Planetside goes free

I haven’t played planet side in a long time.

However, other factions getting to use your vehicles? No, that is not what I mean. That is ‘differant’ but not really a ‘significant advantage’.

I am thinking more in line with:
Getting a certain continent will double all player and vehicle hit points. Getting a certain base will give you artillery strikes anywhere on the map, that recharge every 10 minutes and destroy everything in a large area (ie: A base).

Small advantages do not count. I am not sure where to draw the line, but basically its the mental point of really not wanting to loose a base or continent.

Getting a TR max when you are NC just doesn’t cut it. Although maybe giving NC Maxes Vanue Jumpjets would, although I might religate thot a base level bonus, not a continent lock bonus.

I blogged about this months ago.

(This is also in response to DeepT’s similar point)

That’s fine, and I can understand that critique of Planetside. But to me, the critique is not “The battles are pointless,” because the battles are just as pointless in every game and in fact PS’s battles have more of a point than other games’. The critique I see here is “Planetside doesn’t add enough to justify its cost.” I don’t really agree, but I can understand the critique. You feel like you get 90% of the Planetside experience in BF2, but for 0% of the money. That’s fair. I actually think PS adds a lot (much bigger battles, context for battles, better combined arms variety and balance, much more open world, much easier to play with friends), but it’s at least a criticism I can understand. And PS’s deficiencies – particularly lack of locational damage and inability to go prone – become more and more glaring as time goes on and those things become expected in every shooter. (I realize the “no going prone” thing is a deliberate design decision, but I think it was a poor choice.)

DeepT: game balancer!

I think the net result of DeepT’s suggested advantages would be to make it effectively impossible to retake continents. Planetside’s existing rewards for taking bases and locking continents work just fine–they reward players without unbalancing the game.

The problem with Planetside is that while MMOG-level lag is acceptable in a game like WoW, it’s game-breaking in an FPS.

True, though Aftershock did include extra content–namely, BFRs (= mechs).

Peter

I very much agree. I realize DeepT hasn’t played the game in a long time (hint: consider shutting up then), but as it stands there are advantages – sometimes very serious advantages – to taking every base. You need a Tech Plant to spawn tanks and gunships, some bases give you damage shields or fast respawn, better automated guns, etc.

Thought everyone wanted a mech.

They’ve been justifiably nerfed into balance, but still require CC vehicle mods, a tech plant, a pain in the ass qualification merit, and have a 25 minute timer.

I think BR6 is actually pretty limiting.

They changed the cert counts, so that BR1 is 7 cert points, and BR6/12/18 don’t give you a cert point, just an implant slot. So BR6 is 1 implant and 11 cert points, plenty to pick up MBT and Engy, or Rexo/AV/HA, or Air Cav/Engy, etc etc.

However, other factions getting to use your vehicles? No, that is not what I mean. That is ‘differant’ but not really a ‘significant advantage’.

The hell it isn’t. The empire balance is fairly carefully maintained through Vanu tanks vs NC/TR anti-vehicular weapons, and vice versa. And it isn’t just vehicles. It’s everything. [Edit : Maybe not maxes, but definetly MA/HA/AV, which is huge]

True, though Aftershock did include extra content–namely, BFRs (= mechs).

Most fights in the last 4 months I’ve played haven’t had more than 1 or 2 BFR’s, if any. I rarely see Core Combat vehicles or weapons other than the Switchblade. Unless I’m in the caves of course.

I’d forgotten that – it went live shortly before I quit the last time. You’re right, then, BR6 is fine for a basic kit.

Without being a dick, I want to ask if you are you sure you were actually “thinking” when you wrote that? ;) I’m teasing. I just have the World War II Online experience backing me here…

What you suggest would utterly destroy player balance numbers. People quit games over minor advantages the other side has. People quit because the other side has momentum. In World War II Online, where later-year equipment is introduced gradually throughout a campaign, people quit flying LW when the Spitfire Mk IX is about to show up or they quit Allied ground when the Tiger is going to be in the game.

Heck, in Tribes I remember people not wanting to play Blood Eagle or Diamond Sword because sometimes base placements or layouts weren’t completely identical. The tactical difference would be far smaller than BF1942, but once the community matured and knew how to exploit every miniscule advantage, you’d see bizarre team ratios like 2:1 against Blood Eagle because their entrance could be mortared blind from behind a hilltop by aiming at another hill in the distance.

So, IMO any major advantage like what you suggest is going to destroy the game.

It’s definitely a very finnickly player balance and adjustment issue. If your side is screwed, would you want to play? In WW2OL some play because they enjoy the challenge - getting holed up in a couple of towns Dunkirking can be fun - but many won’t even bother. It’s the ultimate end-game, but when you get down to it, it’s a very slippery player slope you’re on. And yes one side has rebounded from a pocket to restabilize the front but it’s very hard to do. And, like in SB, it’s usually done early in the morning.

— Alan

I agree with you wrt to so called “pointless battles” I find a large, dynamic, and persistent battlefield much more enjoyable than an endless repetition of battles on “set-piece” maps.

Well if the game was WWII online you would be right. Since it is not, nor does it have to be, you would be wrong. Use a little imagination. Rather then instantly say, “That would make everyone leave”, try and think “What would you do to prevent that?”

I can think of a lot of things. Infact I have my FPS MMOG all worked out and none of these problems would exist in it.

Sweet! Let us know when you’re ready for beta-testers.

Yeah, I would love to beta that. Particularly if it includes balance ideas like your “every time you kill someone you get the quad damage” one, or whatever it was.

My big problem with planetside was that it’s almost impossible to find a relatively evenly matched battle. It was always either my group squashing a bunch of disorganized noobs. My group getting beat on by a much larger group. Or, my group joining the gigantic battle which is great fun the first few times, until you realize that there are so many people it’s impossible to organize anything so it just boils down to a war of attrition. If you succeed in taking a base in a gigantic battle 9 times out of 10 it will be because there is a population imbalance. The few times you do find a somewhat equal group to fight it puts a battle marker on the main map and fairly soon you and your opponents will be surrounded by a bunch of other players.

Or at least that was my experience in beta.

In fact I’m sure it’s built so that there are absolutely no problems at all, ever.

— Alan

Don’t be a bunch of idiots. I never claimed to have a perfectly blanced game worked out. I just said I have all the major game-play problems worked out.

Of course there will be issues of this gun is a little too powerful, that tank is a little too weak. Those are minor problems, not core gameplay problems.

Yeah, shame on us.