Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Another reason they don't compare is that TF2 was for profit to begin with. The bulk of the game was paid for while it was being transformed into the F2P model. They don't need to make players grind for anything because that game had already paid for itself. The F2P model there is merely a cash grab from the people with too much "disposable income". But on planetside, the F2P model is a requirement. You simply can't get massive battles like this on a pay per play model, so the grind is necessary to motivate people to shell out some cash. And if you really think the grind is too much, then you probably weren't going to enjoy this game in the first place, no matter how cool it sounds on paper.
I think your problem is that you want to be Rambo, so you run in and die instead of working as a team.
Also, light assault is the most fun class in the game, I don't know what you're smoking.
Or you could join some outfit and go after waypoints they set. Then when you get a waypoint, you know that it was a success. Sure the enemy conquers it back, but on one hand, the more you push the enemy, the less they have resources, and might move to an other map.
On the other hand, sure there could be more stuff like missions etc... in the game itself. I liked the idea that was in some review that squad leaders or other commanders could create missions for squads and for random people for accepting and completing.
this game is made for teams.. unless your in an organised outfit and in their platoon with teamchat or voicechat programms.. your doing it wrong.
I question how much Team Fortress 2 you've played, or at least where you're playing it. Anyone obsessed with their kill/death in a game where 'team' is the first word of the title doesn't have any idea what they're doing. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of teamwork if you think the only way you could contribute to that in a meaningful way is by being, in your words, 'Rambo'. I enjoy the game because the objectives are clear, lead to a desirable result, and any individual player with a modicum of sense can contribute to their completion. Now let's stop talking about the superior game and return to the topic at hand: the dissapointment of Planetside 2.
Secondly, your second paragraph is entirely unrelated. It has nothing to do with gameplay whatsoever, except for one point: many MMOs manage massive populations on subscription models, and wouldn't keeping cert points easier to achieve actually encourage more playing?
I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I'm adverse to teamwork in any way. I don't want to be 'Rambo', I just want to be able to enjoy myself by making a meaningful contribution to the game. Planetside 2 fails to do this, and that makes me wonder if it's possible for an MMOFPS to do so. That's why I think I'll be sticking to games with smaller, individual, self-contained matches.
I've never met a person who enjoys the idea of grind. I had hoped Planetside 2 would be free of it, as it's an FPS, not an RPG. Sadly, I was horribly wrong. I didn't go into this game wanting to hate it. I thought it looked quite interesting and fun. It was nothing but boring.
Join a group, a group that is working/communicating together, if you're having trouble figuring things out.. they can an will usually help/mentor, or join an outfit, they will mentor/guide your experience an show you how it can be fun.
The idea of single person being unable to cause or affect anything is absurd, if people in the world had this mentality, then the D-Day invasion of normandy would have failed with the incessant whining of the germans are OP, why can't we nerf their defenses.
Suck it up, if you were drawn to the idea of what this game can potentially offer, yet you didn't do anything to actually work with players, function as a group of "lets pretend" soldiers in a massive virtual war.
The more people that just give up on the concept of what an where this game could go with player support/feedback the less likely you will ever get it.
World of Warcraft didn't spawn into existence with all it's dynamic expansions, it took many many years of fixing issues that were broken, unbalanced, not enough content during it's initial launch an the years to follow. Spoon feed entitled gamers wanting an MMO experience with everything polished, functional at it's final metamorphosis. MMOs, even EVE online had massive changes, fixes, issues to address before stabilizing into the epic title it is.
If you were looking forward to this game, then get behind the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game, despite it's issues, or your issues with it. If it's still terrible in your opinion after a year's launch.. then by all means flame ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ on.
I don't know about you, but I play video games to enjoy myself. If a game completely fails to entertain me, I have absolutely no duty to keep playing it.
There's no reason to be loyal to a piece of entertainment. If you dislike it, you dislike it. The notion that I somehow owe it to the game to stick it out through a boring experience (the antithesis of why I play games) is ridiculous.
That said, continent lock is actually a pretty crappy gimmick that won't do much for the game at all, something similar to an intercontinental lattice system that requires warpgate captures to get to another continent would actually be a more 'active' way to enforce cont locks that would require the players themselves to defend the linking Warpgate to lock anyone out of a continent. It would actually give a feel of progress instead of a time-out imo. It would also likely concentrate fights to 1 or 2 continents for each empire. Since, with these pops, when we get to 10 continents, low populations are going to be an even bigger issue.
gotta say I completely agree there, I don't waste time on games I don't find entertaining, the entire point is to have fun during some free time, if you aren't having fun then you aren't doing it right and I'm not talking about not playing the game right, I'm saying you either aren't playing the right game and/or not spending your free time properly ;) The point of the game should be enjoyment while doing what you like within the limits of the game, not doing something you don't like to enjoy the game. Not much of a self proclaimed sandbox if all but one thing aren't enjoyable.
Shows how much you know if you think that is superior to anything.
EDIT: Your stats show less than 200 total hours on TF2. You probably don't even know half of the stuff that I've forgotten about that pathetic excuse for a shooter.
If you have 2 random groups fighting each other in ps2 it's not any different than 2 random groups of the same size in tf2. In either game if you have a pug vs a premade group that works well together, the chances are the premade is going to win. Still not much difference at all that I can see. This broken record of 'oh this game is so superior to this other game because it requires teamwork' is bs, it doesn't require teamwork it requires numbers that's all. I see plenty of people playing successfully in the same style I see in every other game. Guess what, you can do the RP outfit crap in every other game also.
The only difference is the amount of vehicle spam and the number of players and all that does is give people the ability to overwhelm with numbers which just isn't something good competitively. Speaking of, this has to be the least competitive fps I've ever played to date.
Yeah, teamwork helps, just like a solid bf2 squad would make the difference. Actually a bf2 squad would pretty much equal an outfit in % population, which is just a numbers game not a teamplay thing, but a solid squad that worked well together would have a massive impact. On top of it, that kind of squad play with almost play-by-play tactical communication is something I don't even see in this game. This game leans more to general commands and objectives than anything else and I don't see this as a massive step of any kind in teamplay.
That said, more often then not, I see one solo rambo knocking off objectives like generators so the rambo impact element is there just as much. And one rambo tank that knows how to use armor can easily destroy a sunderer and have quite an impact on the flow of a battle. These are all things I see happen quite often in this game. Just because there's more people spamming each other and ignoring objectives doesn't mean that this one person hasn't just had an impact on a battle.