no more fucking phoenixes for the love of god, so very fucking broken compared to the striker and lancer
Kind of. Completely destroyed any chance of using a MAX against NC but otherwise they were pretty terrible. Lancers were way better and strikers were great against aircraft.
no more fucking phoenixes for the love of god, so very fucking broken compared to the striker and lancer
Kind of. Completely destroyed any chance of using a MAX against NC but otherwise they were pretty terrible. Lancers were way better and strikers were great against aircraft.
My loadout when flying a Galaxy was using only the Striker. I'd drop my troops off, and take off, and if anyone rolled up on my six, i'd eject, and Striker'em as I dropped. Didn't get many kills, but dammed if it wasn't effective.
Still, the Phoenix was great. I loved using them to scout out AMT's, and blow'em up. So cheater.
When I played the balance between weapons changed drastically all the time. At one point, Lancers were completely useless and then after a buff they became long range sniping anti-tank and anti-infantry superweapons. One month the lasher is completely useless and the next it's the best weapon in the game.
Balance really went up and down in Planetside, at least during the first year or so (then I stopped playing)
I never saw a Galaxy leave Sanctuary on an operation without at least a handful of Reaver escorts, among other things.
You could fly in PS1 easily with the mouse and keyboard, perhaps even easier than with a joystick, but I can't verify that much. Don't be discouraged though, it's sounding like the PS2 flight model will be a much bigger test of a pilots mettle than PS1 ever was. Dogfighting will probably be a lot more fun, or frustrating if you're a bad pilot.
Lashers were weapons that were completely and utterly useless in anything but a narrow corridor.
Whooooooops!
And yet the Vanu were always the biggest badasses in game. Lowest pop, worst heavy rifle, but god damn if we didn't have the best fucking players in the game.
I gotta admit. I've never played Planetside. I'm a big Battlefield fan and this looks right up my alley.
Question... how was the air combat in PS1? Was it mostly just transport and air to ground or did it have some awesome joysticky dogfighting?
It was fairly limited. When I played there was a massive transport ship with machineguns the crew could man, and a high altitude bomber and one attack aircraft, the Reaver. (fire and forget rockets/machinegun). Mostly when I was flying I was strafing targets on the ground or taking out transports, but every now and then you'd end up in a dogfight with another Reaver
I had great fun in PS1 when they did that free play thing. Lagged a bit too much for accurate shooting since I played with G&T people on a US server, but I like support roles a lot anyway, so I spent a lot of time running around repairing stuff, dropping mines and turrets, doing energy runs to keep bases up and running...
I also loved the Vanu anti-air MAX since it fired homing energy blobs. Aim in the general direction of enemy aircraft and fire away.
edit: there was that flying shoebox that could transport vehicles too.
I gotta admit. I've never played Planetside. I'm a big Battlefield fan and this looks right up my alley.
Question... how was the air combat in PS1? Was it mostly just transport and air to ground or did it have some awesome joysticky dogfighting?
It was fairly limited. When I played there was a massive transport ship with machineguns the crew could man, and a high altitude bomber and one attack aircraft, the Reaver. (fire and forget rockets/machinegun). Mostly when I was flying I was strafing targets on the ground or taking out transports, but every now and then you'd end up in a dogfight with another Reaver
The Mosquito was around back then too. The Lodestar may have come later -- not really sure when it was added. The Mosquito being the fastest aircraft in the game, great for recon, couldn't hold it's own versus the the Reaver, but could outrun it. The Lodestar was specifically made to transport the largest of vehicles. The high altitude bomber was the Liberator.
The ship with the mountable machineguns was the Galaxy. At one time, it was a pain to land. So much so that most people would eject from the ship and hotdrop to the ground -- then the pilot would make an attempt to land the ship nearby, in case of WTFSplosion. It was eventually fixed and much, much easier to land.
Mosquito (scout), Reaver (air-to-ground/air-to-air), Galaxy (transport) were the original air vehicles.
FTFY
I still have rage inducing memories of the mosquito, I was skimming through a forest to get away from a reaver who was chasing me, flying low to the ground to avoid trees. BOOM
I flew like 10ft above a landmine, and it went off blowing me up.
Morkath on
0
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
So.
Apparently there will be ballistic physics.
Maybe using energy weapons will have a benefit in that it fires in a straight(er?) line, maybe doing less damage than bullet drop weapons. I could see Vanu having an advantage at rang because of no/less effect on their ballistics, but their weapons would likely do less damage. Terran Republic might do about as much damage, but their weapons are more rapid fire, better at medium to short ranges, and New Conglomerate weapons being slower and doing more damage, especially at close range from shotguns and such. Or I could be totally wrong.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Mosquito (scout), Reaver (air-to-ground/air-to-air), Galaxy (transport) were the original air vehicles.
FTFY
I still have rage inducing memories of the mosquito, I was skimming through a forest to get away from a reaver who was chasing me, flying low to the ground to avoid trees. BOOM
I flew like 10ft above a landmine, and it went off blowing me up.
Dude. I would have been livid too.
I always enjoyed afterburnering in the woods, dodging trees, doing my best to not get shot down. Good times. Also, about the only method to escape there was, when someone was on your six. That or have a wingman.
don't worry, soe will definitely figure out good ways to fuck the vanu, even if we do not have to worry about bullets dropping, like doing less damage the farther the shot travels :rotate:
Planetside 2 will have "free component" and "cash shop".
Doesn't outright say F2P, but I totally saw that coming. Was actually going to speculate a bit about how viable it would be for PS2 to go F2P, but I didn't want to upset the natives.
F2P makes an absurd amount of sense for MMO type games. You are relying on having a large player base in order for the whole MMO thing to work out, and the best way to get that player base is to give it away to some people. Even if they never pay a cent, they are "enriching" (quotes because that just sounds silly) the experience of your paying players: some of them wouldn't even be paying if not for the free players.
The question is just how hard they try to bully the free players into paying money.
F2P makes an absurd amount of sense for MMO type games. You are relying on having a large player base in order for the whole MMO thing to work out, and the best way to get that player base is to give it away to some people. Even if they never pay a cent, they are "enriching" (quotes because that just sounds silly) the experience of your paying players: some of them wouldn't even be paying if not for the free players.
The question is just how hard they try to bully the free players into paying money.
Honestly I think more MMOs should go the F2P route, for the reason you mentioned, and also because there is never a good reason to delete a free game off your hard drive. Even if you don't play for a year or so, it is still there waiting for you, if you decide you need a change of pace. Once I uninstall a game like WoW, it's going to be a long time before I decide its worth re-downloading again just to see if I like the changes they've made.
If you can't make a game well enough, or update it frequently enough, to merit a monthly fee, I don't see the point in underselling your game right out of the gate as a F2P game, especially an MMO. Age of Conan, for example, basically had to go F2P because no one played it and sacking the development cost vs. risking a switch to a F2P model was a risk worth taking. Maybe I just don't understand where the money is in F2P games because I have never spent, and don't intend to spend money on cash shops, but I can't be entirely wrong assuming there are others who simply don't see the value in cosmetic "accessories".
I would much prefer PS2 to be a low monthly fee, say $3-5/mo, simply as a measure against aim/speed hacks by random free players who don't care if they get banned. There's a reason they closed down the Free Agent program for Planetside...
On another note, if the game is a F2P-ish title, how do consumers vote with the wallets when it comes to their opinion of the game? Historically cancelling your sub is how you voice your displeasure in the MMO world, but if there's no way to tangibly show your disinterest with their product, you simply become a collective with those who simply don't pay money to play "free" games which is a completely different mindset. On that note, developers listening to the echo-chamber of people who pay to play their game, opposed to those who would pay but can't find a reason to, is bound to occur if community feedback is considered for future game content.
Planetside 2, so far, sounds horrible to me and I loved the original Planetside and played it off and on for over a year and a half in it's prime. Realistic flying physics? Headshots? Spawning on squad members? This isn't any Planetside I know... One of the main draws to Planetside for me was that it was different from other shooters and was intended to be more tactical and less twitchy, where the spawn timers and travel downtime allowed for things like Galaxy drops to work, and everyone certified Mossies just to get places. People couldn't instantly respond to organized groups in an organized fashion and the whole feel of the game was some next-level shit if you were effective at the tactical aspects, even if the shooter aspects weren't always up to par. Almost all "group" tactics go out the window with the ability to have 1 guy peel off for everyone to spawn on, especially if he can get where he needs to be in an airplane and not an AMS.
I'm hoping the PS2 dev staff surprises me and the game is great, but as far as being true to the spirit of the original PS, I think it's going to be a failure. Planetside wasn't just about large battles.
I have so many good memories of PS1 that even though I'm not a big fan of the F2P model I'll be playing this anyway. My biggest concern is that anything that can be bought through the cash shop should be earnable in game without spending money. If the only way I can play a Pounder Max is by certing into a premium cert for a month, I'll be avoiding this like the plague.
The reason F2P models are becoming so popular is because they make more money from the percentage of people who spend. I'd prefer the sub method because then it means a level playing field but I do understand that the F2P model has more attraction from the corporate standpoint.
"Sometimes things aren't complicated," I said. "You just have to be willing to accept the absolute corruption of everybody involved."
No. Planetside WAS all about large battles. If PS2 isn't all about massive, long lasting battles, THEN it will fail.
I remember way back in the day, during the first months, I was in a pitched battle in the woods surrounding a base. We were trying to push through the tower defense, to get a foothold on the base, and the forest was absolutely lit up with gunfire, explosions and people fighting. I distinctly remember having to duck behind a tree for cover and physcially take a few seconds to catch my breath the shit was so intense, before continuing to fight my way in.
That was the shit that made Planetside what it was. None of this small squad, tactical bullshit.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
I don't want just a graphical update to Planetside. I want it to be modernized. I don't want the game to languish under the traditions of the past for the sake of nostalgia. To put it bluntly, the first game had a great number of problems. Not fixing them because it would make the game "not Planetside" is silly. Other parts of Planetside were just so because of technical limitations. The simplistic hitbox, for example.
Anyway, I also really like the Free to Play model. The justifications for paying a monthly fee for an MMO are becoming increasingly thin. The Free to Play model, if implemented correctly, is able to net the company a lot of money. Games like Lord of the Rings Online have met with tremendous success. Planetside's free model was implemented before it was popular and well understood. I only remember it being supported by ads. It wasn't meant to go on indefinitely, either. Since the beginning of that program its end-date was known. It was just a sales push.
Making a game Free to Play is not underselling the game. It has become a proven model that is a viable alternative to the old monthly fee model. I think we will be seeing more games launch with such models already implemented.
The first game was flawed in a number of ways and I enjoyed it anyway. I expect Planetside 2 to be the same.
Yeah, I can't see a subscription model first-person shooter survive in the current MMO environment. They need that F2P base that throws some cash at them other than the smaller core that pays for monthly subscriptions.
To put it bluntly: why pay a monthly fee for Planetside 2 when I can play Battlefield 3 for free after those initial 50 bucks?
Sure, there's the whole persistent aspect of it. But if you care about that, odds are you're going to subscribe anyway.
No. Planetside WAS all about large battles. If PS2 isn't all about massive, long lasting battles, THEN it will fail.
I remember way back in the day, during the first months, I was in a pitched battle in the woods surrounding a base. We were trying to push through the tower defense, to get a foothold on the base, and the forest was absolutely lit up with gunfire, explosions and people fighting. I distinctly remember having to duck behind a tree for cover and physcially take a few seconds to catch my breath the shit was so intense, before continuing to fight my way in.
That was the shit that made Planetside what it was. None of this small squad, tactical bullshit.
I disagree. While I do remember large battles I remember more of the smaller squad based skirmishes. There were many times fighting with one or two squad mates against a few enemies in the basement of a base. Or the times I was dog fighting above enemy territory with only one or two enemies. That's what made Planetside fun for me, to each his own I guess.
That was the shit that made Planetside what it was. None of this small squad, tactical bullshit.
While I agree that Planetside was all about the large battles, the "small squad, tactical bullshit" could affect the outcome of those large battles. Backhacking, MAX crashes, Generator holds, Reaver/Mosquito/Liberator swarms, tank blitzes, Spotter directed Flail fire, and Galaxy hotdrops can be all be done by an organized small squad to tip the scales in their empire's favor.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Regarding the squad-spawning, one of the devs said that will be a very limited option for advanced squad leaders, and not the typical way one will respawn.
On the whole I see most of the changes as positive, and some of the changes they are talking about are downright exciting. Hope we hear more soon.
Well a little update is in order. I'm just pulling this stuff from PS Universe, which is an old PS fansite. Posting it here for your convenience and consideration. 8-)
There will be a cash shop for the game however the goal is not to sell power. For example we would sell things like customization because we would like there to be a massive amount of ways to customize your characters. So people could recognize you or your outfit out of a group. We will not sell a more powerful gun or vehicle.
Combat mechanics.
The system allows us to have different damage bonuses for each weapon. This way we can make it so that sniper rifles give a 200% bonus making them OSOK on headshots and chainguns get a 0% bonus making it make no difference. Other guns like pistols or assault rifles might be somewhere in between based on how rewarding we feel precision should be with each of those weapons/weapon types. Vehicle weapons will likely have a 0% bonus.
There are no dice roll mechanics in PS2. We don't have critical hits. Player skill-based locational damage is predictable and equalized.
We're doing assist XP, it'll affect for kills earned by your squad greater than outside your squad, but there will be some bonus for outside of squad assists also. There will be some graduation to it as well, if you do 90% of the damage to an enemy and someone swings in and finishes them off you'd get more than if you just randomly hit an enemy with one bullet in a massive firefight.
Day/night cycles:
I was just looking at some kickass day/night cycle work this morning, in fact. It was pretty dark at night and the purple and yellow tracers sporadically illuminating the world was pretty slick.
BR and certs:
If you're BR 10, that's on your character. Classes don't really have RANKS, they have CERTS which are locked or "gated" by the player's overall rank. So, if you're BR 10, you aren't automatically a level 10 AA Max since a level 10 AA max doesn't actually exist in a meaningful way. But, you have access to unlock level 10 AA Max CERTS, those CERTS would still require time to train and unlock.
We're going to have hundreds if not thousands of certs at launch. These will vary from certs that unlock new weapons, implants, vehicles, weapon/vehicle attachments and class skills to ones that allow for faster reloading, less cone of fire, larger ammo capacity, and yes, additional damage. When we say overall 20% increase in power we're talking holistically, not necessarily "each of your bullets do 20% more damage! a winner is you!".
The spirit of the PS2 cert system is very much based around the PS1 paradigm of advancement by addition of situational flexibility and overall breadth of gameplay options. A good fps player playing light assault with minimal certs will always kick the shit out of a bad fps player playing light assault with a lot of certs.
Couple screenshots:
Interesting general interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3kyb560Hao
Mentions user (leader) placed towers as part of the "sandbox". Sounds like territory is somewhat more important this time around. The "leader" character development sounds rather interesting also.
Beta:
On Planetside Beta.. it’ll be up sooner than people think, but I cant give a date yet.. we’re hard at work on it right now
Well a little update is in order. I'm just pulling this stuff from PS Universe, which is an old PS fansite. Posting it here for your convenience and consideration. 8-)
The system allows us to have different damage bonuses for each weapon. This way we can make it so that sniper rifles give a 200% bonus making them OSOK on headshots and chainguns get a 0% bonus making it make no difference. Other guns like pistols or assault rifles might be somewhere in between based on how rewarding we feel precision should be with each of those weapons/weapon types. Vehicle weapons will likely have a 0% bonus.
No criticals:
There are no dice roll mechanics in PS2. We don't have critical hits. Player skill-based locational damage is predictable and equalized.
Day/night cycles (hell yes):
I was just looking at some kickass day/night cycle work this morning, in fact. It was pretty dark at night and the purple and yellow tracers sporadically illuminating the world was pretty slick.
Group XP:
We're doing assist XP, it'll affect for kills earned by your squad greater than outside your squad, but there will be some bonus for outside of squad assists also. There will be some graduation to it as well, if you do 90% of the damage to an enemy and someone swings in and finishes them off you'd get more than if you just randomly hit an enemy with one bullet in a massive firefight.
BR and certs:
If you're BR 10, that's on your character. Classes don't really have RANKS, they have CERTS which are locked or "gated" by the player's overall rank. So, if you're BR 10, you aren't automatically a level 10 AA Max since a level 10 AA max doesn't actually exist in a meaningful way. But, you have access to unlock level 10 AA Max CERTS, those CERTS would still require time to train and unlock.
We're going to have hundreds if not thousands of certs at launch. These will vary from certs that unlock new weapons, implants, vehicles, weapon/vehicle attachments and class skills to ones that allow for faster reloading, less cone of fire, larger ammo capacity, and yes, additional damage. When we say overall 20% increase in power we're talking holistically, not necessarily "each of your bullets do 20% more damage! a winner is you!".
The spirit of the PS2 cert system is very much based around the PS1 paradigm of advancement by addition of situational flexibility and overall breadth of gameplay options. A good fps player playing light assault with minimal certs will always kick the shit out of a bad fps player playing light assault with a lot of certs.
On Planetside Beta.. it’ll be up sooner than people think, but I cant give a date yet.. we’re hard at work on it right now
The locational damage based on weapon is really good to hear. I don't mind snipers headshotting me, but people getting lucky with HA spray would be frustrating.
Also yay assist xp and day night cycles! Though, I hope the day/night cycles are much shorter than real life, would suck to be always playing at night or during the day depending on your play schedule.
The fact that they're talking about expanding the game world in the future proves they don't realize that doing that with the first game helped kill it. You want everyone packed in relatively tight so huge fun fights break out more often than not. Having a huge game world in a game like this just means you'll end up being able to cap bases in the middle of nowhere by yourself and play for hours without seeing another human.
The fact that they're talking about expanding the game world in the future proves they don't realize that doing that with the first game helped kill it. You want everyone packed in relatively tight so huge fun fights break out more often than not. Having a huge game world in a game like this just means you'll end up being able to cap bases in the middle of nowhere by yourself and play for hours without seeing another human.
Easy solution: only one planet is active at a time.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
The fact that they're talking about expanding the game world in the future proves they don't realize that doing that with the first game helped kill it. You want everyone packed in relatively tight so huge fun fights break out more often than not. Having a huge game world in a game like this just means you'll end up being able to cap bases in the middle of nowhere by yourself and play for hours without seeing another human.
It sounds like the expansion they are talking about is if they have the subs to support it
F2P in concept is good, but in execution it's almost always been bad so far. A lot of people feel they are being "fleeced" when buying off an item shop, even if the total price doesn't exceed the box price. Generally though it either means the quality of the game is less "it's 'free' after all...", aspects of the game are intentionally crippled to force you into spending money to make it (less) miserable, or the item shop makes you spend way more money than you would with a monthly fee unless you plan on subbing for a long time.
Asian MMOs by and large go with a "bad" item shop model that builds misery into the game and you buy off the item shop to lessen (never eliminate) that misery. It's a terrible idea. (Mabinogi was the only game that didn't have an obnoxious shop imho) Age of Empires Online just launched and they expect way too much money total for what largely amounts to an RTS -- $100 for the first 6 months of content is apparently "30% off" ...
tl;dr: F2P generally means the developers feel they have a pass to cut corners and generally make a sloppy release with low amounts of content. Because hey -- it's free.
Posts
Kind of. Completely destroyed any chance of using a MAX against NC but otherwise they were pretty terrible. Lancers were way better and strikers were great against aircraft.
My loadout when flying a Galaxy was using only the Striker. I'd drop my troops off, and take off, and if anyone rolled up on my six, i'd eject, and Striker'em as I dropped. Didn't get many kills, but dammed if it wasn't effective.
Still, the Phoenix was great. I loved using them to scout out AMT's, and blow'em up. So cheater.
Balance really went up and down in Planetside, at least during the first year or so (then I stopped playing)
Whooooooops!
Question... how was the air combat in PS1? Was it mostly just transport and air to ground or did it have some awesome joysticky dogfighting?
You could fly in PS1 easily with the mouse and keyboard, perhaps even easier than with a joystick, but I can't verify that much. Don't be discouraged though, it's sounding like the PS2 flight model will be a much bigger test of a pilots mettle than PS1 ever was. Dogfighting will probably be a lot more fun, or frustrating if you're a bad pilot.
And yet the Vanu were always the biggest badasses in game. Lowest pop, worst heavy rifle, but god damn if we didn't have the best fucking players in the game.
It was fairly limited. When I played there was a massive transport ship with machineguns the crew could man, and a high altitude bomber and one attack aircraft, the Reaver. (fire and forget rockets/machinegun). Mostly when I was flying I was strafing targets on the ground or taking out transports, but every now and then you'd end up in a dogfight with another Reaver
I also loved the Vanu anti-air MAX since it fired homing energy blobs. Aim in the general direction of enemy aircraft and fire away.
edit: there was that flying shoebox that could transport vehicles too.
The ship with the mountable machineguns was the Galaxy. At one time, it was a pain to land. So much so that most people would eject from the ship and hotdrop to the ground -- then the pilot would make an attempt to land the ship nearby, in case of WTFSplosion. It was eventually fixed and much, much easier to land.
That's all I know about/remember.
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
FTFY
I still have rage inducing memories of the mosquito, I was skimming through a forest to get away from a reaver who was chasing me, flying low to the ground to avoid trees. BOOM
I flew like 10ft above a landmine, and it went off blowing me up.
Apparently there will be ballistic physics.
Maybe using energy weapons will have a benefit in that it fires in a straight(er?) line, maybe doing less damage than bullet drop weapons. I could see Vanu having an advantage at rang because of no/less effect on their ballistics, but their weapons would likely do less damage. Terran Republic might do about as much damage, but their weapons are more rapid fire, better at medium to short ranges, and New Conglomerate weapons being slower and doing more damage, especially at close range from shotguns and such. Or I could be totally wrong.
Dude. I would have been livid too.
I always enjoyed afterburnering in the woods, dodging trees, doing my best to not get shot down. Good times. Also, about the only method to escape there was, when someone was on your six. That or have a wingman.
Doesn't outright say F2P, but I totally saw that coming. Was actually going to speculate a bit about how viable it would be for PS2 to go F2P, but I didn't want to upset the natives.
edit: RPS linky
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
I think it just means more add supported gaming. I remember the ads in the HART terminals, for Axe body spray or Old Spice deodorant.
I could see it being hilariously bad after you die "You should have used Axe (tm) bullets, the only bullets that crush odor and your enemies."
It at least gets more targets for the rest of us addicts.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
Used to love sneaking around the enemy base as a cloaker. Trying not to be seen getting enough boomers to blow the gen!
The question is just how hard they try to bully the free players into paying money.
Honestly I think more MMOs should go the F2P route, for the reason you mentioned, and also because there is never a good reason to delete a free game off your hard drive. Even if you don't play for a year or so, it is still there waiting for you, if you decide you need a change of pace. Once I uninstall a game like WoW, it's going to be a long time before I decide its worth re-downloading again just to see if I like the changes they've made.
Knowing the history of Planetside I fear they will implement everything in the worst way possible, though
I would much prefer PS2 to be a low monthly fee, say $3-5/mo, simply as a measure against aim/speed hacks by random free players who don't care if they get banned. There's a reason they closed down the Free Agent program for Planetside...
On another note, if the game is a F2P-ish title, how do consumers vote with the wallets when it comes to their opinion of the game? Historically cancelling your sub is how you voice your displeasure in the MMO world, but if there's no way to tangibly show your disinterest with their product, you simply become a collective with those who simply don't pay money to play "free" games which is a completely different mindset. On that note, developers listening to the echo-chamber of people who pay to play their game, opposed to those who would pay but can't find a reason to, is bound to occur if community feedback is considered for future game content.
Planetside 2, so far, sounds horrible to me and I loved the original Planetside and played it off and on for over a year and a half in it's prime. Realistic flying physics? Headshots? Spawning on squad members? This isn't any Planetside I know... One of the main draws to Planetside for me was that it was different from other shooters and was intended to be more tactical and less twitchy, where the spawn timers and travel downtime allowed for things like Galaxy drops to work, and everyone certified Mossies just to get places. People couldn't instantly respond to organized groups in an organized fashion and the whole feel of the game was some next-level shit if you were effective at the tactical aspects, even if the shooter aspects weren't always up to par. Almost all "group" tactics go out the window with the ability to have 1 guy peel off for everyone to spawn on, especially if he can get where he needs to be in an airplane and not an AMS.
I'm hoping the PS2 dev staff surprises me and the game is great, but as far as being true to the spirit of the original PS, I think it's going to be a failure. Planetside wasn't just about large battles.
The reason F2P models are becoming so popular is because they make more money from the percentage of people who spend. I'd prefer the sub method because then it means a level playing field but I do understand that the F2P model has more attraction from the corporate standpoint.
No. Planetside WAS all about large battles. If PS2 isn't all about massive, long lasting battles, THEN it will fail.
I remember way back in the day, during the first months, I was in a pitched battle in the woods surrounding a base. We were trying to push through the tower defense, to get a foothold on the base, and the forest was absolutely lit up with gunfire, explosions and people fighting. I distinctly remember having to duck behind a tree for cover and physcially take a few seconds to catch my breath the shit was so intense, before continuing to fight my way in.
That was the shit that made Planetside what it was. None of this small squad, tactical bullshit.
Anyway, I also really like the Free to Play model. The justifications for paying a monthly fee for an MMO are becoming increasingly thin. The Free to Play model, if implemented correctly, is able to net the company a lot of money. Games like Lord of the Rings Online have met with tremendous success. Planetside's free model was implemented before it was popular and well understood. I only remember it being supported by ads. It wasn't meant to go on indefinitely, either. Since the beginning of that program its end-date was known. It was just a sales push.
Making a game Free to Play is not underselling the game. It has become a proven model that is a viable alternative to the old monthly fee model. I think we will be seeing more games launch with such models already implemented.
The first game was flawed in a number of ways and I enjoyed it anyway. I expect Planetside 2 to be the same.
To put it bluntly: why pay a monthly fee for Planetside 2 when I can play Battlefield 3 for free after those initial 50 bucks?
Sure, there's the whole persistent aspect of it. But if you care about that, odds are you're going to subscribe anyway.
I disagree. While I do remember large battles I remember more of the smaller squad based skirmishes. There were many times fighting with one or two squad mates against a few enemies in the basement of a base. Or the times I was dog fighting above enemy territory with only one or two enemies. That's what made Planetside fun for me, to each his own I guess.
While I agree that Planetside was all about the large battles, the "small squad, tactical bullshit" could affect the outcome of those large battles. Backhacking, MAX crashes, Generator holds, Reaver/Mosquito/Liberator swarms, tank blitzes, Spotter directed Flail fire, and Galaxy hotdrops can be all be done by an organized small squad to tip the scales in their empire's favor.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
On the whole I see most of the changes as positive, and some of the changes they are talking about are downright exciting. Hope we hear more soon.
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
Video of the dev panel back at the Fan Faire: http://www.g4tv.com/videos/54137/planetside-2-public-panel-video/?quality=hd
Cash shop:
Combat mechanics.
Day/night cycles:
BR and certs:
Couple screenshots:
Interesting general interview:
Mentions user (leader) placed towers as part of the "sandbox". Sounds like territory is somewhat more important this time around. The "leader" character development sounds rather interesting also.
Beta:
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
The locational damage based on weapon is really good to hear. I don't mind snipers headshotting me, but people getting lucky with HA spray would be frustrating.
Also yay assist xp and day night cycles! Though, I hope the day/night cycles are much shorter than real life, would suck to be always playing at night or during the day depending on your play schedule.
So excited, I hope they do this well.
Misc info including the game engine (lighting, weather, smoke, destructible environments) and more: http://www.fpsguru.com/game/284/features/120/Planetside-2-at-SyndCon.html
Steam (Ansatz) || GW2 officer (Ansatz.6498)
Easy solution: only one planet is active at a time.
It sounds like the expansion they are talking about is if they have the subs to support it
hopefully
Asian MMOs by and large go with a "bad" item shop model that builds misery into the game and you buy off the item shop to lessen (never eliminate) that misery. It's a terrible idea. (Mabinogi was the only game that didn't have an obnoxious shop imho) Age of Empires Online just launched and they expect way too much money total for what largely amounts to an RTS -- $100 for the first 6 months of content is apparently "30% off" ...
tl;dr: F2P generally means the developers feel they have a pass to cut corners and generally make a sloppy release with low amounts of content. Because hey -- it's free.