PlanetSide 2 Review

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
PlanetSide 2 Review

PlanetSide 2 offers up an impressive, if slightly flawed, action experience.

Read Full Article
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
Really love the game, but the F2P model is totally broken in my opinion. Some things are insanely expensive to unlock: It costs up to 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)

And being competitive with the default load-out... No. Just No. Some classes can pull it off - the infiltrator or the medic and engineer... other classes not so much. The default Rocket Launcher on the Heavy for example is next to useless on anything than a close ground vehicle... and anything with a lock-on is 7$/1000 cert points.


Same goes for Air vehicles - the air superiority fighters equiped with default auto cannons are next to useless when up against air superiority fighters equipped with rockets (both in the guided an unguided variety).

Gunboats with default weapons are pretty much only fit to carry 3 people from a to b, while a gunboat with a certain load-out can wreak devastation on a massive scale. Again, a very expensive load-out.


If you want to be effective you have to either grind for literally weeks of game time or dish out a ton of cash.

There's also performance to take into account... you kinda need a strong rig to play it. On a PC that runs BF3 on high-ultra I had to turn everything to Low in order to barely get 30 FPS in Planetside2. I don't know if there's any more optimization SoE could have done, the game is massive... but it's still quite a high entry barrier.
 

LordMithril

New member
Jul 10, 2010
52
0
0
VladG said:
Really love the game, but the F2P model is totally broken in my opinion. Some things are insanely expensive to unlock: It costs up to 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)
[snip]
That the whole point isn't it ;)
It takes weeks to get only 1 weapon. Or just 7 dollars.

But think about what you just said. And lets say it takes 1.5 weeks to get those 1000 points.
Now lets take WoW. New patch, new dungeon, new item tier. How long do you think it will take most people to get even close to those items when not playing in a top guild.

Or just 7 bucks per item you really want.

Its the same type of discussion as "is a 20 hour game long or short".
If you game whole days its short.. if not then long ;)
 

Shakura Jolithion

New member
Nov 9, 2009
36
0
0
Wow comparisons aren't valid; you're actually playing and building up new gear, exploring different stories, areas, etc., and constantly making progress and improving your character throughout. In terms of WoW, PS2 is essentially grinding one mob with no new gear for hours on end, just to get one new weapon, instead of going on varied quests and getting bits and pieces of gear with side improvements in professions.
PS2's current model for leveling and "F2P" is broken; the devs have even admitted that the aircraft weapons are somewhat imbalanced, and a lot of things are flat-out upgrades, not "sidegrades", as had been advertised... It's definitely fun to play, even at 5~15FPS on my apparently well out of date computer (only now playing games from past year or two), but the long-term aspects are in need of a serious improvement. Lots of discussions on their official forums, but all in all, they *really* need to speed up the cert gain or decrease the costs of weapons and upgrades. Remember, 1 weapon may be 1000 certs, but you then have upgrades for that weapon requiring hundreds, if not thousands more. Getting a vehicle with the weapons and upgrades you want, or fully upgrading those weapons, can take well over 20~30k certs... For a lot of people, that's over 100 hours of gameplay, just to maximize one vehicle, although you can shave a lot of time off by going only part way as costs rise exponentially.

I'd definitely recommend spending a couple hours to get a feel for this one, and pay close attention to how fast you gain certs vs. how much you want gear; for most people, the current model will seem ridiculously slow... Though I will say that you can make a lot more certs per hour by being in small squads fighting independently of major battles, or by being on the front line of big battles... never sit around handing out ammo; hand out ammo while also marking targets (big, free XP for spamming one key), get kills, repair MAXes as an engineer, etc... Though be wary that it takes 250xp for 1 cert, meaning 2.5 kills, so if you go *purely* based on kills without the (relatively minor) capture bonuses, that means 250 kills per 1000 certs in a game that takes at *least* 10 seconds just to respawn you.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,532
976
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
VladG said:
Really love the game, but the F2P model is totally broken in my opinion. Some things are insanely expensive to unlock: It costs up to 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)
There's a few ways to "game the system". Stepping into a battle by a large installation (like a tech or bio lab) where victory is imminent will score you beaucoup XP even if your finger never touched the trigger of your weapon; you can also rack up XP by playing a support class (Engineer or Medic) in large skirmishes- dropping an ammo replenisher by a chokepoint brings in the "dings". Or if, like me, the life of a combat pilot is not for you (rolling or doing maneuvers in the cockpit view sets off my vertigo, and even being a gunner can have the same effect) you can still pilot a Galaxy for troop transport, or get the AMS system for the Sunderer, pick a good place to deploy and get experience just for having people spawn there.

VladG said:
There's also performance to take into account... you kinda need a strong rig to play it. On a PC that runs BF3 on high-ultra I had to turn everything to Low in order to barely get 30 FPS in Planetside2. I don't know if there's any more optimization SoE could have done, the game is massive... but it's still quite a high entry barrier.
There still are quite a few optimizations to be done, but there's some workarounds. Setting rendering quality to 95%, turning off ambient occlusion or high-quality shadows, or using a custom .ini file have all been suggested.
 

Tiamat666

Level 80 Legendary Postlord
Dec 4, 2007
1,012
0
0
I've tried it and have found it to be quite fun, but the performance gets very bad as soon as I find myself engaged in anything greater than a small skirmish battle. I don't think it has anything to do with graphics, as turning down graphics quality doesn't help. It's probably either CPU or network limited. I've stopped playing it because playing a shooter with a framerate of 10-16 FPS is not fun. I suppose I'll peek in again sometime in the future when the game has been patched and optimized.
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
I was in the beta. It runs poorly on AMD and ATI setups, and requires a beefy CPU with a high clock speed. It is not optimized particularly well for multiple cores or hyper threading.

However, it does run on this laptop, which is only an i5 3210m @ 2.5GHZ, 6GB RAM, AMD Radeon HD7670m. Not well, but it runs.

Hey, it's f2p, so download it and give it a go to see if it works. If not, nothing lost.
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
VladG said:
There's also performance to take into account... you kinda need a strong rig to play it. On a PC that runs BF3 on high-ultra I had to turn everything to Low in order to barely get 30 FPS in Planetside2. I don't know if there's any more optimization SoE could have done, the game is massive... but it's still quite a high entry barrier.
What? I just have a single 580 card and I run everything but shadows on high with, I dunno, 50-60fps. How is it you can play BF3 on those settings but not this? This game's probably a bit more CPU intensive...

OT:

The one thing you need to know about this game is that you should like seeing purple hexagons.

You'll be seeing a lot of those.

Vanu for Victory. Purple is truth. Twilight Sparkle.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
At first, I hated it. I seriously did. I was ready to scream to the four winds of the internet to people to not play it, I was jealous of people who did enjoy it, then I forced myself into watching the main site's tutorials and try to understand how it all works, by the end of that day, I already captured like 4 to 5 bases and I was playing for 4 hours straight.

This is a game that you need to understand in order to start having fun, if you, like me, dive into it headfirst, you'll be in for a big surprise and you'll die a lot.

Give it a few minutes, even a few hours to understand it, or watch the tutorials (highly recommended), for the price of free, this may be one of the very best games I've ever played this whole year (The Secret World comes first).
 

jFr[e]ak93

New member
Apr 9, 2010
369
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
I've tried it and have found it to be quite fun, but the performance gets very bad as soon as I find myself engaged in anything greater than a small skirmish battle. I don't think it has anything to do with graphics, as turning down graphics quality doesn't help. It's probably either CPU or network limited. I've stopped playing it because playing a shooter with a framerate of 10-16 FPS is not fun. I suppose I'll peek in again sometime in the future when the game has been patched and optimized.
Glad to know I'm not the only one that had mega problems. I'm not exactly using a gaming work horse, but it's still a decent rig. For me, this game is barely playable with more than 5 hostels on screen.

Though that was on the beta, hopefully they fix it up. I really loved it otherwise.
 

bliebblob

Plushy wrangler, die-curious
Sep 9, 2009
719
0
0
+1 for optimization. My GPU is a few places below the recommended one in benchmark charts, but miles above the minimum. And Everything else is above recommended specs. And yet, in large battles I get... wait for it... 3fps. Turning all settings to the absolute minimum didn't help one bit either.
 

Sourman

New member
Mar 25, 2012
24
0
0
I've been playing this for a few days now, and I can say that it is really fun. The massive battles you get into are very exciting, though assaulting a base can be frustrating for the time it takes.

The original article mentions travel time, and it can be somewhat of a bother, but a Flash (quad bike) is cheap and its respawn timer is fairly low (and can be even lower if you invest some certs). I never have problems getting to fights quickly, between Flashes, re-deployment options and Sunderers (the mobile spawing points).

One thing I strongly recommend is joining an outfit (the equivalent of guilds). Having people to play with makes all the difference in PS2, playing solo gets really boring really fast. If you can, join an outfit that has access to voice coms. The game has them built in, but I've only seen one guy using them (and he was just looping Gangam Style over and over again).

I don't really have an opinion on the "is it expensive or not" argument. I'm a cheapskate, so I don't see myself ever paying for anything in this game that I can get for just playing, even if it takes me weeks to get the certs I need. In the meantime, I'll be shooting people and crashing planes into mountains that I swear weren't there a minute ago.
 

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
Neglected to mention the biggest flaw in the game- server stacking. When one continent has an overwhelming advantage in population for one side, it's pointless to even try and fight them. This results in almost everyone on the other sides simply abandoning the battle and going to a different continent where they actually have a small chance of making a difference, making things even MORE one-sided. You probably saw in the video how one of the maps was almost COMPLETELY red? Yeah, that's not because the red so awesome and brilliant and genius, it's because they stacked a ridiculously high percentage of their population onto that continent so everyone else just gave up and let them have it.

That's my big issue with PS2, sometimes it's VERY hard to feel like you're actually DOING anything worthwhile and not just going through a pointless, boring and frustrating cycle of "spawn-die-respawn-die-respawn-die".
 

Toastngravy

New member
Jan 19, 2009
213
0
0
Yeah I don't care.
Planetside 1 was fantastic. This is garbage.
There's absolutely no point, no point what so ever, to progress in the game when you can just pay money to win. And that's the sad truth, it's pay to win and it truly is. Cash shop should not give you an actual gameplay advantage. It can boost exp so you can naturally get things faster, maybe cosmetic stuff. But the moment you just let them buy anything they'd need the game be comes void. Why is that a hard rule to understand?

Granted it's SOE and I've stopped trusting any choice they make by this point..
 

GeeksUtopia

New member
Feb 26, 2011
259
0
0
I like the game so far, I played the game for about an hour, and sure I died....a lot.... but after I got a hold of some of the controls I started to rack up the points. Though I am still confused on the landing for the aerial vehicles.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
Such a shame that I don't have a PC. Hey, can anyone point me to where I can get software to run PC games on a Mac?
 

Kataskopo

New member
Dec 18, 2009
121
0
0
Toastngravy said:
Yeah I don't care.
Planetside 1 was fantastic. This is garbage.
There's absolutely no point, no point what so ever, to progress in the game when you can just pay money to win. And that's the sad truth, it's pay to win and it truly is. Cash shop should not give you an actual gameplay advantage. It can boost exp so you can naturally get things faster, maybe cosmetic stuff. But the moment you just let them buy anything they'd need the game be comes void. Why is that a hard rule to understand?

Granted it's SOE and I've stopped trusting any choice they make by this point..
I still don't see why is that a problem.

You are not paying money to win, you are paying money to get other stuff (which is a lot of money). That doesn't make you instantly lose the game, does it?
As far as I know, there are no insta-kill uber powered weapons, and if they are, a competent group should be able to counter them.

Come on, you even play the game?
 

romanator0

New member
Jun 3, 2011
183
0
0
So is it possible to win matches somehow in this game? I haven't seen anything that says it is and that makes me wonder what the point of capturing bases is if they don't add up to anything.
 

mattaui

New member
Oct 16, 2008
689
0
0
This game is vastly improved by being part of an outfit, since it's simply not cut out for solo play. You might be a really capable individual, but you'll be outnumbered and outgunned by the other side every time unless you're moving with an organized group.

I've never quite understood the complaint, either with PS1 or with PS2, regarding the battles not 'adding up to anything'. You're earning XP and you're unlocking more weapons, and ostensibly you're having fun actually playing the game. You can stay and fight for as long as you want in any given location, or if you're tired of that particular locale, go attack somewhere else. But no, just because you held a given position eight hours ago doesn't mean you're going to hold it when you get back, just like capturing flags or bases in other games doesn't mean they won't reset at some point.

I'd think Planetside 2 would really benefit from the explosion of XP-based shooters over the last decade since Planetside 1 debuted in 2003, and given how busy the servers are, I think Sony really has a hit on their hands with this one.
 

Ftaghn To You Too

New member
Nov 25, 2009
489
0
0
romanator0 said:
So is it possible to win matches somehow in this game? I haven't seen anything that says it is and that makes me wonder what the point of capturing bases is if they don't add up to anything.
Your faction gains advantages for every base held. I think there is also a bonus for taking an entire continent.

Shakura Jolithion said:
Wow comparisons aren't valid; you're actually playing and building up new gear, exploring different stories, areas, etc., and constantly making progress and improving your character throughout. In terms of WoW, PS2 is essentially grinding one mob with no new gear for hours on end, just to get one new weapon, instead of going on varied quests and getting bits and pieces of gear with side improvements in professions.
This outlook makes no sense. While the system is certainly flawed, you are in fact "Actually playing" when you play the game to earn certs. You are fully engaged in the game and can make a contribution to the battle no matter what you're outfitted in. I have yet to see a loadout that is completely unbeatable by a person using a default loadout, at least on the ground level. In WoW, grinding new content is far more of a grind. You not only play the new content over and over and over, but there is no variation or change between iterations of your run. Most of the time, you make no new progress at all while waiting for that rare drop. And seriously, you call playing an FPS "grinding one mob"? Isn't the point of an MMOFPS shooting other players in a massively multiplayer environment? If anything, PS2 is more varied. Playing with other players, making friends, fighting in battles that never play out the same way twice, exploring the rather beautiful scenery. If you play it as a lone wolf, you're not going to have fun. The thing is, if you want to go completely solo you're playing the wrong game.
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,741
0
0
They REALLY do need to make it easier to distinguish between friend and foe.

I've held my fire a few times only to realize I just passed the enemy by, and I've gotten blasted to hell MANY times by my own team in tanks. ...>:\ You do NOT shoot the medic that's on YOUR team. jeez...
 

Toastngravy

New member
Jan 19, 2009
213
0
0
HerpDerpIuseinternet said:
Toastngravy said:
Yeah I don't care.
Planetside 1 was fantastic. This is garbage.
There's absolutely no point, no point what so ever, to progress in the game when you can just pay money to win. And that's the sad truth, it's pay to win and it truly is. Cash shop should not give you an actual gameplay advantage. It can boost exp so you can naturally get things faster, maybe cosmetic stuff. But the moment you just let them buy anything they'd need the game be comes void. Why is that a hard rule to understand?

Granted it's SOE and I've stopped trusting any choice they make by this point..
I still don't see why is that a problem.

You are not paying money to win, you are paying money to get other stuff (which is a lot of money). That doesn't make you instantly lose the game, does it?
As far as I know, there are no insta-kill uber powered weapons, and if they are, a competent group should be able to counter them.

Come on, you even play the game?
You seem to be completely misunderstanding what I'm getting at just to defend the game.
You need to understand, it's OK to like the game; It really is. But denying it's pay to win is just silly. You can either spend way too much time to get a single thing or pay and have an advantage immediately. Nowhere did I state or imply there was uber weapons. I'm stating that starting out with things that are, more or less garbage, and allowing people to either spend the ridiculous amount of time (compared to the first game which wasn't too bad...but it did take some time depending on how often you got kills... And it unlocked for you all around just not per the class)or shell out a few bucks for things that DO give them an immediate and noticeable advantage is a horrible design choice.

I don't care if you have bad tastes in games, I mean people actually like my little pony [Irrelevant discussion but to answer your burning questions yes I watched some and it was just a horrible show] so to each their own. But that doesn't stop it from being a pay to win game.

Anywho..edited out the name in the post so it doesn't auto link him because I'm lazy and don't see anyone understanding the simple idea of giving people a noticeable advantage for money (with the alternative being needlessly long grinding) is bad.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,532
976
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
aegix drakan said:
They REALLY do need to make it easier to distinguish between friend and foe.

I've held my fire a few times only to realize I just passed the enemy by, and I've gotten blasted to hell MANY times by my own team in tanks. ...>:\ You do NOT shoot the medic that's on YOUR team. jeez...
Vehicles can be a bit tricky especially at a distance, but I can give you a quick guide to telling the factions' infantry apart at a glance.

New Conglomerate: Boxy, metallic armor
Terran Republic: Rounded, leather-looking armor
Vanu Soveregnity: Spandex Halo rejects
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
LordMithril said:
VladG said:
Really love the game, but the F2P model is totally broken in my opinion. Some things are insanely expensive to unlock: It costs up to 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)
[snip]
That the whole point isn't it ;)
It takes weeks to get only 1 weapon. Or just 7 dollars.
There's no "just" in paying 7$ for a SINGLE piece of equipment for a SINGLE class. It's like paying that much to unlock a single champion ability in League of Legends.

But think about what you just said. And lets say it takes 1.5 weeks to get those 1000 points.
Now lets take WoW. New patch, new dungeon, new item tier. How long do you think it will take most people to get even close to those items when not playing in a top guild.
And WoW is a completely inadequate comparison. What does PvE item gain have to do with a 100% PvP game?? In WoW you are NOT competing with players who have 2-3 times better gear than you to finish the SAME raid.



Its the same type of discussion as "is a 20 hour game long or short".
If you game whole days its short.. if not then long ;)

No... It's not even similar. The game's only enjoyment IS NOT it's unlock system. Once you unlock everything (as absurd as that is at the current rates.. you'd have to spend hundreds if not thousands of $ and game-hours) you still have a game to play. Arguably a BETTER game since now you have access to the ENTIRE game, not just pieces of it. You won't die over and over in a situation because you still need to grind 30 hours to get the weapon that would give you the ability to deal with said situation for one thing...

My problem with Planetside2 is that it's dangerously close to Pay-To-Win. I'd say it has already crossed the line since the best weapons are NOT sidegrades for the most part, and they are very expensive.
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
Easton Dark said:
VladG said:
There's also performance to take into account... you kinda need a strong rig to play it. On a PC that runs BF3 on high-ultra I had to turn everything to Low in order to barely get 30 FPS in Planetside2. I don't know if there's any more optimization SoE could have done, the game is massive... but it's still quite a high entry barrier.
What? I just have a single 580 card and I run everything but shadows on high with, I dunno, 50-60fps. How is it you can play BF3 on those settings but not this? This game's probably a bit more CPU intensive...

.
What? The game runs fine on an expensive, high-end card? Noway!

As for the answer to that question: Op-ti-meh-zay-shun! Kinda the point I was trying to bring across with the BF3 comparison.
 

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
erttheking said:
Such a shame that I don't have a PC. Hey, can anyone point me to where I can get software to run PC games on a Mac?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Camp_(software)

Install boot camp, install windows, play games.

your mileage may vary though based on what kinda mac you have and the individual games

OT: I am enjoying the game now that I have given it a few hours chance, it starts out a bit harder to compete as a free player but once you get into it, start to upgrade your abilities it is a lot of fun

And the fun only increases as you join an outfit and get into the teamwork aspect
 

Easton Dark

New member
Jan 2, 2011
2,366
0
0
VladG said:
What? The game runs fine on an expensive, high-end card? Noway!

As for the answer to that question: Op-ti-meh-zay-shun! Kinda the point I was trying to bring across with the BF3 comparison.
My baby's expensive and high end? *pets* Compliments are good for its coat.

And uh... optimization. Did Battlefield 3 run as good as it does now at launch?
 

Lawyer105

New member
Apr 15, 2009
599
0
0
I'm going to have to weight in on the pay2win side here. Although you CAN unlock stuff with certs rather than money, that doesn't make it not pay2win. The whole "you're just trading money instead of time" argument is a strawman and a pretty poor one at that.

What it comes down to is that, if you earn 1000 certs and buy an utterly necessary weapon (and there are several of these unless you plan to significantly limit your playstyle), somebody who spent money bought the weapon and spent the 1000 certs on upgrading it (or whatever). So their weapon, passives, health etc. are better than yours. Chances are, with the nice toys, they're probably earning certs faster than you too.

Unless you pay, you simply cannot keep up. That's what it comes down to. It's about as pay2win as it gets and, personally, I'm already seeing falloff in player numbers as the initial spike realises how much they're going to have to spend and/or how little they're going to enjoy the game without paying.

There's a darned good reason that PS1 ran the reserves program. In PS2, unless you pay (and pay regularly - it's only out for a couple of weeks and they've already released several new weapons and upgrades), a f2p player is basically an even more gimped reserve... and the reserves were gimped enough as it was.

/crystalball - I forsee server merges...

On another note, the lack of meta-game is a killer, rendering most actions pretty much pointless. In PS1, the lattice system (which could certainly have been improved) ensured that grabbing and holding bases was meaningful and, by acting strategically you could "own" continents by the simple expedient of taking all the bases and defending the one base that the enemy could attack. It's not exactly a win, but owning all the conts and sanc-locking your enemy was what every faction aspired to.

With the new system, it's actually advantageous to let your enemy have bases, because you can cap them back for a ton of XP and certs. And with nonlockable warpgates on every continent, the entire game is basically an endlessly ongoing game of whack-a-mole with very little to strive towards.

I'll play it. But as it stands, I've got FAR less investment than I had in PS1, so I'll play it less and I certainly won't pay any significant amount into it.
 

Nocturnus

New member
Oct 2, 2007
108
0
0
Pretty good review. There are areas where the game could be touched up, sure, but the overall experience seems solid enough. Some balance tweaks here, some optimizations there, and I think it could keep a solid place in the MMO space for a while.

I'm reading a lot of comments about "Pay to Win" though... not just on this site, but on other sites.

At this point, I can't help but roll my eyes ever so slightly when I read said comments. Every Free to Play game that i've seen released has someone claiming some aspect of it is "Pay to Win". If they sell any kind of gear, even if it's equivalent to what you can earn in game? Pay to win. If it's a game that requires unlocks to equip certain tiers of in-game gear if you're a free member, it's "pay to win". Heck, if they sell XP Pots, it's apparently "Pay to Win" as well. This is if I were to believe the comments on Massively, MMORPG, or even here on the Escapist.

That said, the claims of "Pay to Win" pretty much don't resonate that much with me anymore. Most of the time that I see it, I equate it to "I should get the game entirely for free." As the review said, it doesn't put anyone at any advantage.

Game companies have to make money somehow. They aren't going to give you a game like this out of the goodness of their hearts, and subscriptions are now an antiquated business model.
 

Lawyer105

New member
Apr 15, 2009
599
0
0
Nocturnus said:
Stuff about not pay2win.
Hey there... just a few comments on the unlocks.

If you play a heavy trooper, you get a default, dumb-fire rocket launcher (with rocket drop) to kill vehicles. Except the rockets are so slow that the only people you're going to kill are stationary, camping morons. And probably not even them, because it takes like 5 rockets (over 30 seconds) to get the kill. But you're not going to get ANYBODY that's half awake unless you surprise him with half a squad. And since tanks are cheap and plentiful (and can now be driven by a single dude), there's absolutely no reason to bother. Pull a tank yourself, or quit wasting time and go somewhere else. On the other hand, if you BUY the lock-on rocket launcher, you can make that tank's day miserable with just two dudes and it becomes a lot more doable.

Don't even think of taking on air vehicles with ground based AA. The devs have already said that all ground based AA is only a "deterrent" to air vehicles. Anybody that's not retarded and is making strafing runs at decent speed has nothing to fear from ground based AA (most of which falls into the BUY bracket because of price). The devs say that to kill air you must play air. Fine for real life, stupid in a game. But, oh wait... the A2A rockets are ALSO in the BUY category. Funny thing, that.

Certs are power. Assuming relatively equal skill levels, the dude with the most certs will generally win the fight. If you BUY cert boosters or pay a subscription you get more certs and you get them faster. Nice, huh?

I know they have to incentivise paying, but what they're really doing is de-incentivising anybody that won't or can't pay. That's going to lead to low pops, poor fights, server merges, life-support for a few years, then closed down.

What it's NOT going to lead to is pulling in the BF/COD crowd, so many of the changes they made t(which annoy the PS1 vets) are not going to be useful and will simply result in reducing the hardcore PS1 people that are left.
 

exobook

New member
Sep 28, 2011
258
0
0
erttheking said:
Such a shame that I don't have a PC. Hey, can anyone point me to where I can get software to run PC games on a Mac?
There is a mac version planned at some point in the future. At what point is another matter though.

Personlly I do find the gameplay fun, its just that I'm playing on a laptop with doesn't meet the recommended requirements. The result is that it gets unplayable in the larger battles. As such all I can really do is wonder around the empty parts of the map and attack lone bases.

So unless they optimise things for us low spec players I don't think I can play for much longer.
 

TheBelgianGuy

New member
Aug 29, 2010
365
0
0
I tried to love this game, I really do. But it's just so completely unbalanced and Pay2Win...

The game is just filled with high-level players in their gunships and heavy tanks farming new players. And you know what? You can't deal with them, ever, because they have the best weapons available and you've got shit.

The heavy gets a dumb-fire missile launcher that needs 6 direct hits to kill a light tank. Oh, and did you know one of the factions has hovering Heavy tanks that can strafe, evading these missiles with no effort whatsoever?

Liberators are gunships that hover 800m up in the air and kill everything that moves. With thermal or IR vision upgrade, nothing is safe for them. AA-turets you find in bases? Completely useless. You'll get killed in 3 seconds if a Liberator shoots at you, and you need 3-4 magazines to kill him if you have 100% accuracy.

And don't even try doing these things as a new player. You'll get mauled in seconds. Stock vehicles suck completely. You'll lose every tank battle because you need to place 7-8 hits on the enemy, and he kills you in 3.
You can't pilot the aircraft, because all you get are shitty stock machineguns that are very inaccurate and deal nearly no damage. And any higher lvl player, or a pay2winner can just effortlessly shoot you down with guided or unguided rockets.


This is what the game is about: Battlerank 30-40 players in Magriders or Liberators standing around your spawnpoint farming infantry for 100 certifications (the ingame currency) / hour.
If you're not willing to fork in several dollars/euro's for all the fancy equipment, your sole purpose in this game is to act as easy points for those who do.

Worst. MMO. Ever.
 

xDarc

New member
Feb 19, 2009
1,333
0
0
TheBelgianGuy said:
Worst. MMO. Ever.
I don't know about "ever," but I played the first one in 2003 for 3-4 years. I couldn't stand PS 2 beta for more than 3-4 weeks. I was so excited when I found about the sequel, and then so disappointed that it was nothing like the original. Even if I were still a young 20 something with little responsibility and lots of free time I wouldn't bother.

Can you believe that in their EverQuest glory days SoE was like the #2 Game Publisher in the US? They've fallen from grace for a reason, they cannot deliver and they cannot be trusted to do the right thing; they need to just go under and be gone already.
 

TwentyPercentCooler

New member
Jul 28, 2012
24
0
0
Played the beta of this and enjoyed it a bit, even though I'm not much of an FPS person. I'm interested to see where it goes, though. After a bit of optimization to make it run a little faster than a turtle in a pool of Jell-o, and some balancing and tweaks, it could turn out to be a heck of a fun experience.

I'm not sure if SoE is that smart, though. By the time they get around to doing all of this, the game will probably be dead because the supply of new players will dry up after the word gets out that the player is mostly useless without shelling out money.
 

TheBelgianGuy

New member
Aug 29, 2010
365
0
0
xDarc said:
TheBelgianGuy said:
Worst. MMO. Ever.
I don't know about "ever,"
Granted, I haven't played every MMO to ever come out so that's hardly a fair thing to say from my part :p

I just really wish it was a better game, because the concept is amazing.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,705
1,055
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
VladG said:
Really love the game, but the F2P model is totally broken in my opinion. Some things are insanely expensive to unlock: It costs up to 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)

And being competitive with the default load-out... No. Just No. Some classes can pull it off - the infiltrator or the medic and engineer... other classes not so much. The default Rocket Launcher on the Heavy for example is next to useless on anything than a close ground vehicle... and anything with a lock-on is 7$/1000 cert points.


Same goes for Air vehicles - the air superiority fighters equiped with default auto cannons are next to useless when up against air superiority fighters equipped with rockets (both in the guided an unguided variety).

Gunboats with default weapons are pretty much only fit to carry 3 people from a to b, while a gunboat with a certain load-out can wreak devastation on a massive scale. Again, a very expensive load-out.


If you want to be effective you have to either grind for literally weeks of game time or dish out a ton of cash.

There's also performance to take into account... you kinda need a strong rig to play it. On a PC that runs BF3 on high-ultra I had to turn everything to Low in order to barely get 30 FPS in Planetside2. I don't know if there's any more optimization SoE could have done, the game is massive... but it's still quite a high entry barrier.
Your wrong about the default rocket launcher, its actually really good but tanks have varying armor so if you shoot them from the front then you will do almost no damage but a rear shot will take over half their hp, it takes some practice but once you get good with it, takes are less threatening.

Aircraft are all about getting behind your enemy, its not really that hard to dodge a guided missile and the flare upgrade isn't that expensive, I think its only 100 points. Really if you get good at piloting, its not too hard to stick behind an enemy aircraft and down it with the default gun.
 

The_Emperor

New member
Mar 18, 2010
347
0
0
TheBelgianGuy said:
I tried to love this game, I really do. But it's just so completely unbalanced and Pay2Win...

The game is just filled with high-level players in their gunships and heavy tanks farming new players. And you know what? You can't deal with them, ever, because they have the best weapons available and you've got shit.

The heavy gets a dumb-fire missile launcher that needs 6 direct hits to kill a light tank. Oh, and did you know one of the factions has hovering Heavy tanks that can strafe, evading these missiles with no effort whatsoever?

Liberators are gunships that hover 800m up in the air and kill everything that moves. With thermal or IR vision upgrade, nothing is safe for them. AA-turets you find in bases? Completely useless. You'll get killed in 3 seconds if a Liberator shoots at you, and you need 3-4 magazines to kill him if you have 100% accuracy.

And don't even try doing these things as a new player. You'll get mauled in seconds. Stock vehicles suck completely. You'll lose every tank battle because you need to place 7-8 hits on the enemy, and he kills you in 3.
You can't pilot the aircraft, because all you get are shitty stock machineguns that are very inaccurate and deal nearly no damage. And any higher lvl player, or a pay2winner can just effortlessly shoot you down with guided or unguided rockets.


This is what the game is about: Battlerank 30-40 players in Magriders or Liberators standing around your spawnpoint farming infantry for 100 certifications (the ingame currency) / hour.
If you're not willing to fork in several dollars/euro's for all the fancy equipment, your sole purpose in this game is to act as easy points for those who do.

Worst. MMO. Ever.
If you shoot tanks in the back they go down quicker, mags can drift but dont have a rotating turret so are easliy flanked.

Roll with a commander who will call AA max when there is a lot of air, air to ground is also getting rebalanced in next patch, 1 flak cannon is not supposed to be able to kill a lib it would be way op and if you are a good shot it takes 2 or 3 clips.

The stock tank is fine, I have had no issues with it a regularly blow mosquitos out of the air in 1 shot with vanguard.

you can unlock an aa machine gun for 250 certs which might take a few days to a week to get depending on how good you are.
7 day 50% xp boost is like £5 maybe so yeah, you also gain certs when you are offline btw.

buying dumbfire rockets and zephyr cannons doesnt mean you immediately win as long as you have an organised response you can take a continent with a whole army of randoms. plus I have little trouble with the rocket launcher hitting things far away.

its not so much pay to win as team2win

plus you can grind it mostly completely for free if you so wish. its a free game, a huge free game with nice devs who listen etc. tbh it kinda sounds like you are butthurt because you died a lot.

plus double xp weekend so double certs.
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
wtf are you talking about? this is in no way familiar to battlefield 3 or cod and ive played bf3 since launch this is nothing like it. wtf are yoyu actually talking about? it takes minuites to get anywhere not ages takes seconds for an air veichicle and you shouldnt need to run much anyway
 

WolfLordAndy

New member
Sep 19, 2008
776
0
0
All the pay to win people are being a bit over the top I think, there are a few options that are straight upgrades, i.e. an extra ability, weapon or slotted item where you had nothing before (such as flairs, bonus armour, c4, etc) but for the most part guns are all variations, giving trade off in range/firepower/etc.

Guided rockets are getting a nerf this patch that means they HAVE to lock on in order to fire, thus making them alot less useful close up (much like BF3 between dumbfire or Laser lock on rockets).

Everyone also seems to forget that PS1 you had to buy the game, the expansion (if you wanted cave weapons/BFRs) and a monthy subsciption fee. Considering how long I plan to play Planetside 2 I recon I'll be hard pushed to spend as much as I did in sub fees to PS1.

SnowBurst said:
wtf are you talking about? this is in no way familiar to battlefield 3 or cod and ive played bf3 since launch this is nothing like it. wtf are yoyu actually talking about? it takes minuites to get anywhere not ages takes seconds for an air veichicle and you shouldnt need to run much anyway
BF3 is the closest current game to PS2. But you're looking at 64 man Capian border type maps, and that would just be the area of a single base. In PS2 if the fight happens to be on the far side of the contenent, you can expect at least a 5minute fly (if you don't bump into the one roaming enemy fighter on your way).

Fortunately when they brought the AMS-Sunderer back in they made it so usually you have spawn points, plus they made instant action actually work properly now.
 

elilupe

New member
Jun 1, 2009
533
0
0
I'm glad this game came out well, and I've been playing it since Beta, but I just can't overcome the feeling that something is missing in this game that the original had. Something that made me love the original Planetside almost more than any other game is not present in Planetside 2, and I just can't place it. Maybe, since it's F2P, the sense of...community that Planetside 1 had is gone? I'm not sure. Are there any other original Planetside veterans that can help me figure this out?
 

shintakie10

New member
Sep 3, 2008
1,342
0
0
The complete lack of any tutorial and the ridiculous idea to hotdrop you into a random location on the map without even lettin you pick a class at the start was really really obnoxious.

I had to resist the urge to uninstall the game right after because of how utterly stupid that idea was.

I got over it though and tried it out. Its not bad. Default loadouts for almost all classes are complete balls (an engineer without mines is kinda useless outside of bein a mobile ammo dispenser while a stock heavy cant kill a tank worth garbage) and the acquisition rate for free players is atrocious at best, but its a fun little time waster...sometimes.

The problem I've been havin is that its just...dead. The 3 servers I've been on one faction controls 90% of 1 continent. Another faction controls 90% of the second continent. The final continent is kinda sorta fought over. You can't actually make any headway on the fully controlled continents until the entire group leaves, at which point they just take over another continent and you take stuff unopposed.

Its really strange too. The first week it was crazy. I remember desperate fights at really weird places like Commanders Rest where me and my TR buddies were barely holdin on against an assault from the purple people eaters. Just when we're about to get overrun, blam! Blue man group shows up and blasts Venu from behind which gives us a moment to breath. Except now we're in a full on 3 way. In fact, my favorite battle of all time was for some random minin outpost near the middle. There had to have been 600 people total between the 3 factions fightin for this tiny plot of dirt that didn't even give a bonus. It lasted 2 hours.

There hasn't been a fight like that in the last few days now.
 

SnowBurst

New member
Jul 2, 2012
276
0
0
it takes me less then a couple of mins in a mossie to get from tr base to vanu base... and its nothing at all like bf3 bf3 is 1)tiny 2)not the same objective (yes you cap a few points but thats it) bf3 n cod are similar ps2 is nothing like them
 

Matthi205

New member
Mar 8, 2012
248
0
0
GeeksUtopia said:
I like the game so far, I played the game for about an hour, and sure I died....a lot.... but after I got a hold of some of the controls I started to rack up the points. Though I am still confused on the landing for the aerial vehicles.
Same thing here, though I'm playing since beta and got to die a lot more before launch ;) .
Aerial vehicles:
CTRL - vertical thrusters off (you go down)
SPACE - vertical thrusters on (you go up)
I can PM you with instructions how to fly with the keyboard only if you want.

It's not really Pay to win. Some of the weapons are really straight upgrades to the normal ones (rocketpods & Heavy Assault Launchers), but you can do well with the normal ones too. A patch next week will rework at least the rocket pods, if not Anti-Air as a whole, which is an indicator it's being worked on.
 

GeeksUtopia

New member
Feb 26, 2011
259
0
0
Matthi205 said:
GeeksUtopia said:
I like the game so far, I played the game for about an hour, and sure I died....a lot.... but after I got a hold of some of the controls I started to rack up the points. Though I am still confused on the landing for the aerial vehicles.
Same thing here, though I'm playing since beta and got to die a lot more before launch ;) .
Aerial vehicles:
CTRL - vertical thrusters off (you go down)
SPACE - vertical thrusters on (you go up)
I can PM you with instructions how to fly with the keyboard only if you want.

It's not really Pay to win. Some of the weapons are really straight upgrades to the normal ones (rocketpods & Heavy Assault Launchers), but you can do well with the normal ones too. A patch next week will rework at least the rocket pods, if not Anti-Air as a whole, which is an indicator it's being worked on.
Which army are you fighting for? (Terran Republic on the Jaegar server)
 

Matthi205

New member
Mar 8, 2012
248
0
0
GeeksUtopia said:
-snip-
Which army are you fighting for? (Terran Republic on the Jaegar server)
Vanu on Mallory. I've also played NC on Miller and Mattherson, and TR on LithCorp. NC is a joke and completely contrary to my playstyle, but VS and TR are factions I can get along with vehicle and gun wise.
 

weirdee

Swamp Weather Balloon Gas
Apr 11, 2011
2,634
0
0
tanks are actually pretty easy to fight if you don't do something dumb like try to attack them on an open field

a tank driver has limited visibility and range of motion at any particular moment, so if you use your ability to get around on foot behind cover, you can get several good shots in on a tank and if you move as soon as you fire, they won't be able to respond fast enough for them to get a direct hit. remember that a tank has to face the direction that they're firing, so in the half second it takes for the main gun to turn towards you, you can already be hustling to the next spot

also, since the main gun can't fire continuously, if they don't have the secondary gunner, you can time your shots to occur between their firing cycle

speaking of which, without a main gunner, they can't see behind the vehicle, so if you take a flanking shot, it'll require them to turn around in order to find you

in addition, since tanks have limited ammo capacity, they'll have to retreat to resupply eventually, even if they are dominating the area

i also recommend investing in the antitank grenades when you can, since the normal ones don't really do jack to armor
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Lawyer105 said:
I'm going to have to weight in on the pay2win side here. Although you CAN unlock stuff with certs rather than money, that doesn't make it not pay2win. The whole "you're just trading money instead of time" argument is a strawman and a pretty poor one at that.

What it comes down to is that, if you earn 1000 certs and buy an utterly necessary weapon (and there are several of these unless you plan to significantly limit your playstyle), somebody who spent money bought the weapon and spent the 1000 certs on upgrading it (or whatever). So their weapon, passives, health etc. are better than yours. Chances are, with the nice toys, they're probably earning certs faster than you too.

Unless you pay, you simply cannot keep up. That's what it comes down to. It's about as pay2win as it gets and, personally, I'm already seeing falloff in player numbers as the initial spike realises how much they're going to have to spend and/or how little they're going to enjoy the game without paying.

There's a darned good reason that PS1 ran the reserves program. In PS2, unless you pay (and pay regularly - it's only out for a couple of weeks and they've already released several new weapons and upgrades), a f2p player is basically an even more gimped reserve... and the reserves were gimped enough as it was.

/crystalball - I forsee server merges...

On another note, the lack of meta-game is a killer, rendering most actions pretty much pointless. In PS1, the lattice system (which could certainly have been improved) ensured that grabbing and holding bases was meaningful and, by acting strategically you could "own" continents by the simple expedient of taking all the bases and defending the one base that the enemy could attack. It's not exactly a win, but owning all the conts and sanc-locking your enemy was what every faction aspired to.

With the new system, it's actually advantageous to let your enemy have bases, because you can cap them back for a ton of XP and certs. And with nonlockable warpgates on every continent, the entire game is basically an endlessly ongoing game of whack-a-mole with very little to strive towards.

I'll play it. But as it stands, I've got FAR less investment than I had in PS1, so I'll play it less and I certainly won't pay any significant amount into it.
*Actually played the game for more than 5 minutes*

I havent spend one dollar and I usually range between a 2-1 3-1 KD. And thats just starting out and not having played an FPS for a year. My friend whom have paid about 60dollars on various boosters and passive-bonuses gets a 1-1 on a good day. Like all FPS's this game is skill-first bonuses later. And Pay-to-win suggests you pay and then automatically win. The boosters on their own is an advantage, if they took the guns away by your logic. It'd still be Play 2 Win. Because they'd gain the certs much faster, thereby getting the upgraded before you did and gain an advantage.

If you are really dying to not die all the time, drop a hundred infantry points on a Max suit. Seriously, then replace that stupid grenade-launcher with the AA-gun and have some fun gunning down those stupid ass fighter-jets. Rack up the points and scores.

Alternatively find an engineer and set up a turret on a good vantage point or in a nice ambush-position. If you make sure behind you is a wall and infront of you is a decent clear sight over somewhere enemies would have to go through (Plenty of such places) Getting kills should also be incredibly easy.

Actually kills for me has been so easy, that I've just started giving away my initial 'secrets' and moving on to playing Heavy Assault. Because that's pretty much where the fun is.

Btw, wanna know the one thing I upgraded? Spawnpoint on the Sunderer. Yep, no passive bonuses for myself. No extra guns. The ability for teammates all over the continent to respawn on me. Because this is a teamplaying game, you dont go lone wolf. And you dont go lone wolf and then cry about others killing you first.

That just tires a (now) experienced FPS player out immensely.

Mind you, I have been dropping Planetside 2 time in favor of Dark Souls. But it is still a very good game, and for the price of 0 dollars? I'd be willing to give it 5 stars. Worth everyones time, certainly worth the no money spent.

Now excuse me while I go headshot some snipers with my sidearm. *Dances away*

-what, no im most certainly not using aimbot-

...

-dont judge me!-

Seriously though, I play with a team of 15-30 people whom all pretty much run around doing their own thing. Everyone varies in skill, but theese forums? First time I've heard anyone whine about people whom pay or subscribe gaining an unfair advantage. Frankly it just sounds like an excuse. Like...

*OH I DIED, MUST BE BECAUSE HE HAD A BETTER GUN*

instead

*OH I DIED, MUST HAVE BEEN BECAUSE HE SAW ME FIRST OR HAD A GUN BETTER DESIGNED TO KILL THE SPECIFIC VEHICLE I WAS IN*

yousee, contrary to belief. Theres a difference between factions. Terra Vehicles are much better at infantrykilling than the Neo-Conglamorate. And those guys have an almost insta-kill vehicle shot attatched to their tank. If you dont find the weapons on a certain faction to suit you, instead of whining about the people using thousands of certs to buy weapons instantly available from the getgo of another faction... Just give the other faction a try. Maybe the weapon doesnt even suit your playstyle.
 

Matthi205

New member
Mar 8, 2012
248
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
*OH I DIED, MUST HAVE BEEN BECAUSE HE SAW ME FIRST OR HAD A GUN BETTER DESIGNED TO KILL THE SPECIFIC VEHICLE I WAS IN*

yousee, contrary to belief. Theres a difference between factions. Terra Vehicles are much better at infantrykilling than the Neo-Conglamorate. And those guys have an almost insta-kill vehicle shot attatched to their tank. If you dont find the weapons on a certain faction to suit you, instead of whining about the people using thousands of certs to buy weapons instantly available from the getgo of another faction... Just give the other faction a try. Maybe the weapon doesnt even suit your playstyle.
I found out that exactly that is true.

Here's a quick overview of the three factions and their differences:

Vanu Sovereignty (VS) have weapons with very little to no recoil, nearly no bullet drop (pewpew laser-ish bullets -> might just be supercooled projectiles below 70K) and OK armor. The VS have a hover tank that can, with upgrades, glide over a lot of barriers, and, with the Magburner ability, glide over walls in certain circumstances (Magburner speeds the Magrider up to ~120kph). The Magrider is called the "Magmower" by infantry for a reason.

New Conglomerate (NC) are supposed to be slow, but hit hard... I don't realy know if this holds ANY truth, seeing as the Gauss SAW (just an example) has a 100 bullet clip and really bad recoil. They have the Vanguard tank, the one most closely resembling a modern tank like the Leopard 2A6 or M1A2 Abrams.It has a very good cannon that does a ot of damage, but it's slow, especially when going uphill.

Terran Republic (TR) have fast-firing guns that do low damage per bullet and are really good at killing infantry (especially in close quarters combat - CQC), as are their tanks. They lack good tanks (the Prowler is a joke against the Vanguard or the Magrider), but make up for it with the Mosquito (their Air superiority fighter). The Prowler is nearly as fast as the Lightning, but it has two turrets, so it can shoot two shots in quick succession.
 

Lawyer105

New member
Apr 15, 2009
599
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
*Actually played the game for more than 5 minutes*
I've got about 40 hours in PS2 now (and it's not going to get any higher 'cause I've uninstalled). And I played about, I dunno... 5 years in PS1. I know Planetside and how it works.

Nikolaz72 said:
I havent spend one dollar and I usually range between a 2-1 3-1 KD. And thats just starting out and not having played an FPS for a year. My friend whom have paid about 60dollars on various boosters and passive-bonuses gets a 1-1 on a good day. Like all FPS's this game is skill-first bonuses later. And Pay-to-win suggests you pay and then automatically win. The boosters on their own is an advantage, if they took the guns away by your logic. It'd still be Play 2 Win. Because they'd gain the certs much faster, thereby getting the upgraded before you did and gain an advantage.
If you're getting 2-1 or 3-1 averages then either:
a) you're camping infantry in a tank or similar tactic; or
b) you massively outskill the people you're playing against.

If a), your argument is worthless. Camping stupid infantry in a tank should get you better than 3-1 K/D, and it also indicates that you're not comparing like with like. If b), at no point did I ever say that skill was not a factor. But it's also absolutely clear that, where two equally skilled people square off, the one who's paying money is going to come out on top, pretty much all the time. If spending real money gets you an ingame advantage, then the game is P2W almost by definition. I dunno what planet you live on where buying ingame advantages is NOT P2W, but it ain't this one.

Nikolaz72 said:
If you are really dying to not die all the time, drop a hundred infantry points on a Max suit. Seriously, then replace that stupid grenade-launcher with the AA-gun and have some fun gunning down those stupid ass fighter-jets. Rack up the points and scores.
At this point, I'm gonna call BS on your claimed "experience". It's well documented (and the devs have even admitted) that ground based AA is only meant as a deterrent to air. It's not actually designed to kill them, only frighten them off. And with only one of the two MAX AA arms, if you're getting all those kills either a) you live in happy-happy land where your magical server is only populated by complete retards; or b) you're flat out lying in some sort of desperate attempt to protect your new epeen enhancer from criticism.

Nikolaz72 said:
Alternatively find an engineer and set up a turret on a good vantage point or in a nice ambush-position. If you make sure behind you is a wall and infront of you is a decent clear sight over somewhere enemies would have to go through (Plenty of such places) Getting kills should also be incredibly easy.
Sure... for the 2 minutes it takes you to grieflock from all the morons that think running in front of a cannon is a good survival strategy.

Nikolaz72 said:
Actually kills for me has been so easy, that I've just started giving away my initial 'secrets' and moving on to playing Heavy Assault. Because that's pretty much where the fun is.
Epeen, much? I'm not even going to dignify this with serious response.

Nikolaz72 said:
*OH I DIED, MUST BE BECAUSE HE HAD A BETTER GUN*

instead

*OH I DIED, MUST HAVE BEEN BECAUSE HE SAW ME FIRST OR HAD A GUN BETTER DESIGNED TO KILL THE SPECIFIC VEHICLE I WAS IN*

yousee, contrary to belief. Theres a difference between factions. Terra Vehicles are much better at infantrykilling than the Neo-Conglamorate. And those guys have an almost insta-kill vehicle shot attatched to their tank. If you dont find the weapons on a certain faction to suit you, instead of whining about the people using thousands of certs to buy weapons instantly available from the getgo of another faction... Just give the other faction a try. Maybe the weapon doesnt even suit your playstyle.
I actually play all three factions. Well, played, because the lack of anything resembling real persistence (like PS1 had) makes the game no more interesting than BF3.

Also... bad strawman is bad. I'm well aware that going up against a LA shotty at close-range, with an infil pistol is usually a form of suicide. Believe it or not, I'm smart enough to have realised that different classes and weapons have different roles, and if you play out-of-role, dying is something you should expect.

I'm also well aware of the fact that, unless you spend money, you will always be outclassed in almost every role, almost all the time. I've provided plenty of examples in my previous posts, all of which you've ignored. I'm going to stick with my assumption that you're just fanboi-defending this game until you actually prove otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned, PS2 fails to be Planetside. It's not a bad large-scale BF-wannabe, nor is it a bad game. But it's not Planetside. And it's most definitely P2W. Sure, the devs need to get their money back, but they're going about it wrong. I'd far rather they had a decent subscription model like PS1, or that micro-transactions were actually micro, or that they'd implemented a proper F2P model which wasn't P2W. But they haven't so, as far as I'm concerned, PS2 is a failure.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
People in this thread are mischaracterising how PS2's store system affects game balance.

Unlocks in PS2 are divided into those that can be purchased only with certs and those that can be purchased with certs or with real-world currency. Certs are obtained by gaining experience through playing the game. This division is intentional.

Unlocks that are straight, statistical upgrades - for example, a suit upgrade that gives 5% extra health or 2% faster reload speed - can only be purchased with certs. You can only get these upgrades by playing the game, gaining certs, and unlocking them. The better you are at the game, the faster you will gain certs, and the faster you can gain these direct upgrades.

The unlocks that can be purchased with real-world currency are not direct upgrades. They are sidegrades from the default equipment that you start with. These sidegrades support alternate playstyles that are more specialised than the default loadout. In that respect, they're more comparable to the weapon unlocks in TF2 than anything else.

For example, the default rocket launcher that the Heavy Assault class starts with shoots a dumb-fire, high-damage rocket with a large blast radius. It's equally good at killing infantry and vehicles, but you have to aim it. There are two alternate rocket launchers, unlockable with cash, that have a lock-on function. One locks on to vehicles, and the other locks onto aircraft. People in this thread seem to perceive the lock-on ability as a direct upgrade, but they're not clarifying that a) the lock-on rocket launchers deal much less damage than the dumb-fire rocket launcher, and b) the dumb-fire has a larger blast radius. It's actually a sidegrade; you give up power for precision, and the ability to better tackle vehicles and aircraft respectively.

What the cash unlocks in PS2 add is, essentially, variety in playstyle. For example, you have to unlock shotguns with certs or cash; no class starts with a shotgun by default. This is because a shotgun is a specialist weapon, and the default weapons are designed to be as generalist as possible. To the guy who's being wiped out by a shotgun-wielding heavy assault during a siege, this seems like pay-to-win, but the fact is that the shotgun guy paid money to specialise. His shotgun is useless outside of close quarters; it's not a direct upgrade in the same way that a hit point increase would be. And if he's a terrible player, you can still kill him fairly easily. He still has to aim the shotgun, after all.

There are a few exceptions that I should note.
- Aircraft secondary weapons - A2G and A2A missile launchers - are a cash unlock; this would be a sidegrade if the default aircraft secondary wasn't an almost-useless fuel tank that increases afterburner speed. The two missile launchers are simply vastly more useful than they were perhaps intended to be, which was a mistake by the dev team.
- Similarly, I sympathise with anyone who is trying to kill a fighter with a dumb-fire rocket launcher - it's very difficult, and I'd prefer to see a pseudo-lock-on system for the default rocket launcher, unlockable with certs. That said, a lot of bad pilots think they can hover stationary and shoot at the helpless infantry, which makes it terrible easy to instagib them.
- The game does sell experience boosters, which lead to faster cert gain, which leads to faster upgrades. This is sorta pay-to-win, but in a roundabout way - the guy still won't get the upgrade he wants very quickly, and if he plays badly he still won't get certs very quickly. He still has to kill people, after all.
- The grind in this game is harsh. Cert gain is pretty slow, and when you're new you'll dump certs on stuff that in retrospect wasn't very useful. Weapon prices vary from 100 to 1000 certs and new players will usually get about 15-30 certs per hour if they're playing competently. With time you can maximise your cert gain, but for a new player it's very daunting, and I'd like to see the PS2 devs up the cert gain in future.

Some specific rebuttals:

-Someone said that the default rocket launcher takes 6 shots to kill a light tank. This is only partly true; vehicles have different armour at different facings, so it may take 6 shots to the front, but only 2 or 3 to the back. This rewards skilled use of the rocket launcher to aim at specific parts of the tank.
-Someone mentioned Liberators with infrared bombing them from high altitudes. Infrared is a cert-only unlock with a limited range. You can't see anything with it from more than about 300 metres up, so you were either being bombed from a lower altitude than you thought or they weren't using IR. It's also not relevant for any pay-to-win discussion, because anyone can spawn a Liberator with the default ground-attack weapon, which is a very effective quadruple chain-gun, and upgrade it with infrared using cert points, and do the exact same thing that those players were doing without spending any money.
- If you can't kill someone with the default fighter primary you are not very good at dogfighting. Admittedly, plane controls are difficult to get a handle on, so you should spend at least a few hours at the warpgate practicing take-off and landing.

But in general, saying Planetside 2 is pay-to-win is a gross misrepresentation. You can pay money to unlock variant weapons that are more effective in certain situations, but you can't pay to gain an overall advantage over any free player. People are confusing "paying money to specialise" with "paying money to win the game." There's no supergun that kills players in one hit and is reloaded by buying Doritos or something.
 

Lawyer105

New member
Apr 15, 2009
599
0
0
bastardofmelbourne said:
Part of the problem comes from the lack of consistency in defining "pay to win". For me, any game where you can purchase ingame advantages with RL cash is P2W, especially where the more cash you spend, the greater your advantage is.

Your argument that "most good stuff comes from certs, not cash" is essentially flawed, because anybody that's spending cash on boosters is going to have significantly more certs that somebody that doesn't... even if that person HAS spent money on the game. You derive direct, ingame power from spending RL cash. When you add in the fact that you can purchase weapons as well (a significant cert-drain for F2Pers), P2P people are even further ahead.

As for the suggestion that money unlocks versatility, you're basically correct, and you've completely ignored the fact that Planetside is ALL ABOUT versatility. No matter your playstyle, you need the ability to vary it to succeed in PS. If you're primarily a skirmisher, you'll need to be playing Air, Infil, LA, and a bit of Engy. If you're primarily a brawler, you'll need to be playing Armor, Heavy Assault, Medics and MAXes. If you primarily play support, you'll need Sundies, Galaxies, Medics and Engies.

They've designed the game so that no one playstyle / class / vehicle / weapon etc. is appropriate for all situations. But since you can be in any situation at the drop of a hat, and especially considering the history of Planetside, you're expected to switch out to appropriate playstyles (or to not whine when you get killed by those who did). Again, it comes down to, if you don't pay, at least half your game-time is going to be spent as cannon fodder for those who did.

Maybe your definition of P2W isn't met by PS2... but the most common definitions I've seen (and my own) are. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.
 

bastardofmelbourne

New member
Dec 11, 2012
1,038
0
0
I think I mentioned this already but the closest comparison to PS2's system is actually Team Fortress 2. In TF2, the alternative class weapons are mostly sidegrades, and you can gain them either by a time investment or by purchasing them from Mann Co.

That's why I think it's so weird that this thread is full of people complaining about PS2 being pay-to-win, because PS2's system shares a lot of important characteristics with TF2, and I've never heard anyone complaining about TF2 being pay-to-win. In TF2, you either directly purchase a weapon that is basically a sidegrade, or you put in a time investment and get it eventually through achievements or random drops. In PS2, you either directly purchase a weapon that is basically a sidegrade, or you put in a time investment and buy it with certs.

I think the biggest difference between the two systems is that the grind in PS2 is much steeper, which is a valid criticism, but not the criticism that's being made here.

Maybe your definition of P2W isn't met by PS2... but the most common definitions I've seen (and my own) are. Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.
I'm sorry; I wasn't aware I was responding to representative of the International Gaming Slang Dictionary Committee.

Poor attempts at sarcasm aside, you have defined pay-to-win as system where you purchase in-game advantages with real-life cash. Because you played the semantics card almost immediately, I can point out that you haven't defined what 'advantage" means without feeling like a pedant. You later say "direct, ingame power," so I'll assume that's what you mean by "advantage." So what advantage, or direct in-game power, do we get by spending cash in PS2?

Cash purchases in PS2 buy you three things:

- specialised weapon unlocks that, with a few exceptions, are basically sidegrades of the default equipment;
- cosmetic items, and;
- boosters.

Only the boosters really grant "direct, ingame power." They confer a static percentage increase in experience gain. I mentioned boosters as being problematic in my first post, and they kinda are, but really only at a conceptual level. The fact is that a 50% experience increase, which sounds like a lot, will still not help you if you're bad at the game. You still have to shoot people, heal people, repair things - all the kind of stuff you're expected to do as you play the game. You have an advantage, but it's such a small advantage I honestly don't think it's a big deal. It's definitely not a big enough deal to pop your monocle over.

Even then, I can get a +50% experience bonus on a kill pretty easily - the experience modifiers applied to kills, such as headshots and killstreak bonuses, add up to 50% pretty quickly. So if you're bad at the game, the boost doesn't benefit you, and if you're good at the game, you don't really need the boost. And if you're good at the game and you bought the boost, you're not really paying to win because you're good at the game and were winning anyway.

Aside from boosts, there is really nothing you can purchase in the store that fits your definition of an advantage. I think you then argue that the versatility afforded by weapon unlocks itself is an advantage, but I thought about this, and that's actually a pretty silly statement. The weapon unlocks are specialisations. The default loadout is a generalist, and it's more versatile than a loadout full of specialised unlocks geared towards a certain scenario. If you want to be versatile, keep the default weapons - they're designed to be good against everything.

Unless you were arguing that the ability to change loadouts into something different gives the needed versatility. I grant that if someone hypothetically unlocked every weapon by spending an incredibly generous amount of cash, they could theoretically be prepared for every situation, if they were psychic and stood next to a Sunderer the entire time so that they could constantly switch loadouts at will. No-one actually plays the game that way. They pick a loadout they like and then they run with it 90% of the time. Not to mention that they've probably invested their certs in one class or weapon, buying upgrades you can't get with money. This hypothetical pay-to-win everyman specialist you're talking about won't have enough certs to upgrade the guns he's bought. He won't even have enough certs to upgrade one class.

And the whole exercise would be pretty unnecessary, because in PS2 a medic can fulfill his basic function - healing people - totally independent of cash purchases, which do not affect his healing ability. I mean, the versatility granted by the weapon unlocks is intended to fit a personal playstyle - it doesn't influence the basic function of your class, which is what people are interested in when they plan ops. They don't say to Jimmy the Medic "Make sure you equip that assault rifle with half as many bullets but less bullet drop for this next skirmish." They say to Jimmy, "Make sure you heal people."

So, yeah. I appreciate you informing me that I'm wrong on this one, but I still think that calling PS2 pay-to-win drastically misrepresents how the game works. It essentially copies TF2's system, with the addition of booster purchases that have a very minimal effect on cert gain in comparison to a person's individual skill level (and which are actually useless if you don't gain experience in the first place.) The weapons are sidegrades; they confer advantages and disadvantages in a way intended to cater to personal whims, and not to statistical superiority.

If you think this kind of system is pay-to-win, there is really no kind of cash shop system that wouldn't be pay-to-win. They'd just have to do something crazy, like make every weapon available to everyone, no cash required, based on time investment and skill level.

Wait, wait. They did that already.
 

Lawyer105

New member
Apr 15, 2009
599
0
0
bastardofmelbourne said:
I think I mentioned this already but the closest comparison to PS2's system is actually Team Fortress 2. In TF2, the alternative class weapons are mostly sidegrades, and you can gain them either by a time investment or by purchasing them from Mann Co.

That's why I think it's so weird that this thread is full of people complaining about PS2 being pay-to-win, because PS2's system shares a lot of important characteristics with TF2, and I've never heard anyone complaining about TF2 being pay-to-win. In TF2, you either directly purchase a weapon that is basically a sidegrade, or you put in a time investment and get it eventually through achievements or random drops. In PS2, you either directly purchase a weapon that is basically a sidegrade, or you put in a time investment and buy it with certs.
The difference is that a weapon is fixed. The difference is that, UNLIKE Team Fortress 2, a person that earns 1000 certs and buys a sidegrade now has two unbonused weapons, whereas a person who buys the item with cash spends his 1000 certs on upgrading one or both of those weapons and is now measurably ahead of the first dude.

bastardofmelbourne said:
I think the biggest difference between the two systems is that the grind in PS2 is much steeper, which is a valid criticism, but not the criticism that's being made here.
But it IS part of the criticism. Any game that lets you earn stuff ingame (like PS2) becomes more and more P2W as the grind threshold increases and, as you yourself have admitted, the grind threshold in PS2 is as steep as it gets (Asian MMO's aside).

SOE made a bad call on how to incentivise people to purchase stuff. First they said only cosmetics. Then they decided that wouldn't be enough, so they added convenience items. Then they decided that still wasn't enough and started locking away ingame items behind cert/money walls. Then they decided that STILL wasn't enough, so they nerfed the cert gain to incentivise RL transactions even further.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, the vast majority of purchases apply to ONE character, on ONE empire, on ONE server. Your stuff isn't even account wide! And when you're talking about a single weapon / gear unlock potentially running 7-10 USD, that's just straight up BS, without even chocolate sprinkles to hide it.

This is nickel 'n diming at it's absolute worst, and there's no excusing it. I don't mind paying for my fun, but I'm totally averse to bare-faced attempts to screw me over.

bastardofmelbourne said:
Poor attempts at sarcasm aside, you have defined pay-to-win as system where you purchase in-game advantages with real-life cash. Because you played the semantics card almost immediately, I can point out that you haven't defined what 'advantage" means without feeling like a pedant. You later say "direct, ingame power," so I'll assume that's what you mean by "advantage." So what advantage, or direct in-game power, do we get by spending cash in PS2?
While most cash weapons are sidegrades (and there absolutely are some that are pure UPgrades), there's still opportunity cost as noted above. Anybody that spends 1000 certs on a weapon (particularly the semi-to-totally necessary upgrade ones) is now 1000 UPGRADE certs behind somebody who just purchased it with cash. The cash dude has purchased a direct advantage over the other dude.

By and large, I've got no problems with the cosmetic items. This is one of the things F2P games have always thrived on (obligatory TF2 hats reference) and, with a few very limited exceptions, none of them offer direct ingame benefits. However, in a game with TTK's as short as this one (and they're a LOT shorter than PS1) target identification is a critical part of success, and some of the camo's in some situations do offer some concealment benefit. If this was the only issue with the cash shop, I wouldn't even bother raising it, but since it isn't.....

I wouldn't worry too much about boosters either... except in combination with the weapons sales. 50% isn't much, until you also consider that the people buying boosters have probably already bought whatever weapons/gear they needed. Not only are they several thousand (maybe more) certs ahead, but they're earning them faster too. Cash wins, and if you don't pay you're screwed. Again.

bastardofmelbourne said:
Aside from boosts, there is really nothing you can purchase in the store that fits your definition of an advantage. I think you then argue that the versatility afforded by weapon unlocks itself is an advantage, but I thought about this, and that's actually a pretty silly statement. The weapon unlocks are specialisations. The default loadout is a generalist, and it's more versatile than a loadout full of specialised unlocks geared towards a certain scenario. If you want to be versatile, keep the default weapons - they're designed to be good against everything.
No, they're designed not to be terrible against anything. They're... average. They don't do anything well, nor do they fail terribly at anything. But as any FPSer worth his killspam knows, you play to your advantage. Going LA with a shotty and running around in the open just means you're an idiot. Any non-idiot going LA with a shotty is going to be flanking at close range - where he will always have an advantage. Sure, he might catch a tank to the face every third or fourth flanking run if he gets unlucky, but that's what C4 is for. Oh wait... C4 is horrifically expensive, so most folks won't have it any time soon. And they certainly won't have two blocks of it yet, so all they're going to do is annoy the tank! And let's not get started on why the hell a sci-fi shooter set on another planet, umpteen years in the future still has C4! Oh yeah... 'cause they're trying to be Battlefield.

bastardofmelbourne said:
Unless you were arguing that the ability to change loadouts into something different gives the needed versatility. I grant that if someone hypothetically unlocked every weapon by spending an incredibly generous amount of cash, they could theoretically be prepared for every situation, if they were psychic and stood next to a Sunderer the entire time so that they could constantly switch loadouts at will. No-one actually plays the game that way. They pick a loadout they like and then they run with it 90% of the time. Not to mention that they've probably invested their certs in one class or weapon, buying upgrades you can't get with money. This hypothetical pay-to-win everyman specialist you're talking about won't have enough certs to upgrade the guns he's bought. He won't even have enough certs to upgrade one class.
Seriously? One class? Are you SURE you're playing Planetside? I have NEVER (not solo, in a squad or with any of several outfits) played only one class or role. The role you play is dictated by the battlefield situation. If there's a lot of Air out, you pull anti-air or MAXes. If tanks are camping, then you pull tanks, AV or MAXes. If the fight is largely outdoors on flat-ish terrain, the Infils and Medics (and HA if they've got the right unlocks) are the order of the day. If it's in close quarters or rough terrain, then LA, HA and Engineers generally rule the day. Planetside has ALWAYS been about adapting to the battlefield conditions and selecting the loadout that was best for the situation. It's a real shame that they're placing such restrictive limits on it that most people (like yourself) clearly don't even realise the limitations that are being placed.

bastardofmelbourne said:
And the whole exercise would be pretty unnecessary, because in PS2 a medic can fulfill his basic function - healing people - totally independent of cash purchases, which do not affect his healing ability. I mean, the versatility granted by the weapon unlocks is intended to fit a personal playstyle - it doesn't influence the basic function of your class, which is what people are interested in when they plan ops. They don't say to Jimmy the Medic "Make sure you equip that assault rifle with half as many bullets but less bullet drop for this next skirmish." They say to Jimmy, "Make sure you heal people."
And unless they want Jimmy to just camp at the back like a lame-ass, wannabe WoW priest, he's going to be right up in the action too. And needs the certs, upgrades and weapons to pull his weight. "Everyone fights, noone quits..." etc. etc.

bastardofmelbourne said:
If you think this kind of system is pay-to-win, there is really no kind of cash shop system that wouldn't be pay-to-win. They'd just have to do something crazy, like make every weapon available to everyone, no cash required, based on time investment and skill level.
Or, you know... do it like they did in PS1 which, while it wasn't perfect, was a damned sight better (and more consistent) system than what they have now, with the Frankensteinian agglomeration of traits from PS1, CoD and BF3.
 

catalyst8

New member
Oct 29, 2008
374
0
0
Toastngravy said:
HerpDerpIuseinternet said:
Toastngravy said:
[...]There's absolutely no point, no point what so ever, to progress in the game when you can just pay money to win [...] Cash shop should not give you an actual gameplay advantage.[...]
[...] You are not paying money to win, you are paying money to get other stuff (which is a lot of money). That doesn't make you instantly lose the game, does it? [...]
[...] the simple idea of giving people a noticeable advantage for money (with the alternative being needlessly long grinding) is bad.
VladG said:
LordMithril said:
VladG said:
[...] 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)[...]
[...] It takes weeks to get only 1 weapon. Or just 7 dollars.
[...] It's like paying that much to unlock a single champion ability in League of Legends.

[...] lets say it takes 1.5 weeks to get those 1000 points.
Now lets take WoW[etc.]
[...] What does PvE item gain have to do with a 100% PvP game?? In WoW you are NOT competing with players who have 2-3 times better gear than you to finish the SAME raid.

My problem with Planetside2 is that it's dangerously close to Pay-To-Win. I'd say it has already crossed the line since the best weapons are NOT sidegrades for the most part, and they are very expensive.
And that's the problem with the massive majority of so-called 'Free to Play' - they aren't, they're Pay to Win. The whole model is incongruous with any competitive game, but especially so with PvP:
For actual cash any player can equip themselves with all of the best gear which no non-paying player could ever realistically hope to acquire; naturally this gives all paying players a mammoth advantage over others to the point where a player's skill becomes irrelevant.

The model should more accurately be named 'Free to Lose, Pay to Win'. From a business perspective I can understand why this system has been used - they naturally want to bolster player numbers, thus making the servers fuller & encouraging players to spend money on better gear to give them an advantage. Unfortunately this automatically creates an uneven playing field where those dominating the game aren't necessarily the best players but are, by necessity, the ones spending the most money on the game.

As soon as any player can buy an advantage over another it immediately destroys the whole concept of an equally matched competition where skill determines who wins & who loses. To exaggerate for effect:
SOE may as well hire out aimbots for cash & be done with it.
 

Frostbite3789

New member
Jul 12, 2010
1,778
0
0
catalyst8 said:
And that's the problem with the massive majority of so-called 'Free to Play' - they aren't, they're Pay to Win. The whole model is incongruous with any competitive game, but especially so with PvP:
For actual cash any player can equip themselves with all of the best gear which no non-paying player could ever realistically hope to acquire; naturally this gives all paying players a mammoth advantage over others to the point where a player's skill becomes irrelevant.

The model should more accurately be named 'Free to Lose, Pay to Win'. From a business perspective I can understand why this system has been used - they naturally want to bolster player numbers, thus making the servers fuller & encouraging players to spend money on better gear to give them an advantage. Unfortunately this automatically creates an uneven playing field where those dominating the game aren't necessarily the best players but are, by necessity, the ones spending the most money on the game.

As soon as any player can buy an advantage over another it immediately destroys the whole concept of an equally matched competition where skill determines who wins & who loses. To exaggerate for effect:
SOE may as well hire out aimbots for cash & be done with it.
So in LoL because you buy champions, that's pay to win. It immediately increases your skill level with a champion by owning it. Owning more champions makes you better at the game immediately.
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
Frostbite3789 said:
catalyst8 said:
And that's the problem with the massive majority of so-called 'Free to Play' - they aren't, they're Pay to Win. The whole model is incongruous with any competitive game, but especially so with PvP:
For actual cash any player can equip themselves with all of the best gear which no non-paying player could ever realistically hope to acquire; naturally this gives all paying players a mammoth advantage over others to the point where a player's skill becomes irrelevant.

The model should more accurately be named 'Free to Lose, Pay to Win'. From a business perspective I can understand why this system has been used - they naturally want to bolster player numbers, thus making the servers fuller & encouraging players to spend money on better gear to give them an advantage. Unfortunately this automatically creates an uneven playing field where those dominating the game aren't necessarily the best players but are, by necessity, the ones spending the most money on the game.

As soon as any player can buy an advantage over another it immediately destroys the whole concept of an equally matched competition where skill determines who wins & who loses. To exaggerate for effect:
SOE may as well hire out aimbots for cash & be done with it.
So in LoL because you buy champions, that's pay to win. It immediately increases your skill level with a champion by owning it. Owning more champions makes you better at the game immediately.
I don't think he was talking about League Of Legends. Certainly shouldn't be, since LoL is one of the very few examples of F2P done right: There is no real "power" difference between the cheapest and most expensive champions (with some allowance for balance issues for new champions that swing both ways)
 

VladG

New member
Aug 24, 2010
1,127
0
0
catalyst8 said:
snip

And that's the problem with the massive majority of so-called 'Free to Play' - they aren't, they're Pay to Win. The whole model is incongruous with any competitive game, but especially so with PvP:
For actual cash any player can equip themselves with all of the best gear which no non-paying player could ever realistically hope to acquire; naturally this gives all paying players a mammoth advantage over others to the point where a player's skill becomes irrelevant.

The model should more accurately be named 'Free to Lose, Pay to Win'. From a business perspective I can understand why this system has been used - they naturally want to bolster player numbers, thus making the servers fuller & encouraging players to spend money on better gear to give them an advantage. Unfortunately this automatically creates an uneven playing field where those dominating the game aren't necessarily the best players but are, by necessity, the ones spending the most money on the game.

As soon as any player can buy an advantage over another it immediately destroys the whole concept of an equally matched competition where skill determines who wins & who loses. To exaggerate for effect:
SOE may as well hire out aimbots for cash & be done with it.
Well, it's not really as black and white as that. You can still obtain every upgrade and weapon for free. The problem is that more expensive items are also more powerful, and that the top tier items are insanely expensive. Now I don't mind them charging for convenience, but the price is just too damn high both for in-game currency and real currency. 7$ for a single weapon for a single class is very high in my opinion. And the in-game currency cost is just insane. 60+ hours of grinding for that single weapon. Not to mention that you need in-game currency for other upgrades as well.

Comparing it to Leage of Legends (f2p done right), there is no power difference between the various tiers of champions: the cheapest champions are just as competitive as the most expensive ones. And it takes far less time to gather the in-game currency for the most expensive champions, let alone the lower tier price ones.

All of this can be easily fixed by revising their pricing and finding a good balance. Yes, you should encourage players to pay in some manner, but the way they are doing it now is not the right way.
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
I was such a massive fan of PS1, played hundreds of hours of it. Pre-ordered PS2 and played it through Beta, but havnt touched it since. I dont know how to explain it but the games feels completely souless. Its like your going through the motions, its like sex with a girl you used to love but dont love anyomre. Sure you can go through the motions and hell if you keep at it you may have a few seconds of base pleasure, but its not the same.
 

WMDogma

New member
Jul 28, 2009
1,374
0
0
Arcane Azmadi said:
Neglected to mention the biggest flaw in the game- server stacking. When one continent has an overwhelming advantage in population for one side, it's pointless to even try and fight them. This results in almost everyone on the other sides simply abandoning the battle and going to a different continent where they actually have a small chance of making a difference, making things even MORE one-sided. You probably saw in the video how one of the maps was almost COMPLETELY red? Yeah, that's not because the red so awesome and brilliant and genius, it's because they stacked a ridiculously high percentage of their population onto that continent so everyone else just gave up and let them have it.

That's my big issue with PS2, sometimes it's VERY hard to feel like you're actually DOING anything worthwhile and not just going through a pointless, boring and frustrating cycle of "spawn-die-respawn-die-respawn-die".
Well that's the fundamental problem isn't it? There's no real reason to try and take all three continents anyway other than "Shooting is fun!" at the end of the day you wouldn't get anything if you captured all three. There's also the problem with a lot of maps consisting almost entirely of choke points, turning them into just meat grinders where very little is accomplished.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
It's clear that many of the upgrades are so expensive that most people are not expected to be able to unlock them with regular play. And the price that they charge for them makes the game much more expensive than a regular boxed game. Free to play is what it is. If some trader says that they don't want your money that should immediately make you cautious because what they really mean is that they want more money than you are prepared to offer, a lot more. It's a code.
 

AldUK

New member
Oct 29, 2010
420
0
0
I've been playing this for almost a week now, I'm usually not a big fan of shooters but I'm having a hell of a time here. When the big 3-way fights break out I don't think I've ever had so much fun in a multiplayer game and I've been playing online for over 10 years. There are definite moments in PS2 which feel truly epic and you just don't get that in many games these days.

Having said that, it does have some flaws, as others have mentioned, you need thousands of certs to play equally with the beta crowd and to get them takes months of play. Or you can simply shell out some cash and skip the line. Also, there are some balance issues.

Vanu Sovereignty - Very accurate default weapons, high rate of fire, no bullet drop-off and strafing tanks.

Terran Republic - Very high rate of fire, very high clip size and best basic air unit.

New Conglomerate - Huge recoil, slow rate of fire, short range guns and somewhat clunky vehicles. (Oh and their sniper rifle has to reload after each shot, the other 2 factions can fire multiple times before reloading.)

I play NC. I just like their feel a lot more than the other 2, but my God I feel gimped sometimes as a free player on the faction the devs hate.
 

Ashley Blalock

New member
Sep 25, 2011
287
0
0
Loved the original Planetside until the patches made it where infantry could no long do anything against vehicles. Every tower and base having the same layout also made the game rather dull and repetitive once infantry could only fight indoors.

Since it's free to play I guess I'll have to give the sequel a chance. With the mixed reactions I've read it's really hard to say if I'm going to like it or not. I was more of the sneaky type to cloak and plant mines around spawn points so I'll have to see if sneaky is still rewarded or if it's all just guns blazing.
 

Ashley Blalock

New member
Sep 25, 2011
287
0
0
Update:

I tried to play. But even with the graphics turned down the game crashes on me, often after getting killed but it's crashed other times as well. The lag can almost make it totally unplayable as the frame rate drops to a horrible level if too many players are around.

I'm sure it might be fun but I really don't feel like I can pump several hundred into a new computer just to play a free to play game.
 

ash12181987

New member
Nov 9, 2010
66
0
0
First of all, I refuse to listen to any video produced by NC Scum...

On a more serious note: The game really isn't that bad.

I don't play FPS games. I just don't, ever. I almost exclusively have played RPG, RTS, and City building games. The last FPS game I got into was Battlefield... 1942. That said, I absolutely love Planetside 2.

I don't understand people who say that the game is unbalanced to people who don't spend money. I would advise trying another server, or playing at a different hour. That is the problem with a persistent world, if you aren't on the same time as people of your faction, you tend to get owned. The starting guns are rather good, I used the starting sniper rifle for the TR all the way up to battle rank 10, and it didn't hinder me in any significant way.

As to Tank Rushing, Zerg attacks, Liberator camping... Yeah, people want to get kills. Tank Rushes are easily stopped using a bridge. Zergs can be ground to a halt if you have a well organized platoon and a well placed defensive perimeter, and Liberators are great, but while they can cut through large swaths of the world (I would say they are the most unbalanced currently, of anything in the game) they can still be downed with a max suite.

All you get if you spend money is guns, and the guns you get don't put you at any advantage over other people. They don't turn bullets around corners, or instakill on hit, they require you know how to use it IG. The gun I have been killed by the most, is the starting sniper rifle for the NC. Not the one that requires 1000 certs. Heck, the 1000 cert guns I have seen, aren't significantly better than the guns you get at the start. They have a few stat points greater, but functionally there is little difference in any of the bolt action rifles.
 

PxDn Ninja

New member
Jan 30, 2008
839
0
0
Having played the first Planetside for a long while, I am disheartened by what has been released for Planetside 2. Everything that made the first Planetside great has been striped and replaced. The simple fact that ANYONE can pilot ANYTHING and use all the suits really damages the feel of the title, and the art style feels generic.

To clarify what I mean by that, the three factions all look similar just with a color swap, instead of genuinely appearing unique. The vehicles are better, given that they are spawned from Planetside 1, but the infantry suits are depressingly bland. That, and the MAX suits are awful looking compared to PS1.

With it being F2P, I'll continue giving it a shot (full disclosure, I haven't played it since it went live), but unfortunately it has let me down in nearly every aspect. Base layout feels off, art style/animation feels a bit incomplete, and the cert system is a bit "everyone is everything" without a tradeoff that was present in the first title.
 

phoenix352

New member
Mar 29, 2009
605
0
0
every thing i think of the game is covered in this thread so ill
just do a quick recap for how i feel about it:

- does not feel like any shooter we have around (in a bad way).

games like call of duty and battlefield have a specific feel they evoke.
even tho you're little in the midst of 16-64 people playing what you do matters.
capturing a point on your own or taking out a group of people from a side.

PS2 just makes you feel lonely and insignificant, unless you join a WELL
commanded and VERY active guild it just degenerates to you wondering around
bases often getting shot from an angle you cant see.

- controls feel very stiff and unpleasant for an FPS.

what i mean is the fact that running is awkward if you hold down the button you
take away your finger from other important buttons,having the toggle run button just makes you
run indefinably instead of on press meaning when you jsut want to move a little you still run.
strafing is non existent.
you can strafe but at such a slow pace its virtually useless and forces you to turn
your view around to do simple turns when you need to assault a base or run away.
this causes many deaths due to simple not seeing your enemy.

these combined with a bit of lag and some performance issues create a very frustrating FPS experience.

- just plane confusion.

as you start the game for the first time the amount of things you are never told is astonishing.
i literally had to /yell every 2 minutes asking how to do obvious things i could do in any other MMO.
things like squad , any basic function you would expect is either on a different key or demands a command
in the chat that you need to guess at.

for example: writing in chat to your squad mates is command /s , /squad doesn't work even if /squad
is the more obvious and logical choice.

bombardment of different icons and indicators on the map/mini map half the time the minimap is going to be
of no use because you cant see the actual map underneath all the markers that are too not explained.

overall too little information with no source to obtain meaning you have to learn by doing which is frustrating.

- game performance.

lets face it its just not good, it takes a massively powerful machine to run this game at a decent graphical level
during a medium to large battle, constant fps drops and bad model rendering makes it harder to see enemies when playing at low graphical levels.

- the servers

well i have to say personally i HATE when developers cant get the idea that bars of any kind are not a good indicator of your latency to a server. i cant know my ping at any server they have so i cant tell if iam going to have a stable experience or not.
leading to many deaths because the enemy simply couldn't be killed due to him being laggy.
same thing happens in other FPS multiplayer games, you spend 2 magazines n your enemy but don't do any damage and the then you die in 1 hit .



so overall i think the game had potential but some very basic aspects keep it from being a great game
but its not a good FPS game at any stretch i feel, it misses a lot of the core things that an FPS game needs to feel right in MY opinion.
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
VladG said:
Really love the game, but the F2P model is totally broken in my opinion. Some things are insanely expensive to unlock: It costs up to 7$ to unlock a single weapon for a single class or 1000 cert points (and you gain cert points at a rate of about 15-20 an hour... if you're very lucky. My rate is more along the lines of 10-12)
Given that on a good day I can make in excess of 50 points in an hour I feel I must question the validity of your claim, then again, I fly a mosquito and play as an Engineer primarily. (Both are brilliant at earning certs)
 

Elate

New member
Nov 21, 2010
584
0
0
Wanna know something fun? I bought a sniper, with real money. It was pretty expensive for a single weapon. Usually about 1000 certs or something.

It has basically no recoil, stupid range, and can kill any infantry other than a max in 3 shots, including heavies. Using body shots, not head shots mind you. Take into account you don't have to go out of scope to reload and I was camping a biodome by myself getting 1-5 kills every few minutes by just cloaking, flanking, popping a few shots and repeating at close range.

That is pay to win. Considering it would have taken me roughly 2 weeks to get that single weapon. Now I wouldn't mind that, but the pricing is also stupid, I spent around £5-10, $10-20. On a gun and a few cosmetics.. Considering I can get whole games for that price, what the crap is with that pricing? No.

I've stopped playing after realising this. It just isn't fun.