Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Share this around

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Share this around



    It's a message I think SOE needs to hear. And keep an eye out for some crazy mid-air repairs at the end. :P
    Teamwork and Tactics are OP


    Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

  • #2
    Re: Share this around

    Oh man, I missed the Repair Rendezook at the end, that's sweet!


    A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Share this around

      I'm not finding this a compelling set of arguments. Quirky, borderline exploitive BS can be counter to the more methodical tactical and strategic gameplay I enjoy. Exploits should generally not be tolerated... they should be removed, or, if they reveal a fun and interesting interaction, they should be integrated properly, as the Tribes series skiing mechanic was.

      That SAID...

      I do think that "playing it safe" is a problem with the game's design, just in a different sense than Wrel is talking about. Planetside 2's design is super, super conservative, and barely does a single thing that its competitors don't already do. In a way, this is intentional by SOE... they want to make the game as solid as possible (which they've done admirably) before they start adding things that are riskier, and maybe in a few years these complaints won't seem as valid. I'm sympathetic to the approach... the game is absurdly expensive from a development point of view and it was a huge gamble to try and make an MMOFPS, and even now that the game has a solid footing they'll be hard pressed to have the resources to do anything particularily ambitious in the short term. But I'll be damned if the game doesn't show a lack of imagination, especially for a sci-fi game! The mechanics are almost as straightforward as you can get. Point gun at thing, thing dies or, on occasion gets healed.

      There is so much more you can do here, especially with a combined arms teamplay based game like this! Where are the sci-fi intel/counter-intel tools? Where are the weapons that require two people to effectively operate? Hell, where's the variation in the basic pew-pew? You've got various strains of what are essentially modern day weapons with sci-fi paintovers and no interesting deviations from bog standard. Even the VANU weapons are boring!

      I remember when shooters had tons of imagination, instead of all falling back on the same boring and uninspired modern warfare tools that every other game has. Just look at the Unreal Tournament series if you want an extreme example... every single weapon system was a unique gameplay mechanism all on its own, requiring its own tactics and counter-play! You had the shock rifle which could fire a beam, an orb, or if you felt mean you could shoot an orb with the beam and get a MASSIVE explosion. You had the slime gun which was a short range area denial tool. The flak cannon, effectively a shotgun, could bounce shots around corners, or fire explosive canisters in an arc to flush people out around corners. Unreal Tournament was an inherently crazy game and that kind of aggressively over-the-top game design wouldn't be a good fit for the pace or style of Planetside 2, but on a scale from "yawn" to "absolutely bonkers" can we at least move a LITTLE closer to it? Right now there's barely a difference between facing down or utilizing assault rifle A, carbine B, and SMG C, except for that they perform very slightly differently in different situations and you get to see a different weapon name on the death screen. You use the same skills and the same playstyle with each, and treat an enemy with any of them the same way, all that changes is sometimes the numbers are slightly more favourable with one over the other.

      Speaking more directly to Wrel's arguments, however: with something like "removing aiming down sights while midair", leaving it in as it is is a dumb idea because it is glitchy, unintuitive, and reads poorly to everyone else. If it represents a fun style of play, fine... but instead of keeping it in, maybe try something different, like a weapons attachment or weapons variant that has antigravity stabilization (or whatever technobabble you need to justify it) but come with a distinct set of drawbacks, like reducing accuracy or damage?

      Same deal with, say, ESF reverse manuevers. I think it's a fun mechanic and a neat addition to the maneuvering options of a fighter... but the way you use them now is glitchy and clearly unintended, along with being difficult for new players to learn or even comprehend. They need to be built into an intended feature of the design. Provide UI elements to indicate the orientation of the engines, and provide a way to trigger the conditions necessary for the manuever without having to glitch the flight model into thinking you've come in for a landing, like flipping the engines into position automatically when the throttle is reduced. Hell, maybe even expand on it with things like making the dogfighting airframe specifically designed for it, really work it into existing systems.

      My core point with exploits is that if you think they add something fun and interesting, then that's fine, but they need to become intentionally designed elements of the game so that they're accounted for everywhere else.

      TL;DR: I don't think Wrel's arguments for keeping glitches as-is hold water, but I agree that the design of the game is excessively conservative and think there are ways to expand it and even integrate the more interesting glitches into legitimate mechanics.



      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Share this around

        I couldn't have said it better, starstriker!

        I would've +rep'd ya but, apparently I need to share the love.

        sigpic


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Share this around

          There's a difference between getting rid of exploits or features that destroy game balance (I didn't see anyone complaining when they got rid of shotgun-infiltrators or the glitch that let infiltrators cloak Liberators) and getting rid of glitch/exploits which don't have a big effect on game balance. Nobody's saying that every exploit or glitch should be left in - far from it - but unless it is having a severe impact on balance or other player's fun, how about we encourage some emergent gameplay instead of stomping on it?

          Take the example of the infamous galaxy-lifting vehicles. No, it was clearly not working as intended. It was also incredibly time consuming and difficult to pull off. It also wasn't very effective. Getting Sunderers into biolabs was the only thing that even moderately effected balance, and that exploit would be far more easily removed with the simple no-deploy zones that they've already implemented at most bases. One of the most hilarious and fun things in Planetside 2, gone for no real reason other than "not working as intended".

          For a personal example, one of my favorite things to do in planetside 2 is to get the Harasser into places it isn't supposed to be able to go. I can get inside most of the supposedly no-vehicle points on Esamir, I can get into the Octagon, on top of East River Sky Station, inside the BL-4 crash site, inside the firing ranges in the VR room, over top the mountain ridges at Heyoka Tech Plant, upstairs and onto the point and balconies in any tech plant. It's clearly not working as intended, so should turbo be nerfed even more or the hitbox of the Harasser increased again? I'm giving up the mobility that keeps my Harasser alive - it's basically suicide unless your team already holds the majority of the base. It's not very effective, it's not having a major impact on balance, but it is hilarious and fun.

          To steal another from Wrel's video, the lack of fall damage for vehicles landing on their wheels. Was this ever really an issue? There are a handful of place on the map where this ability gave a savvy Sunderer/Harasser/Flash an extra escape route out of trouble, or a way to cut some travel time off their route. It wasn't exactly a guaranteed success either. I simply cannot believe that this was having a major impact on the game balance, and it was HILARIOUS and FUN. Who doesn't remember a squad laughing their asses off after screaming in panic because their driver drove off a bridge to escape certain death from a Magrider? I miss that.

          What about the blanket 6+ second immunity to fall damage that touching an elevator gives you? Again, it's clearly not being used for its designed purpose (preventing fall damage while going down elevators), so should it be removed? It gives more mobility options within towers (specifically the ability to get down from the top very quickly) which has an effect on the tower design balance, but it's fun and it's far from a balance-crippling issue.

          Don't think that rende-repair was in Wrel's video just because it was a neat piece of footage either. Should the ability to repair in midair be removed to prevent this exploit?

          For reference, here's the "One Simple Question" trailer.



          Can your FPS do this? No, but now yours can't either. :/
          Teamwork and Tactics are OP


          Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Share this around

            I am definitely anti glitch/exploit. If it leads to fun emergent gameplay, take that gameplay and make it an intentional, designed part of the game, but don't leave in obviously glitchy and unintuitive behaviour just because "it's fun". Fix it so it's consistent, or fix it so that it's a proper part of the game. Not fixing it is a poor option.



            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Share this around

              Yeah, who'd want something in a game "just because it's fun". Auraxis is srs bsns. :P

              There's a limited amount of development time and I feel that if they don't have the time to commit to integrating something that is creating emergent gameplay that it should be left in as-is if it isn't hurting gameplay. If something gets patched out right away because they don't have time to polish it, people will forget about it, without people asking for it the devs will forget about it, and it'll never get implemented.

              There will always be glitches in a constantly-updated game, they may as well be good ones.
              Teamwork and Tactics are OP


              Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Share this around

                Originally posted by Strait Raider View Post
                Yeah, who'd want something in a game "just because it's fun". Auraxis is srs bsns. :P
                I appreciate the intent, but you can sabotage important elements of a game in the pursuit of instant gratification. In this case, the sacrifice is polish, consistency, and the appearance of a quality product. Yeah, there are practical limitations to what kind of issues can and cannot be addressed and the dev team has to triage this stuff, but that's "best of a set of bad options" territory, not how it SHOULD be.

                Besides, "games are about fun" is a commonly accepted piece of wisdom that makes about as much sense as "novels are about drama" or "movies are about comedy". They can be about those things, but they cover a much, much wider range than that. Games can and do hit more emotional notes than "joy". Best example? Horror games, where the intent is to literally expose you to unpleasant and physiologically disruptive stimuli for the emotional high.

                The emotional payout I associate with Planetside 2 isn't predominantly joy or visceral satisfaction, but awe, comradery, and the feeling of satisfaction you get from a hard fought victory.



                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Share this around

                  Originally posted by Strait Raider View Post
                  There's a limited amount of development time and I feel that if they don't have the time to commit to integrating something that is creating emergent gameplay that it should be left in as-is if it isn't hurting gameplay.
                  I have some limited experience in product QA (grain of salt), but I recall that a lot of minor glitch removal is part larger optimization and platform improvement goals. If I'm revamping my platform's UI, for example, I may remove or alter a lot of behaviors that users may currently expect or rely on - but to my team that looks like cleaning up bad implementation, which has to happen if I'm going to make further adjustments down the line. Similarly, if they are tweaking or overhauling the aeronautics physics as part of the ESF update, they're going to look at addressing anything that doesn't work as intended. Not because they're trying to make the game less enjoyable, but because they have a design doc that they want to match as closely as possible.

                  If a big enough client or user base WANTS a glitch/feature to stay, a smart company will be responsive to that, even if it interferes with their engineering goals. But I don't see a lot of what's described here as potentially rising to that.
                  In game handle: Steel Scion
                  sigpic

                  Comment

                  Connect

                  Collapse

                  TeamSpeak 3 Server

                  Collapse

                  Advertisement

                  Collapse

                  Twitter Feed

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X