PS2 is not a wargame sim because SOE would like to make some money from it. Most people don't want to spawn at a depot 20 miles away from the front only to be killed in a truck on the 15 minute ride when a plane happens to spot and strafe you. There's WW2OL for that (which I also enjoyed). This game is not WW2OL. Its also not CoD. Its somewhere in the middle.
Nobody is saying, "spawn 20 miles away and take a 15 minute ride in a truck."
But moving from truck mobile spawn, to any misison leader creating a mobile spawn in wwiionline was a mistake.
Please show me the people with magic powers and lightsabers that can deflect bullets in real life, I'd love to get to know them.
It doesn't matter if people have magic powers and lightsabers, they still follow conventional warfare tactics (particularly WW1<----Korean War) in the battle scenes.
PS2 is not a wargame sim because SOE would like to make some money from it. Most people don't want to spawn at a depot 20 miles away from the front only to be killed in a truck on the 15 minute ride when a plane happens to spot and strafe you. There's WW2OL for that (which I also enjoyed). This game is not WW2OL. Its also not CoD. Its somewhere in the middle.
Nobody is saying, "spawn 20 miles away and take a 15 minute ride in a truck."
But moving from truck mobile spawn, to any misison leader creating a mobile spawn in wwiionline was a mistake.
I can't answer to WW2OL, so I'll take your opinion as read that it was a bad idea in that game. However we are talking about Planetside which isn't a wargame sim. Its somewhere in between though PS2 is going to be tilted more toward the modern fast paced fps games than was PS1.
Also as I've been illustrating the squad spawn system isn't like CoD or WW2OL. No one is creating static spawns that they can just place around the map. It requires certification points, its on a timer, it only works outside, its visible to enemy players, it only works with squadmembers (in fact it requires extra cert points for this, the first ability just lets you spawn on the squad leader only). It can be countered by killing players and then keeping an area swept, just like you had to do against AMS's in PS1.
This is a sci fi game, of course vertical envelopment is going to be part of it. The factions control orbital space stations. This idea is as old as the 1950's with the High Frontier and the more militarily focused programs such as Brilliant Pebbles (hello, orbital strike).
PS2 is not a wargame sim because SOE would like to make some money from it. Most people don't want to spawn at a depot 20 miles away from the front only to be killed in a truck on the 15 minute ride when a plane happens to spot and strafe you. There's WW2OL for that (which I also enjoyed). This game is not WW2OL. Its also not CoD. Its somewhere in the middle.
Nobody is saying, "spawn 20 miles away and take a 15 minute ride in a truck."
But moving from truck mobile spawn, to any misison leader creating a mobile spawn in wwiionline was a mistake.
I can't answer to WW2OL, so I'll take your opinion as read that it was a bad idea in that game. However we are talking about Planetside which isn't a wargame sim. Its somewhere in between though PS2 is going to be tilted more toward the modern fast paced fps games than was PS1.
Also as I've been illustrating the squad spawn system isn't like CoD or WW2OL. No one is creating static spawns that they can just place around the map. It requires certification points, its on a timer, it only works outside, its visible to enemy players, it only works with squadmembers (in fact it requires extra cert points for this, the first ability just lets you spawn on the squad leader only). It can be countered by killing players and then keeping an area swept, just like you had to do against AMS's in PS1.
This is a sci fi game, of course vertical envelopment is going to be part of it. The factions control orbital space stations. This idea is as old as the 1950's with the High Frontier and the more militarily focused programs such as Brilliant Pebbles (hello, orbital strike).
Planetside and WWIIONLINE have been in parallel development. They do pretty much the same thing, and the effects on the same thing are pretty similar.
The squad spawn system is like COD, and worse than WWIIONLINE, and it doesn't matter if "it requires certification points," and it isn't "just like you had to do against AMS." The AMS was a big, slow, loud vehicle that was easily intercepted before getting into position. A squad leader, a small infantry dude, can easily infiltrate anywhere.
And it doesn't matter if it's a sci-fi game, nobody wants to play a game using unconventional and generally retarded tactics that don't exist in the real world.
Dark forces, Quake Jedi Knight, Quake Star Wars Battlefront BF1942
Have you even watched the movie? It was guerilla warfare set in Vietnam. WWII didn't invent cover OR concealment. Have you ever noticed in video games you can't hide anywhere, either the map is tiny or the hiding spots have no tactical value whatsoever because the goal is to capture the flag and the hiding spot is nowhere near the goal.Even people with the muskets you hate so much were using it. hate muskets? Why would I hate people who use muskets? Whuuut? Predator has far more in common with current warfare than WWII Really, so you shot a missle from 100 miles away, or got bombed from a plane so high you could never see it, or shot a plane down with a missile you can never see. You were a scope dope 90% of the time while playing huh.
We are talking about Sci-Fi combat that is "fun" which you seem to say doesn't exsist.
WW1<------>Korean War
Quake=Musket range for most weapons, and you are never killed by something out of visual range, either plenty of fog or claustrophobic maps. Players even bitch if we have pre WW1 artillery.
Hello, 60 percent of combat casualties in WWII came from artillery firing indirect...usualy from 5-10 km behind the line. A good chunk of the rest came from high level carpet bombing. So I think you just invalidated your own arguement....as not even WWII would qualify as WWII combat by your standards.
In pretty much every conflict that has featured a ground component fought since WWII you have had infantry on infantry combat occuring not only at visual range but at ranges generaly equivalent to WWII infantry combat ranges. That's why our armed forces still have combat arms featuring infantry and why the marines still teach every single recruit how to use a rifle in basic ("Every Marine Is a Rifleman"). There are still alot infantry weapons not even equiped with scopes....standard assault rifles weren't in Desert Storm....and even the ones issued today AFAIK are mostly pretty low powered or no magnification.
In terms of enemy suddenly popping up in areas you thought you had already cleared.....that happaned a fair amount in WWII.... read the accounts of the Marines on Iwo Jima for example.... Japanese sappers were continualy showing in areas the Marines had already cleared due to the extensive cave and tunnel system on the island.
More to the point.... Sci Fi is Sci Fi.... you don't have to have engagements beyond visual range....because just like tech can be developed to detect and engage beyond visual range (GSR, Satelites, Etc) Tech can be developed to counter that as well (stealth, signal jammers, ecm). Heck with Sci Fi you don't even really need to have stuff obey the same physical laws we have in our universe.
I've had plenty of FPS games where you could be effective with cover and concealment. Sniper was among my favorate classes in the battle-field series.
Hello, 60 percent of combat casualties in WWII came from artillery firing indirect...usualy from 5-10 km behind the line. A good chunk of the rest came from high level carpet bombing. So I think you just invalidated your own arguement....as not even WWII would qualify as WWII combat by your standards.
Yeah I know, WW2 minus artillery, players complain about indirect long range artillery, even planetside1.
In pretty much every conflict that has featured a ground component fought since WWII you have had infantry on infantry combat occuring not only at visual range but at ranges generaly equivalent to WWII infantry combat ranges. That's why our armed forces still have combat arms featuring infantry and why the marines still teach every single recruit how to use a rifle in basic ("Every Marine Is a Rifleman"). There are still alot infantry weapons not even equiped with scopes....standard assault rifles weren't in Desert Storm....and even the ones issued today AFAIK are mostly pretty low powered or no magnification.
In terms of enemy suddenly popping up in areas you thought you had already cleared.....that happaned a fair amount in WWII.... read the accounts of the Marines on Iwo Jima for example.... Japanese sappers were continualy showing in areas the Marines had already cleared due to the extensive cave and tunnel system on the island.
Those Japanese sappers didn't teleport into position, they hid.
More to the point.... Sci Fi is Sci Fi.... you don't have to have engagements beyond visual range....because just like tech can be developed to detect and engage beyond visual range (GSR, Satelites, Etc) Tech can be developed to counter that as well (stealth, signal jammers, ecm). Heck with Sci Fi you don't even really need to have stuff obey the same physical laws we have in our universe.
Nobody said anything about looking like modern weapons, I am talking about realistic tactics even in a science fiction setting, not funny bunny stuff that happens in COD games.
I've had plenty of FPS games where you could be effective with cover and concealment. Sniper was among my favorate classes in the battle-field series.
All that really matters is that the game is fast paced enough to keep the players attention. You could definitely make a revolutionary war game with muskets, but you'll have to speed up the reload times and things like that. Just like in WW2 games players are running around in the open more, jumping into buildings, turning corners, running towards enemies, etc... Do you think that is how WW2 was fought? In WW2 artillery was very important, bombing was important, holding positions was very important. Moving was dangerous and difficult. Squads kept together extremely well (much better than in games, although its possible if the players are skilled it would be unrealistic for a game with new players) and it was a rarity to enter into combat with the enemy and even more so to kill the enemy. In Viet Nam, 50,000 bullets were fired for every 1 soilder killed. There is much more emphasis on safety, for obvious, obvious, obvious reasons. That goes for every era, not just WW2. Any era can and is made into video games, but WW2 is especially fun time because:
a) it was a really big war with a good amount of ground unit battles (unlike wars after WW2)
b) weapons existed for fast paced combat and combat vehicles existed (unlike wars before WW2)
But really all that means is for a good game you need these two things... The game could have aliens, spaceships, spawning in air vehicles, disappearing, ressurection, super powers, magic, etc. It just needs fast paced combat and grount unit battles. There has probably been many battles fought like this in the past and will be in the future. This must be what you mean by WW2ish.
All that really matters is that the game is fast paced enough to keep the players attention. You could definitely make a revolutionary war game with muskets, but you'll have to speed up the reload times and things like that.
I'm talking about Tactics mostly, or how boring it would be to play a musket. Musket tactics is line-infantry, you get 100 players to form up into a line, and fire all at the same time. Yeah right.
A) It's nearly impossible to herd cats the way it is now, you will never get 100 players to stand in a line.
It would be incredibly boring even if muskets reloaded faster.
Just like in WW2 games players are running around in the open more, jumping into buildings, turning corners, running towards enemies, etc... Do you think that is how WW2 was fought? In WW2 artillery was very important, bombing was important, holding positions was very important. Moving was dangerous and difficult. Squads kept together extremely well (much better than in games, although its possible if the players are skilled it would be unrealistic for a game with new players) and it was a rarity to enter into combat with the enemy and even more so to kill the enemy. In Viet Nam, 50,000 bullets were fired for every 1 soilder killed. There is much more emphasis on safety, for obvious, obvious, obvious reasons. That goes for every era, not just WW2. Any era can and is made into video games, but WW2 is especially fun time because:
a) it was a really big war with a good amount of ground unit battles (unlike wars after WW2)
b) weapons existed for fast paced combat and combat vehicles existed (unlike wars before WW2)
But really all that means is for a good game you need these two things... The game could have aliens, spaceships, spawning in air vehicles, disappearing, ressurection, super powers, magic, etc. It just needs fast paced combat and grount unit battles. There has probably been many battles fought like this in the past and will be in the future. This must be what you mean by WW2ish.
Not all about fast paced combat, that's a small part of it. I'm talking all the intricacies involved with realistic tactics around the WW2 timeframe (minus indirect artillery of course, although I think it would be a great addition to the game if done right). And coolness factor of the weapon systems.
Tactics: Armored Spearhead, interdiction, mass bombing
Coolness factor: B-17, Tiger Tank, Battleship
You know what's not cool? Modern warfare, in fact modern warfare just sucks. And so is the Civil War, anything at or before the Civil War just sucks. Who would want to play that in a FPS? Nobody, or some very small niche of historical nerds.
Modern warfare is mostly very small unit tactics, very long range engagements for infantry to the point where you need optics, way beyond visual range engagement for everything else that's not infantry, low energy conflict, precision bombing from 5 miles up(boring), all of which have never been put to the test in a large to medium conventional war. There is no way anyone would want to play a game that actually is based on modern or futuristic warfare (which is probably even more boring), utilizing even more out of visual range drones.
Like I said, that comes down to needing fast paced combat and ground combat.
This could happen in the future and in an alternative universe (such as planetside). And there's a rather good revolutionary war mod for the game Mount and Blade, which is a really fun FPS based on midieval skirmishes. It is both fast paced and focused on ground combat, so it plays like a typical (fun) shooter. There are bows instead of guns, horses instead of tanks, and more melee combat than you'd see in a WW2 shooter. Tactically speaking, it is also engaging: There are utilization of choke points, resources, ammunition, health management, different unit types with different specialties, trade offs in gear and skillpoint allocation.
We could take combat from any era and play with it some to make it tactically fun. If the question is, how much do you have to modify the historical accuracy in order to make the game enjoyable then consider how you noted that artillery would have to be removed from a WW2 game to make it enjoyable. I would also suggest that WW2 game would have to be majorly 'sped up' to make it enjoyable, because the ground combat in WW2 was rare and slow paced with more cover and wasted bullets. Make those same kind of modifications to any other era and you could make a good shooter too, such as Mount and Blade, which is fairly historically accurate.
Like I said, that comes down to needing fast paced combat and ground combat.
This could happen in the future and in an alternative universe (such as planetside). And there's a rather good revolutionary war mod for the game Mount and Blade, which is a really fun FPS based on midieval skirmishes. It is both fast paced and focused on ground combat, so it plays like a typical (fun) shooter. There are bows instead of guns, horses instead of tanks, and more melee combat than you'd see in a WW2 shooter. Tactically speaking, it is also engaging: There are utilization of choke points, resources, ammunition, health management, different unit types with different specialties, trade offs in gear and skillpoint allocation.
We could take combat from any era and play with it some to make it tactically fun. If the question is, how much do you have to modify the historical accuracy in order to make the game enjoyable then consider how you noted that artillery would have to be removed from a WW2 game to make it enjoyable. I would also suggest that WW2 game would have to be majorly 'sped up' to make it enjoyable, because the ground combat in WW2 was rare and slow paced with more cover and wasted bullets. Make those same kind of modifications to any other era and you could make a good shooter too, such as Mount and Blade, which is fairly historically accurate.
I have no idea what mount and blade is like, never played it.
PS2 is not a wargame sim because SOE would like to make some money from it. Most people don't want to spawn at a depot 20 miles away from the front only to be killed in a truck on the 15 minute ride when a plane happens to spot and strafe you. There's WW2OL for that (which I also enjoyed). This game is not WW2OL. Its also not CoD. Its somewhere in the middle.
Nobody is saying, "spawn 20 miles away and take a 15 minute ride in a truck."
But moving from truck mobile spawn, to any misison leader creating a mobile spawn in wwiionline was a mistake.
I can't answer to WW2OL, so I'll take your opinion as read that it was a bad idea in that game. However we are talking about Planetside which isn't a wargame sim. Its somewhere in between though PS2 is going to be tilted more toward the modern fast paced fps games than was PS1.
Also as I've been illustrating the squad spawn system isn't like CoD or WW2OL. No one is creating static spawns that they can just place around the map. It requires certification points, its on a timer, it only works outside, its visible to enemy players, it only works with squadmembers (in fact it requires extra cert points for this, the first ability just lets you spawn on the squad leader only). It can be countered by killing players and then keeping an area swept, just like you had to do against AMS's in PS1.
This is a sci fi game, of course vertical envelopment is going to be part of it. The factions control orbital space stations. This idea is as old as the 1950's with the High Frontier and the more militarily focused programs such as Brilliant Pebbles (hello, orbital strike).
Planetside and WWIIONLINE have been in parallel development. They do pretty much the same thing, and the effects on the same thing are pretty similar.
The squad spawn system is like COD, and worse than WWIIONLINE, and it doesn't matter if "it requires certification points," and it isn't "just like you had to do against AMS." The AMS was a big, slow, loud vehicle that was easily intercepted before getting into position. A squad leader, a small infantry dude, can easily infiltrate anywhere.
And it doesn't matter if it's a sci-fi game, nobody wants to play a game using unconventional and generally retarded tactics that don't exist in the real world.
You continue to call PS2's squad spawn system a CoD spawn system. I've listed the reasons why this isn't true multiple times now. PS1 had drop pods, too. It was quite easy to use them and they were useless for infiltration because the enemy could see them burning through the sky from orbit .. just like in PS2. Does squad respawn in CoD/Battlefield draw a burning line in the sky down to the respawn point every time it happens?
AMS were not big, slow, loud vehicles easy to intercept. They were one of the faster vehicles at speed and much more agile than any tank. They also had quite a bit of armor. It was easy to get them in and out of places, if the enemy noticed them they could run away almost all of the time if not already deployed. Once deployed anyone in the area could deploy there and grab any bit of kit other than a MAX suit or vehicle and they could do it under a cloaking shield.
So yes, all of this together makes them comparable to infantry who can only move at foot speeds and then call down orbital pods visible to anyone in the area. Either way you have to sneak into an area already cleared and held by the enemy. By the way, how would this work exactly? Is a squad of people going to wait, while dead mind you since this is respawn, 10 minutes for someone to infiltrate an area so that they can drop from the sky alerting all nearby defenders? What situation are you complaining about exactly?
Also your assertion that no one wants to play these types of games is simply not true either. Those types of games are the best selling ones on the market. WW2OL and PS1 did horrible numbers. Its not something I like to say since I enjoyed both games, but it is reality. CoD/Battlefield are also quite enjoyable. PS2 is taking the franchise a little more in their direction. I'm fine with it. You are not. At this point all I can suggest is you don't buy it or waste another moment of your time commenting on it.
You continue to call PS2's squad spawn system a CoD spawn system. I've listed the reasons why this isn't true multiple times now. PS1 had drop pods, too. It was quite easy to use them and they were useless for infiltration because the enemy could see them burning through the sky from orbit .. just like in PS2. Does squad respawn in CoD/Battlefield draw a burning line in the sky down to the respawn point every time it happens?
AMS were not big, slow, loud vehicles easy to intercept. They were one of the faster vehicles at speed and much more agile than any tank. They also had quite a bit of armor. It was easy to get them in and out of places, if the enemy noticed them they could run away almost all of the time if not already deployed. Once deployed anyone in the area could deploy there and grab any bit of kit other than a MAX suit or vehicle and they could do it under a cloaking shield.
So yes, all of this together makes them comparable to infantry who can only move at foot speeds and then call down orbital pods visible to anyone in the area. Either way you have to sneak into an area already cleared and held by the enemy. By the way, how would this work exactly? Is a squad of people going to wait, while dead mind you since this is respawn, 10 minutes for someone to infiltrate an area so that they can drop from the sky alerting all nearby defenders? What situation are you complaining about exactly?
Also your assertion that no one wants to play these types of games is simply not true either. Those types of games are the best selling ones on the market. WW2OL and PS1 did horrible numbers. Its not something I like to say since I enjoyed both games, but it is reality. CoD/Battlefield are also quite enjoyable. PS2 is taking the franchise a little more in their direction. I'm fine with it. You are not. At this point all I can suggest is you don't buy it or waste another moment of your time commenting on it.
I grow weary.
A) The drop pods were used once when someone logged into the game, to get from Sanctuary to a battle.
Nobody looked up and it was hard to spot drop pots, usually they surprised people. BF2142 has the same thing and it's not easy to spot.
C) The AMS is a big, slow loud vehicle easy to intercept. Reaverspam usually got the AMS if a tank, decimator, or land mine didn't.
D) That cloaking shield was used because cover and concealment is nonexistant in Planetside, not like in WWIIONLINE where it's easier to hide a truck turned into UMS.
E) BF2142 has the smallest number of players sandwiched between BF2 and BFVietnam. I tried replaying game and very few play for some reason. 6 months ago there were like 10 times more BF2 servers than BF2142 which makes no sense to me cause I thought BF2142 was better, it was more tactical.
F) WWIIONLINE has more players than Planetside1, apparently keeping up to date on graphics (as slowly as it was) kept the sub base from crashing like what happened to Planetside1 which never updated graphics.
You continue to call PS2's squad spawn system a CoD spawn system. I've listed the reasons why this isn't true multiple times now. PS1 had drop pods, too. It was quite easy to use them and they were useless for infiltration because the enemy could see them burning through the sky from orbit .. just like in PS2. Does squad respawn in CoD/Battlefield draw a burning line in the sky down to the respawn point every time it happens?
AMS were not big, slow, loud vehicles easy to intercept. They were one of the faster vehicles at speed and much more agile than any tank. They also had quite a bit of armor. It was easy to get them in and out of places, if the enemy noticed them they could run away almost all of the time if not already deployed. Once deployed anyone in the area could deploy there and grab any bit of kit other than a MAX suit or vehicle and they could do it under a cloaking shield.
So yes, all of this together makes them comparable to infantry who can only move at foot speeds and then call down orbital pods visible to anyone in the area. Either way you have to sneak into an area already cleared and held by the enemy. By the way, how would this work exactly? Is a squad of people going to wait, while dead mind you since this is respawn, 10 minutes for someone to infiltrate an area so that they can drop from the sky alerting all nearby defenders? What situation are you complaining about exactly?
Also your assertion that no one wants to play these types of games is simply not true either. Those types of games are the best selling ones on the market. WW2OL and PS1 did horrible numbers. Its not something I like to say since I enjoyed both games, but it is reality. CoD/Battlefield are also quite enjoyable. PS2 is taking the franchise a little more in their direction. I'm fine with it. You are not. At this point all I can suggest is you don't buy it or waste another moment of your time commenting on it.
I grow weary.
A) The drop pods were used once when someone logged into the game, to get from Sanctuary to a battle.
Nobody looked up and it was hard to spot drop pots, usually they surprised people. BF2142 has the same thing and it's not easy to spot.
C) The AMS is a big, slow loud vehicle easy to intercept. Reaverspam usually got the AMS if a tank, decimator, or land mine didn't.
D) That cloaking shield was used because cover and concealment is nonexistant in Planetside, not like in WWIIONLINE where it's easier to hide a truck turned into UMS.
E) BF2142 has the smallest number of players sandwiched between BF2 and BFVietnam. I tried replaying game and very few play for some reason. 6 months ago there were like 10 times more BF2 servers than BF2142 which makes no sense to me cause I thought BF2142 was better, it was more tactical.
F) WWIIONLINE has more players than Planetside1, apparently keeping up to date on graphics (as slowly as it was) kept the sub base from crashing like what happened to Planetside1 which never updated graphics.
A) The drop pods were used when anyone used the HART from Sanctuary. It was easy to do and the HART was on a short timer (just like the PS2 mechanic will be). You could choose to spawn in Sanctuary any time you died. It was used much more than on just log on. That being said, wouldn't it just prove my point about squad drop pod spawning not being a primary spawn mechanic? I'm not sure of your point here.
You are just wrong here. The drop pods could be targeted by AA lol. People were usually dead before the pod walls could fall away upon landing if there were any enemy nearby. They were easy to spot and everyone in the area would light them up.
C) AMS were set up all the time, they were the primary spawn method used for assaults. Once you were assaulting from a tower it was over until more AMS could arrive.
D) Okay, I don't disagree with this but I don't understand how this helps your point? People were able to spawn under cover of a cloaking shield. Drop pods fall from the sky trailing flames. ???
E) I dunno either. I liked BF2142 alot as well. The engineer got a lot of fun tools heh.
F) I wouldn't doubt it has more players however we're talking less than 20k for each game though at this point. Like you I also enjoy the more difficult games like WW2OL and PS1, the problem is that most people do not. SOE is making gameplay appeal to more people because they like money as does any rational developer. I'm okay with it, especially since these games are more fun with more people. Edited to add: Another reason I'm okay with it is that they are not dumbing it down to a CoD level as you say. The squad spawn mechanic has many limitations and does not function like you say.
I can't help but point out again that you didn't play Planetside very long and are not very familiar with its mechanics as we've discussed in other threads. I played for 5 years at least. Many of your assertions are just not correct regarding gameplay. It would be as if I were making points about WW2OL based on my playing 3 months at release versus someone like you who has played it for several years. Things evolve, especially emergent gameplay in sandboxy games like these. AloManss
A) The drop pods were used when anyone used the HART from Sanctuary. It was easy to do and the HART was on a short timer (just like the PS2 mechanic will be). You could choose to spawn in Sanctuary any time you died. It was used much more than on just log on. That being said, wouldn't it just prove my point about squad drop pod spawning not being a primary spawn mechanic? I'm not sure of your point here.
A.5 No it wasn't a short timer, you had to wait like 5-15 minutes to use the HART. People used HART to spawn, like, never. So if you had to wait 5-15 minutes to use a spawn on squad drop pods players would use them like, never.
You are just wrong here. The drop pods could be targeted by AA lol. People were usually dead before the pod walls could fall away upon landing if there were any enemy nearby. They were easy to spot and everyone in the area would light them up.
B.5 You were immune when landing in drop pod, and they are hard to spot and didn't light anything up.
C) AMS were set up all the time, they were the primary spawn method used for assaults. Once you were assaulting from a tower it was over until more AMS could arrive.
C.5 AMS's didn't magically teleport anywhere it wanted to, it had to slowly drive to an area to setup.
D) Okay, I don't disagree with this but I don't understand how this helps your point? People were able to spawn under cover of a cloaking shield. Drop pods fall from the sky trailing flames. ???
D.5 nobody saw the drop pods until you were already on the ground, BF2142 andPlanetside1.
E) I dunno either. I liked BF2142 alot as well. The engineer got a lot of fun tools heh.
E.5 It's a claustrophobic graphics-updated-version of Planetside with less tactical options.
F) I wouldn't doubt it has more players however we're talking less than 20k for each game though at this point. Like you I also enjoy the more difficult games like WW2OL and PS1, the problem is that most people do not. SOE is making gameplay appeal to more people because they like money as does any rational developer. I'm okay with it, especially since these games are more fun with more people. Edited to add: Another reason I'm okay with it is that they are not dumbing it down to a CoD level as you say. The squad spawn mechanic has many limitations and does not function like you say.
F.5 Most people do, I'm just like every other normal FPS'er that started out with Quake1. I moved from Quake Deathmatch to thoughtful FPS, and so will everyone else. This "Niche" talk is defeatist.
I can't help but point out again that you didn't play Planetside very long and are not very familiar with its mechanics as we've discussed in other threads. I played for 5 years at least. Many of your assertions are just not correct regarding gameplay. It would be as if I were making points about WW2OL based on my playing 3 months at release versus someone like you who has played it for several years. Things evolve, especially emergent gameplay in sandboxy games like these. AloManss
Sounds like you never planed Planetside. The idea that you can shoot a drop pod, or even see one before it hit the ground, is comical.
Galaxy as ams sounds awesome. Galaxies were way underused in the first game + being able to constantly drop people seems like they would be a huge threat now.
The ams idea was interesting but I like the idea of the actual transport vehicles serving the same function since they were pretty much useless most of the time. Not much point in using a gal, sunderer bus or the humvee thing when all those people could just drive an ams instead.
A) The drop pods were used when anyone used the HART from Sanctuary. It was easy to do and the HART was on a short timer (just like the PS2 mechanic will be). You could choose to spawn in Sanctuary any time you died. It was used much more than on just log on. That being said, wouldn't it just prove my point about squad drop pod spawning not being a primary spawn mechanic? I'm not sure of your point here.
A.5 No it wasn't a short timer, you had to wait like 5-15 minutes to use the HART. People used HART to spawn, like, never. So if you had to wait 5-15 minutes to use a spawn on squad drop pods players would use them like, never.
You are just wrong here. The drop pods could be targeted by AA lol. People were usually dead before the pod walls could fall away upon landing if there were any enemy nearby. They were easy to spot and everyone in the area would light them up.
B.5 You were immune when landing in drop pod, and they are hard to spot and didn't light anything up.
C) AMS were set up all the time, they were the primary spawn method used for assaults. Once you were assaulting from a tower it was over until more AMS could arrive.
C.5 AMS's didn't magically teleport anywhere it wanted to, it had to slowly drive to an area to setup.
D) Okay, I don't disagree with this but I don't understand how this helps your point? People were able to spawn under cover of a cloaking shield. Drop pods fall from the sky trailing flames. ???
D.5 nobody saw the drop pods until you were already on the ground, BF2142 andPlanetside1.
E) I dunno either. I liked BF2142 alot as well. The engineer got a lot of fun tools heh.
E.5 It's a claustrophobic graphics-updated-version of Planetside with less tactical options.
F) I wouldn't doubt it has more players however we're talking less than 20k for each game though at this point. Like you I also enjoy the more difficult games like WW2OL and PS1, the problem is that most people do not. SOE is making gameplay appeal to more people because they like money as does any rational developer. I'm okay with it, especially since these games are more fun with more people. Edited to add: Another reason I'm okay with it is that they are not dumbing it down to a CoD level as you say. The squad spawn mechanic has many limitations and does not function like you say.
F.5 Most people do, I'm just like every other normal FPS'er that started out with Quake1. I moved from Quake Deathmatch to thoughtful FPS, and so will everyone else. This "Niche" talk is defeatist.
I can't help but point out again that you didn't play Planetside very long and are not very familiar with its mechanics as we've discussed in other threads. I played for 5 years at least. Many of your assertions are just not correct regarding gameplay. It would be as if I were making points about WW2OL based on my playing 3 months at release versus someone like you who has played it for several years. Things evolve, especially emergent gameplay in sandboxy games like these. AloManss
Sounds like you never planed Planetside. The idea that you can shoot a drop pod, or even see one before it hit the ground, is comical.
A) Yes that is what I've been saying now for who knows how many posts. The squad spawn drop pod mechanic IS NOT DESIGNED AS A PRIMARY SPAWN METHOD BECAUSE IT IS ON A TIMER. Can I assume that you have finally conceded this point?
You are 100% wrong. Drop pods were easily spotted, you had no immunity upon landing. Yes they were immune in the air, as soon as they hit the ground immunity was gone .. people could see and track them in the air so if any enemy were around you died as soon as you touched ground because the immunity ended before you could actually move ala the vehicle entry animation. My comment about people lighting them up referred to people lighting them up with weapons fire because they fell flaming from the skies and were immediately noticed by anyone in the area.
C) Just as any squad member you are going to spawn on will not be "teleporting" to an area but will slowly have to walk up to it just as the AMS did. Even in PS1 you couldn't drop pod into an enemy SOI. You had to walk the rest of the way in. Can I assume that you now will concede this point as well?
D) This is completely untrue. The pods were visible in the air surrounded by a corona of flames. You could actually target enemy pods with AA while they were dropping down (though no damage until they landed).
E. Erm, okay.
F. The "niche" talk is reality. It doesn't matter if I like it or not.
There's no opinion involved here. You don't understand the PS2 squad spawn mechanic as described and you don't know how drop pods work in PS1.
Galaxy as ams sounds awesome. Galaxies were way underused in the first game + being able to constantly drop people seems like they would be a huge threat now.
The ams idea was interesting but I like the idea of the actual transport vehicles serving the same function since they were pretty much useless most of the time. Not much point in using a gal, sunderer bus or the humvee thing when all those people could just drive an ams instead.
Sunderer lol, we called it the bang bus. I hope its in game and they bring back the massive collision damage. I used to love to use that thing to mow down enemies on foot.
A) Yes that is what I've been saying now for who knows how many posts. The squad spawn drop pod mechanic IS NOT DESIGNED AS A PRIMARY SPAWN METHOD BECAUSE IT IS ON A TIMER. Can I assume that you have finally conceded this point?
Fine put the squad star trek teleporter "skill" on a 15 minute timer, nobody would use it, I'm happy. Wasted coding time if you ask me.
You are 100% wrong. Drop pods were easily spotted, you had no immunity upon landing. Yes they were immune in the air, as soon as they hit the ground immunity was gone .. people could see and track them in the air so if any enemy were around you died as soon as you touched ground because the immunity ended before you could actually move ala the vehicle entry animation. My comment about people lighting them up referred to people lighting them up with weapons fire because they fell flaming from the skies and were immediately noticed by anyone in the area.
You are 100% wrong. Nobody saw drop pods until the guy was walking out of it, and nobody in a million years ever shot one before it landed.
C) Just as any squad member you are going to spawn on will not be "teleporting" to an area but will slowly have to walk up to it just as the AMS did. Even in PS1 you couldn't drop pod into an enemy SOI. You had to walk the rest of the way in. Can I assume that you now will concede this point as well?
The AMS is big and easy to spot, infantry are tiny and can go anywhere to setup a mobile spawn in an unrealistic star trekky sort of way. Lame game mechanics for a FPS game.
D) This is completely untrue. The pods were visible in the air surrounded by a corona of flames. You could actually target enemy pods with AA while they were dropping down (though no damage until they landed).
nobody saw the drop pods until you were already on the ground, BF2142 andPlanetside1.
F. The "niche" talk is reality. It doesn't matter if I like it or not.
The "niche" talk is something you regurgitated from the planetside forums.
There's no opinion involved here. You don't understand the PS2 squad spawn mechanic as described and you don't know how drop pods work in PS1.
I understand it fine, it's just like BF2142, and it's a very bad idea. Enemy players will be popping up all over the place, so clearing an area out will be a waste of time. Tactics will look like Quake Deathmatch 1996 where everyone just shoots shit randomly, talk about going backwards in time.
Comments
Nobody is saying, "spawn 20 miles away and take a 15 minute ride in a truck."
But moving from truck mobile spawn, to any misison leader creating a mobile spawn in wwiionline was a mistake.
It doesn't matter if people have magic powers and lightsabers, they still follow conventional warfare tactics (particularly WW1<----Korean War) in the battle scenes.
I can't answer to WW2OL, so I'll take your opinion as read that it was a bad idea in that game. However we are talking about Planetside which isn't a wargame sim. Its somewhere in between though PS2 is going to be tilted more toward the modern fast paced fps games than was PS1.
Also as I've been illustrating the squad spawn system isn't like CoD or WW2OL. No one is creating static spawns that they can just place around the map. It requires certification points, its on a timer, it only works outside, its visible to enemy players, it only works with squadmembers (in fact it requires extra cert points for this, the first ability just lets you spawn on the squad leader only). It can be countered by killing players and then keeping an area swept, just like you had to do against AMS's in PS1.
This is a sci fi game, of course vertical envelopment is going to be part of it. The factions control orbital space stations. This idea is as old as the 1950's with the High Frontier and the more militarily focused programs such as Brilliant Pebbles (hello, orbital strike).
Planetside and WWIIONLINE have been in parallel development. They do pretty much the same thing, and the effects on the same thing are pretty similar.
The squad spawn system is like COD, and worse than WWIIONLINE, and it doesn't matter if "it requires certification points," and it isn't "just like you had to do against AMS." The AMS was a big, slow, loud vehicle that was easily intercepted before getting into position. A squad leader, a small infantry dude, can easily infiltrate anywhere.
And it doesn't matter if it's a sci-fi game, nobody wants to play a game using unconventional and generally retarded tactics that don't exist in the real world.
Hello, 60 percent of combat casualties in WWII came from artillery firing indirect...usualy from 5-10 km behind the line. A good chunk of the rest came from high level carpet bombing. So I think you just invalidated your own arguement....as not even WWII would qualify as WWII combat by your standards.
In pretty much every conflict that has featured a ground component fought since WWII you have had infantry on infantry combat occuring not only at visual range but at ranges generaly equivalent to WWII infantry combat ranges. That's why our armed forces still have combat arms featuring infantry and why the marines still teach every single recruit how to use a rifle in basic ("Every Marine Is a Rifleman"). There are still alot infantry weapons not even equiped with scopes....standard assault rifles weren't in Desert Storm....and even the ones issued today AFAIK are mostly pretty low powered or no magnification.
In terms of enemy suddenly popping up in areas you thought you had already cleared.....that happaned a fair amount in WWII.... read the accounts of the Marines on Iwo Jima for example.... Japanese sappers were continualy showing in areas the Marines had already cleared due to the extensive cave and tunnel system on the island.
More to the point.... Sci Fi is Sci Fi.... you don't have to have engagements beyond visual range....because just like tech can be developed to detect and engage beyond visual range (GSR, Satelites, Etc) Tech can be developed to counter that as well (stealth, signal jammers, ecm). Heck with Sci Fi you don't even really need to have stuff obey the same physical laws we have in our universe.
I've had plenty of FPS games where you could be effective with cover and concealment. Sniper was among my favorate classes in the battle-field series.
All that really matters is that the game is fast paced enough to keep the players attention. You could definitely make a revolutionary war game with muskets, but you'll have to speed up the reload times and things like that. Just like in WW2 games players are running around in the open more, jumping into buildings, turning corners, running towards enemies, etc... Do you think that is how WW2 was fought? In WW2 artillery was very important, bombing was important, holding positions was very important. Moving was dangerous and difficult. Squads kept together extremely well (much better than in games, although its possible if the players are skilled it would be unrealistic for a game with new players) and it was a rarity to enter into combat with the enemy and even more so to kill the enemy. In Viet Nam, 50,000 bullets were fired for every 1 soilder killed. There is much more emphasis on safety, for obvious, obvious, obvious reasons. That goes for every era, not just WW2. Any era can and is made into video games, but WW2 is especially fun time because:
a) it was a really big war with a good amount of ground unit battles (unlike wars after WW2)
b) weapons existed for fast paced combat and combat vehicles existed (unlike wars before WW2)
But really all that means is for a good game you need these two things... The game could have aliens, spaceships, spawning in air vehicles, disappearing, ressurection, super powers, magic, etc. It just needs fast paced combat and grount unit battles. There has probably been many battles fought like this in the past and will be in the future. This must be what you mean by WW2ish.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
Like I said, that comes down to needing fast paced combat and ground combat.
This could happen in the future and in an alternative universe (such as planetside). And there's a rather good revolutionary war mod for the game Mount and Blade, which is a really fun FPS based on midieval skirmishes. It is both fast paced and focused on ground combat, so it plays like a typical (fun) shooter. There are bows instead of guns, horses instead of tanks, and more melee combat than you'd see in a WW2 shooter. Tactically speaking, it is also engaging: There are utilization of choke points, resources, ammunition, health management, different unit types with different specialties, trade offs in gear and skillpoint allocation.
We could take combat from any era and play with it some to make it tactically fun. If the question is, how much do you have to modify the historical accuracy in order to make the game enjoyable then consider how you noted that artillery would have to be removed from a WW2 game to make it enjoyable. I would also suggest that WW2 game would have to be majorly 'sped up' to make it enjoyable, because the ground combat in WW2 was rare and slow paced with more cover and wasted bullets. Make those same kind of modifications to any other era and you could make a good shooter too, such as Mount and Blade, which is fairly historically accurate.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.
I have no idea what mount and blade is like, never played it.
You continue to call PS2's squad spawn system a CoD spawn system. I've listed the reasons why this isn't true multiple times now. PS1 had drop pods, too. It was quite easy to use them and they were useless for infiltration because the enemy could see them burning through the sky from orbit .. just like in PS2. Does squad respawn in CoD/Battlefield draw a burning line in the sky down to the respawn point every time it happens?
AMS were not big, slow, loud vehicles easy to intercept. They were one of the faster vehicles at speed and much more agile than any tank. They also had quite a bit of armor. It was easy to get them in and out of places, if the enemy noticed them they could run away almost all of the time if not already deployed. Once deployed anyone in the area could deploy there and grab any bit of kit other than a MAX suit or vehicle and they could do it under a cloaking shield.
So yes, all of this together makes them comparable to infantry who can only move at foot speeds and then call down orbital pods visible to anyone in the area. Either way you have to sneak into an area already cleared and held by the enemy. By the way, how would this work exactly? Is a squad of people going to wait, while dead mind you since this is respawn, 10 minutes for someone to infiltrate an area so that they can drop from the sky alerting all nearby defenders? What situation are you complaining about exactly?
Also your assertion that no one wants to play these types of games is simply not true either. Those types of games are the best selling ones on the market. WW2OL and PS1 did horrible numbers. Its not something I like to say since I enjoyed both games, but it is reality. CoD/Battlefield are also quite enjoyable. PS2 is taking the franchise a little more in their direction. I'm fine with it. You are not. At this point all I can suggest is you don't buy it or waste another moment of your time commenting on it.
I grow weary.
A) The drop pods were used once when someone logged into the game, to get from Sanctuary to a battle.
C) The AMS is a big, slow loud vehicle easy to intercept. Reaverspam usually got the AMS if a tank, decimator, or land mine didn't.
D) That cloaking shield was used because cover and concealment is nonexistant in Planetside, not like in WWIIONLINE where it's easier to hide a truck turned into UMS.
E) BF2142 has the smallest number of players sandwiched between BF2 and BFVietnam. I tried replaying game and very few play for some reason. 6 months ago there were like 10 times more BF2 servers than BF2142 which makes no sense to me cause I thought BF2142 was better, it was more tactical.
F) WWIIONLINE has more players than Planetside1, apparently keeping up to date on graphics (as slowly as it was) kept the sub base from crashing like what happened to Planetside1 which never updated graphics.
A) The drop pods were used when anyone used the HART from Sanctuary. It was easy to do and the HART was on a short timer (just like the PS2 mechanic will be). You could choose to spawn in Sanctuary any time you died. It was used much more than on just log on. That being said, wouldn't it just prove my point about squad drop pod spawning not being a primary spawn mechanic? I'm not sure of your point here.
C) AMS were set up all the time, they were the primary spawn method used for assaults. Once you were assaulting from a tower it was over until more AMS could arrive.
D) Okay, I don't disagree with this but I don't understand how this helps your point? People were able to spawn under cover of a cloaking shield. Drop pods fall from the sky trailing flames. ???
E) I dunno either. I liked BF2142 alot as well. The engineer got a lot of fun tools heh.
F) I wouldn't doubt it has more players however we're talking less than 20k for each game though at this point. Like you I also enjoy the more difficult games like WW2OL and PS1, the problem is that most people do not. SOE is making gameplay appeal to more people because they like money as does any rational developer. I'm okay with it, especially since these games are more fun with more people. Edited to add: Another reason I'm okay with it is that they are not dumbing it down to a CoD level as you say. The squad spawn mechanic has many limitations and does not function like you say.
I can't help but point out again that you didn't play Planetside very long and are not very familiar with its mechanics as we've discussed in other threads. I played for 5 years at least. Many of your assertions are just not correct regarding gameplay. It would be as if I were making points about WW2OL based on my playing 3 months at release versus someone like you who has played it for several years. Things evolve, especially emergent gameplay in sandboxy games like these. AloManss
Galaxy as ams sounds awesome. Galaxies were way underused in the first game + being able to constantly drop people seems like they would be a huge threat now.
The ams idea was interesting but I like the idea of the actual transport vehicles serving the same function since they were pretty much useless most of the time. Not much point in using a gal, sunderer bus or the humvee thing when all those people could just drive an ams instead.
A) Yes that is what I've been saying now for who knows how many posts. The squad spawn drop pod mechanic IS NOT DESIGNED AS A PRIMARY SPAWN METHOD BECAUSE IT IS ON A TIMER. Can I assume that you have finally conceded this point?
C) Just as any squad member you are going to spawn on will not be "teleporting" to an area but will slowly have to walk up to it just as the AMS did. Even in PS1 you couldn't drop pod into an enemy SOI. You had to walk the rest of the way in. Can I assume that you now will concede this point as well?
D) This is completely untrue. The pods were visible in the air surrounded by a corona of flames. You could actually target enemy pods with AA while they were dropping down (though no damage until they landed).
E. Erm, okay.
F. The "niche" talk is reality. It doesn't matter if I like it or not.
There's no opinion involved here. You don't understand the PS2 squad spawn mechanic as described and you don't know how drop pods work in PS1.
Sunderer lol, we called it the bang bus. I hope its in game and they bring back the massive collision damage. I used to love to use that thing to mow down enemies on foot.