to access all vehicles, weapons, etc. anytime.
    No one has a specialized combat role -> the playstyle can be easily adapted to every situation.
    No tactics, no challenge, no fun.

    Improve the game quickly!
  12. Don't think they can man. What is missing now is RPG elements. Way too focused on shooter aspect to go back now.
  13. ? Since when did I even mention size? It's kind of obvious the Planetside has a bigger "map." That's a fact hands down. What it's filled with and variety though is a different story.
  14. Well then, allow me to make some quick patchs notes tailoring to your desires.

    Faux patch 11.75.444.98.7 v3

    Every player is able to access all vehicles, weapons, etc. anytime.

    Players are now defaultly locked out of all weapons save the default pistol.

    All vehicles are now locked out until players spend 1000 certs for a drivers license of each specified vehicle and must recert the license every 60 days of playing

    The vehicle lockout will now be increased to 6 hours, drive careful!

    No one has a specialized combat role -> the playstyle can be easily adapted to every situation.

    All players will have to pick a class upon charactor creation and may not spec out of that class until they have achieved battle rank 50 upon which you can choose to presitge and start all over from 0 with a new class!


    No tactics, no challenge, no fun.

    Subjective to person. See opinion.


    So to those of you with a few brain cells to rub together that have continued reading to here before mashing the reply key to attempt to rip me a new one please hold off for just a few more scintillating sentances. The above is obviously fake and really just me poking fun at someone that doesn't understand his opinion may not be shared among us all. I personally am enjoying the game a bunch. I'm also a PS1 vet, not that it really means anything but whatever. I'm making this post firstly to say that very few people come to the forum to talk about how awesome games are pretty much universally. Secondly to point out that post like the above add absolutely nothing to the game, community or anything productive other than him wasting storage space on the fourms. Normally I'd say this is fine, but it's really not. If you're going to come on here and complain about a free to play game you may need to re-evaluate your priorities in life. Next if you're going to make meaningless posts complaining about the state of the game, attempt to do something to help. A whole thread full of people complaining are ignored because they're useless, not because the devs don't want to make it a better game. Do yourselves and the rest of us a favor, if you have an issue with the game try to think constructively and help the community out. When you come in here and post crap like the post I'm mocking all you're really doing is telling us to write you off and ignore you. Instead of ******** up a storm head to a suggestion thread or make one yourself (*Gasp* initiative) and actually give real suggestions on how to help improve the game. Honestly most of the suggestions will get ignored because they won't work in the environment of this game or would be impossible to code/balance. If you're not well versed in code or game development you'll sadly just have to take my meaningless word for it.

    TL;DR: My ramblings aside. Instead of complaining and adding nothing to the game. Try to help the game with suggestions or ideas. Who knows, you may have a ship named after you.
  15. Ok, how about that PS2 offers multiple objective types, even if the mechanics are largely the same it's a hell of a lot more variety then 2 crates per base, or the same cap points on the same 8 maps.

    Sorry, but there is far more combat & gameplay variety in PS2 then BF3. No contest.

    I've logged a few hundred hours of BF3 FWIW. (Can't stand more then 30min or so of CoD though)
  16. :confused:You keep switching the focus point, so I'm just going to stop reply after this.

    As for the multiple objective types (no clue how you got to this), I think that is pretty cool. It's satisfying when you have broken through outer and inner shields and finally reach the control point. The arrangement in Amerish with the shields and progression adds a little sense of variation, which I hope they try to expand upon with the next continents. Then it wouldn't feel as much as a repeat with every single base.

    Side Note: I can only stand about 20 minutes of CoD :)
  17. Actually I haven't touched CoD since Blops, which I played about 30min of on a rental before sending it back to gamefly.

    And I was speaking about objectives because they do add some variety in the bases. We have 3 distinct facility types, and 3-4 small to medium outpost "types" but even among similar bases the terrain and exact layout changes.

    And yes, Amerish IS the best... Esamir has a little more variety than Indar, and Indar is the plainest of the 3. This is directly corrolated to their development order. They did go back and improve Indar (there were no road block gate shields until after Amerish) but for the most part the base layouts remained the same which means largely identical with few differences.

    So yes, this too will get even better over time. Though I still feel like I get a lot more variety in Planetside then I did in Battlefield.
  18. My nerd level isnt high enough be a "FPS player" or an "RTS player" or a "RPG player". I play games that are fun it doesnt matter the genre.

    So if youre an "FPS player" you like games that offer nothing more than shooting? Sounds really boring to me. Im much more interested in games with depth.
  19. All the players that are fine with "just shooting people' are the players that are going to make the game fail, and honestly I think SOE intended that. They were banking on making a ton of money off store purchases and a year or so of memberships and probably just call the game quits.

    The FPS-only oriented crowd are generally the ones that are completely unable to stick with a game. They will play PS2 now, and when the next hot FPS comes out, will jump ship. Just like CoD and BF franchise, each new game stole a large portion from the previous game, etc etc. because there is no incentive to stay.

    PS1 kept a solid playerbase, and there real failure was the epic failure of the caverns and BFR's. Planetside 2 is going to fail if they do not start going back to the Planetside franchise basics and bring back the best PS1 elements such as inventories and looting, forced multi-crew vehicles, a progessive certiffication system to replace classes, anything to make Planetside DIFFERENT from the next hot FPS that will come out, something other then just "its larger scale" because I gaurentee if PS2 is successful(as it will be as it is completely catered to the CoD and BF players) then the next large scale persistent FPS will start to be the norm, and PS2 will be left in the dust as "old news"
    • Up x 1
  20. Didn't read. I almost want to stop playing, but I'm having a terrible time finding any reasons to leave this game. Too many reasons to stay.

Share This Page