Wot I Think: Planetside 2

So I’ve been playing this game called Planetside 2. It’s a multiplayer thing. So multiplayer, in fact, that it feels a bit like a crowd. A crowd of tanks. Purple tanks. And some of them are on fire. If that’s not really your kind of thing, then this probably isn’t for you. However, it does feature cataclysmic laser-war, spectacular sci-fi landscapes, and some of the most entertaining fast-paced FPS combat of recent memory. And it’s free. So it has a lot going for it.

That’s not to say it’s without problems. It’s chock full of those. But it’s also full of stars. And it could be going places. Here’s wot I think.

Planetside 2 is a pure PvP science-fiction MMOFPS which encompasses class-based infantry combat, air and ground vehicles, and territory capture. You create persistent characters and level them up. You specialise in different areas, and slowly broaden the combat repertoire of your character. The game has a number of servers, and each one hosts three factions which battle for control of three continents. The battles can involve hundreds of players at any one time, and that means there’s an entire periodic table of elements here all underlying a vast possible set of tactical and strategic chemistry. At times it goes nuclear, and the rest of the time it simply smoulders, giving off fumes that some players will find quite fragrant.

I digress. It is a game of large numbers, and of great scale. The maps are sprawling, with immense verticality, and brutal chokepoints upon which the tide of thousands of digital bodies break nightly. Towering fortresses spew hovering aircraft into deep canyons, while glaciers are pocked with bursting shells and popping tanks. It is the best portrait of ultra-futuristic science-fiction ground warfare that we currently have on any system. Yes, it’s that good.

There’s a critical issue in this model of perpetual future war, however, and it’s one that dogged the original. It’s this: that there is no win scenario. You push back your enemies and take the critical bases, and then a couple of hours later they’ve been recaptured. It is a constantly flux, with the actions of players leaving no permanent mark up on the game world. That might change as the game evolves, but right now that creates a gulf of perception for many players. If this is a persistent world, they reason, then their actions should have lasting effects. They do not.

This is a matter of perspective. If you instead regard Planetside 2 as a kind of three-sided deathmatch free-for-all, with no goals other than the pursuit of conflict, the pursuit of points, then it makes a little more sense. You aren’t there to complete a quest or to truly capture territory to exploit (in the sense that you might in Eve Online) you are just there to fight.

Take that view and you are likely to be a little more comfortable with what is happening. Join a squad, find where the front line is, and begin your war. Savour the breadth of tactical and strategic play. There’s a lot of appeal to that, although it’s also clear that a huge number of people are bouncing off the game entirely, and landing back in comfortable familiar genres. Partly that because there’s no tutorial and an alarming lack of hints and signposting for beginners, and partly it’s because there’s just so much going on. SOE says a tutorial is incoming, but I suspect it will struggle to explain the numerous possibilities that the game lays out. [There is a spectrum of choice here, and that is something I love.]

It’s not just a case of there being a number of weapons and abilities for the infantry, or a range of possible customisations and variants for the vehicles, it’s about the sheer number of ways that you could be engaged in battle: are you using a jetpack to get inside a protected bases, so that you can bring the shields down? Are you driving a Sunderer to set up as a mobile spawn point? Are you providing medical support? Where is your squad? Where should you spawn? Where are the enemy? Who are the enemy?

Then you have to look at all the ways in which you might die: you might be sniped. (You WILL be sniped.) You might get killed by a grenade that bounced in through a window. You might have drive your vehicle over a mine. You might have been hit by a rock salvo from the air. You might even have been run over by a friendly. This represents a catalogue of frustration for the beginner, and provides another reason why many players are throwing their arms up in exasperation and walking away. That’s a shame, because with a little persistence you learn to read the game and to stay alive, and to fight back.

But yeah, the fundamental reality of PS2 is that all this stuff I’ve just gone through equates to a lot of learning, and a proportionate requirement for awareness and UI literacy. It’s a big ask, even for a game that is free.

That freeness is interesting, too, because what SOE are offering here is genuinely a game that you can play, and reap the rewards of, without paying a penny. Their shop is basically offering things on the principle of temptation: it’s tempting to get that skull-mask helmet so that you look cool. It’s tempting to pay to get the other rocket launcher rather than waiting to earn the points. It’s far from pay to win, as some people have suggested, more like “pay to get some extra things, if you want, meh, you probably don’t”. And it’s that lack of insistence that I find a little perplexing. I put in £30 for the review and still haven’t spent it all. After getting a couple of guns and a couple of cosmetic bits I couldn’t really see anything else I wanted.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised or disappointed, because the game has only just launched, and why should I want to spend money? But I also feel baffled that there’s not a huge variety of toys to choose from. The XP boosts and other vague bonus things seem vapid and vague, and totally fail to inspire me to part with money. If on the other hand there had been more weapons, more vehicle mods, more cosmetic choices, I would probably have parted with more cash. Hell, if I had been SOE I would have made it a priority to launch with loads of stuff and price it at half what stuff is currently priced in the game. As a player I would have gone on a shopping spree and kitted my character out with cool stuff from day one.

Shopping in PS2 does not feel right. I should be able to spend money freely, and I cannot. Is that a criticism? Honestly, it has me confused. It’s not the right kind of exploitative? What am I saying?

What I am saying is that if you want to spend money, then this game does not offer a genuinely compelling way to do so. That does little to detract from the strengths of the game (or to amplify its weaknesses) but it’s worth considering.

As it is I think SOE are throwing away the initial excitement of their audience. If we’d been able to spend loads on cool stuff in the throes of our initial infatuation with the game, they might have been looking at serious profit. Instead, I feel the cash shop is the most under-developed aspect of the game. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. I feel like it should.


There are other issues: annoying wait times for free accounts, huge CPU and 3D card demands making it ugly and jerky on lower end systems. Then there’s the balancing issues, mechanical quibbles with numerous items, and the fact that a bunch of the certs (skills) seem to have no real effect in the game. These are all patches in the making, but they are things that gnaw at the seeds of this game’s longevity and success, and need to be addressed with haste and intelligence.

There’s also been some criticism of both the “gun feel” and the flight model, and I have some sympathy with both of these grumbles. The flight model isn’t fatal, but it is weird, and it doesn’t support sticks – peculiar for a PC-only game. People are having some success using 360 pads, but it still feels very awkward and unreal, with baffling physics and strange handling.

The gun-feel thing is less of a problem, in my mind, simply because there are so many different guns across the three factions and they all feel so different. It is interesting to see, though, how Planetside 2 manages to capture the large scale acoustics and rumble of battlefield warfare, but haven’t really made the close up and personal effects all that meaty. Its as if they’ve been able to mimic the strategic level roar of war from Battlefield 3, but not capture the critical light and noise of weapon impacts at a personal level. There’s no suppression, and getting killed can feel quite weightless.

Nevertheless, Planetside 2 is a game I am playing every day. Every day. This is in part because RPS has a voice server and great bunch of players who play every evening (Euro time). That means I can guarantee that I am not just tagging along with a disorganised zerg, but actually getting involved in orchestrated and organised actions. That too is an odd demand for enjoyment of a game, but the truth is that it takes grit and patience to solo in PS2, and you are much better off in the backseat of battlebus with someone else who knows what they are doing.

But there’s a deeper reason than simply enjoying a game with like minded comrades. My eagerness to pour hours in arises because Planetside 2 presses critical buttons in the control room of my gaming desires. I want to play with and against other human beings. I want a game that is not set in the desert of our real world. I want multitudes, and it’s here, despite all those problems.

Planetside 2 races between up close and personal duels with an infantryman I met alone in a corridor, to the breath-taking bliztkrieg of tank columns meeting on the open field. It is leaping out of a dropship, it is holding a single fortress, cut off in enemy territory, against all the odds.

Planetside 2 might not contain true satisfaction in the sense of persistent or narrative victory – and accomplishments might feel hollow as a result – but the raw sensory revelation of glittering sci-fi obliterations are usually enough.

This is complex game design, and they have not quite made gold. It’s close enough. And its still developing. I am going to continue to enjoy the ride.


  1. airtekh says:

    Planetside 2 sounds like something I’d really enjoy, but it’s unplayable for me because it crashes every half hour or so without fail.


    • One Pigeon says:

      Apologies if you’re not but are you by any chance on a 32 bit operating system? Because this happened to me on win 7 32 bit but never does on win 7 64 bit

    • Lagwolf says:

      Ah for you it is one every 30 mins? For me it is once an hour (almost to the minute)… and more often than not hard crash. And when it is working I found it rather boring. The flying controls are appalling & the weapons are not really very satisfying. So much promise but I think the game was rushed out way before it was ready.

      • izulin says:

        Heh, I created an account just to post this.
        I had exactly the same problem, and solution that worked:
        link to en.thewitcher.com

        • RvLeshrac says:

          Why are people still using 32-bit OSes?

          Stop it. You’re the reason none of these games are 64-bit.

          • Wisq says:

            This. Also, if you’re running 32 bit, it also means you don’t have more than 4GB of (usable) RAM, and that’s before you subtract however much video RAM you have (because more video RAM = less addressable system RAM once you hit the 4GB limit).

            I believe Planetside 2 uses 2GB pretty much from the get go. I haven’t monitored it enough to know if that increases, but if it does, and it reaches your system’s limit, it’s going to crash.

            64-bit PCs have been available for a decade now. Windows XP support was flaky, but Windows 7 was rock solid 64-bit since day one. Plus, I wouldn’t even consider making a machine with less than 8GB these days. 16GB is the sweet spot, and I would even cheerily go as high as 32GB with the crazy low price of RAM right now.

            It’s long past time to ditch 32 bit.

          • Aaarrrggghhh says:

            Because a lot of PCs were sold with 32bit Windows7 by the manufacturers to save some bucks on licensing.

          • Quinnbeast says:

            @ Wisq

            Since most .exe files out there are only using 32-bit addressing, anything above 8gb is pointless and 4gb should still be adequate for all but a few specialist applications (video editing etc).

            If you’re happy to fire money into RAM simply because it’s cheap then all’s well, but it sure isn’t going net you any extra performance in-game.

    • 0rpheus says:

      Frequent crashes can also be a result of having a wired xbox controller or similar devices plugged into USB ports. Remove any and all USB controllers, joysticks etc that you can, then try again. This has been an issue for quite a while; though I’ve not had it personally, several members of my outfit have had this trouble and resolved it using this method.

      Hope it helps!

      • Martel says:

        That’s why I quit playing. If you have Windows 8, and as far as I can tell ANY usb devices, it crashes a lot. For me it never even launches. I have so many games that it got uninstalled, not going to bother with a game that can’t even launch due to usb conflicts.

        • nearly says:

          I had that issue with a wired Xbox controller when I was on Windows 8 CP. the game also stopped working after a couple patches, would load to 42% and then just stop.

          after a fresh install of full Windows 8 and redownloading the game, it works fine. I’m even using a headset connected to the Xbox controller. the loading still stops at 42% but it brings me to the menu after a few seconds anyway.

    • Larington says:

      You might also want to try reducing the renderdistance in the useroptions.ini file in the Planetside 2 directory to 1 or 2 thousand instead of the default 99999. Trust me, for the vast majority of gameplay that’s all you’ll need. Pretty sure my client performance went up significantly after that.

      • Nurdell says:

        And use gamebooster – it frees up some ram for the game. It’s night and day difference between if i have this annoying little lag on mouse movement or not on my machine.

    • cunningmunki says:

      Planetside 2 IS something I’d really enjoy, but it’s unplayable for me because of the ridiculously tiny UI, indecipherable map, and the intrusive, vision-obscuring chat-box.

    • Stuart Walton says:

      I had major client-side lag and I mitigated most of it by changing the setting for the number of audio channels. The default is something like 96 and my system just couldn’t handle that along with crunching all the network traffic. I dropped it to around 32 and saw a massive improvement. I tried lower settings but then you start to notice when sounds stop playing.

      If you suffer too much client lag then the engine just straight up breaks. Framerate crashes to a single figure and the geometry stops getting drawn for an arbitrary number of those frames. It will never properly recover from this state and you will have to re-log to re-start the game engine.

    • alison_brie says:

      my roomate’s mother makes $86 every hour on the computer. She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her check was $20777 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site… link to youtube.com.qr.net

  2. Ubik2000 says:

    I played the beta, but haven’t gotten around to trying the released game.

    I suspect having a crew makes all the difference in the world, and if there was an RPS contingent on Eastern US time, I’d be surely tempted. Although there was a kind of beauty in going it alone. Once I was out wandering alone and found a totally abandoned enemy base. Ever so quietly, I took it over. And then I killed the first guy that came to investigate. Than the second. Then MORE started showing up, but I controlled the respawn chamber, so was able to hold them off. It got increasingly crazy, but then guys on my team started showing up. The battle grew all around me until the next time I turned around there was a massive line of tanks backed up on the road, snipers on the mountain overhead, jets crashing into the ground….man.

    I should really re-install it.

    • CMaster says:

      link to rockpapershotgun.com

      No idea how active they are though.

      • P7uen says:

        Seem to have mispelled “Vanu Scummage”

        • P7uen says:

          Damn, he got me with that one.

        • Azdeus says:

          Don’t feel bad, I’ve been had aswell. :<

          Them bastards gettin' smart!

        • Arona Daal says:

          A Report Button for each Post.

          Three long Time Users report it,it gets removed and maybe send to a Moderator.

          Would that not solve the Spambot Problem?

        • LionsPhil says:

          I don’t think RPS has any moderators, beyond the core writing team, who are presumably too busy with writing and doing things to write about for all but the worst cases.

          And community moderators…eeeeesh, hard to find good people for the role, and pretty bloody thankless. Maybe RPS could try to say “spam, and only spam, leave offensive flamewars to us”, but without some degree of oversight (like a deletion log, and review of such) it’s still a risk.

    • Jakobud says:

      The 666 Devil Dogs are PST but there are always tons of them online all day long:


    • Premium User Badge

      Aerothorn says:

      It’s not too active, sadly; I’ve been busy for a few weeks and the numbers have been dying down. I’m not declaring it dead yet until we can’t get anyone for Sunday, though.

      • Herkimer says:

        A combination of business (in the sense of being busy, not in the sense of work, although that’s a part of it) and gnawing dissatisfaction with the game have prevented me logging on and playing with the RPS-Murrka group for a while, but I do second the recommendation. A good bunch of people to play with.

    • DigitalSignalX says:

      If you don’t like being a blue smurf of the 666, the proud elmo red of the TRG are active on Connery 24/7, especially US prime time hours. http://www.trggaming.net

    • Wisq says:

      On the weekends and early evenings, I play with the RPS crew. But of course, 7pm Eastern = midnight GMT — plus European gamers seem to go to bed much more on time than the North American gamers I’ve played with. So yeah, due to that double whammy, it does become pretty much empty by 7 or 8pm.

      If you’re looking for some gameplay later at night, the TR on Waterson have ODAM, an outfit that runs full-sized open (joinable) platoons until late into the night. I was never part of the outfit, but I participated in many of their operations, and they’ve got good communication and teamwork. They’re not as wacky and fun as the RPS crowd, but they’re a good quick fix.

      (I’m sure there’s plenty of other faction+server combos that have good late-night operations going on, but I can only speak for VS+Miller and TR+Waterson.)

      • N080D7 says:

        Should join ODAM (I am N080D7, aka NOBODY) and come on Teamspeak (info is on the Steamgroup), then you can see how much fun we can be. Some of our ‘pub’ platoons are certainly a bit stale compared to our standard outfit only platoons. The other night we were trying to get prowlers up to the bio labs (they are so damn heavy) and we galaxy crashed the friday night ops livestream.

        • Premium User Badge

          phuzz says:

          I have no idea what that last sentence means.
          Sounds like fun though :)

  3. Senethro says:

    Its a well made game but I just found it too slow and lacking in a kind of action that interests me, which was weird as usually I’m quite eclectic in games. Even playing with a semi-organized group of 40 people there seemed to be a lot of staring at spammed chokepoints. If you go as infantry you die in any open space, if you go as vehicle there are very few points you can actually help finish a capture at. The only thing that works is greater numbers and hopping points faster than those opponents which have happened to login at the time.

  4. Vorphalack says:

    Gotta admit I haven’t logged in since before Christmas. The poor engine performance and lack of anything to do other than flip bases made me decide to leave it alone for a while. I’ll come back to it some day and see how it’s maturing.

    • Cooper says:

      The game lacks a grand strategy at the moment.

      It’s too easy for fights to seem pointless Like they have no greater context.

      The easiest way to fix this are for leaders to properly use the /orders command. Rather than to boss people around, it’s best used to direct forces to priority targets, share information, and tell people that the hard fight is appreciated. Knowing that when you spent 1/2 an hour defending that tech plant didn’t go unnoticed is a good thing.

      Myself and others are going to make a concerted effort to make better use of orders over the coming weeks. PS2 is still in early days. It will feel as epic as it should soon enough.

      • durruti says:

        that is sound and all but i don’t think that will be enough:

        one thing is what jim already mentioned a tutorial. the classes have so many gadgets and possibilities that a thourough tutorial is pretty much mandatory if you aren’t the learning-by-failing-and-watching-others-succeed kind of type. when does an infiltrator learn that they can hack all the consoles and how powerful that can be?

        another problem exists at a lower level than the strategic one as in people will continue to spawn as infiltrator/light assault when it is clear that the battlefield situation needs more heavies, maybe in general people switch classes (and weapon types for that matter but that is tied to money/certs) not nearly often enough.

        the thing about orders is that they just show up in the console for a brief amount of time and that’s it, not much of an order if you ask me. maybe voiced orders could be implemented and certs awarded for following orders, i dunno.

        and then there’s often a let’s-hang-back mentality on the attacking side which brings any offensive to it’s knees way to soon but maybe that is indeed a sign of a lack of leadership.

      • Mr Monotone says:

        Assuming that you have the same ingame name, then I’m pretty sure I got auto joined to a squad in your platoon yesterday. Given that I’d only been playing a couple of hours the comforting yellow text was a great help in figuring out where on earth I was supposed to be.

        • CMaster says:

          The yellow text is Orders chat, which Cooper beams out to everyone on the continent.
          You shouldn’t wind up autoining the Giraffe squad ever – they are locked to Outfit.
          However, you are very welcome to join said outfit.

          • Mr Monotone says:

            Ah, I see, that makes sense. Was extremely helpful nonetheless!

          • Cooper says:

            I dunno, there’s an odd bug where platoons become open to all when the leader changes. You may have joined us then.

            Whether you did or did not; it’s good to hear the yellow text orders was helpful.

            If you’re playing again, consider joining us in our Mumble server. You’d be welcome.

          • Mr Monotone says:

            Cheers, I think I’ll go ahead and take you up on that.

          • Wisq says:

            When running as a platoon, the RPS platoon almost always has Alpha Squad available to join, while the others are private. When Alpha fills up, we move people out to other squads. When those squads fill up, we create more squads.

            Of course, we don’t always notice that Alpha is full, and we have to be reminded. Usually by fellow RPS outfit members who filter squads by outfit and ask why they can’t see any joinable squads. :)

            (On rare occasions we even have to fire up a second platoon, though it’s usually around just long enough to accomodate our peak numbers before they taper off and we merge again.)

      • fish99 says:

        People who certed into the squad leader tree and can use the orders channel aren’t leaders. There are no leaders. I’m not going to listen someone just because they spent some certs and happen to have made a squad.

        • Edradour says:

          Thats a stupid thing to say because even if the guy has no idea what hes talking about, someone writing in orange “go to biolap xy” and a marker on the map will get alot of people in the same location which is probably better than ppl just droping in on the hottest location in the bottom left on the map ( whatever that system is called )

          My biggest Problem with the game is that it is kinda pay2win on the aircraft side of things…the gunship and superiority fighters in their standart loadout are significantly weakern than those with even a single weapon upgrade and geting those without spending money is a pain in the ass. You have to play countless hours with the default infantry equipment just to get a new weapon and then you have to spent even more to get time you have to wait inbetween buying aircrafts down to a reasonable level.

          • fish99 says:

            No it’s not stupid, because that guy may have no grasp of strategy, he may be directing people for selfish reasons to win the fight his particular squad is at, costing the faction ground overall, or he may be giving conflicting instructions to those given by someone else. I’ve seen orders to defend territory that’s cut off and generating no resources. All [ORDERS] is, is a chat channel, nothing more. It’s not your *orders*.

            Also people can look at the map for themselves and see which areas need bodies, it’s not exactly rocket science.

            And more importantly that guy doesn’t have the right to order anyone about. Unless you’ve decided to join a squad or outfit and accept a subordinate role, you can and should do whatever you want in the game. It’s your own free time and you should be picking fights that give you the most enjoyment.

      • Smoky_the_Bear says:

        The main issue i have with the game is that there is very little in the way of incentive to “win”, because its constant theres no short term goal to aim at within the game. For instance, take Battlefield as an example, there is a definite overall goal to aim for with depleting the enemy teams tickets, each kill, each death, each time you flip a capture point has a tangible effect on the outcome of the game. Planetside 2 lacks this and for me it leads to what you are doing being kind of pointless and mindless. Theres also the feeling of what any one player does becoming insignificant due to the sheer number of people all over the map.

  5. CMaster says:

    I’d disagree about the game not providing compelling reasons to spend money.
    If you want to use a main battle tank, or a gunship and not be a complete waste of space, then you need to get a gun that costs an awful lot of certs, or a relatively small amount of money. If you want your single-seater aircraft or single-seat tank to be really effective, rather than just passable, you need to again, either spend many, many hours worth of certs on better guns, or a little cash. If you want to have any effective form of anti-air, again, same applies. Sure, you can play the game and have plenty of fun as infantry, gunning for others vehicles, running sundies, and having some minor skirmishes in fighters or light tanks for free. But if you want to properly experience the full variety the game offers, then it;s time to pay or grind – as very much shown by just how much the game changed on Miller after the triple SC day.

    Also, you’ve been playing with us, Jim? Hadn’t noticed, although there’s a pretty big crowd and I’ve only heard your voice a couple of times before.

    So yeah, any RPSers who are interested, sign up with Rock Planet Shotgun (The purple giraffes) on Miller. You may even get to follow my (probably suicidal) orders at some point!

    • Brun says:

      I’ll never sign up with you Barnies! Long live the Republic!

    • Capt. Eduardo del Mango says:

      I stopped playing just before the end of beta, when they managed to break it (on my system) and my performance crashed.

      Regarding spending cash on it… Yeah, if you’re just infantry, it feels like you’re pissing into a force eight gale. Not that you can’t enjoy machine-gunning people in the face under such circumstances, but you’re very much being swept along with the tide.

      That being said, there was nothing about the process that I could observe that made me think “Yeah, driving that tank’s worth a few pounds on the in-game currency.” It’s fine, and it’s huge, but… I think it’s just fine, and huge, and having a slightly bigger stick to agitate the writhing back-and-forth mass that is PS2 (as in the article; “a kind of three-sided deathmatch free-for-all, with no goals other than the pursuit of conflict” where everything basically ends up in the same state) didn’t seem to be worth the investment.

      • Brun says:

        For me it’s most noticeable in aircraft – the base fighters are pretty weak without rocket pods or A2A missiles, both of which are expensive if you want to pay with certs.

    • Faxmachinen says:

      I don’t really agree. You do have a lot of loadout options right off the bat, but the upgrades are all of the type “shoot more bullets better” variety, and there’s nothing really interesting or innovative enough to warrant the 7$ that most of the upgrades cost. Would you have you paid 7$ for a basic shotgun in any other game?

      I’m having plenty of fun regardless, but if I ever got bored and wanted to spice things up, there’s really nothing there to change the way I play the game.

      • CMaster says:

        “You do have a lot of loadout options right off the bat,”

        No you don’t.
        Starting in the game, the only thing you have loadout options for is the Max (where it’s “pick between AA or AV secondary). Everything else, you have just one weapon, and for any “slots” you have nothing. Any equipment choices at all require spending certs or station cash.
        Moreover, for there to be any real point in fielding a heavy tank or Liberator, you need to get a good (read expensive) secondary, otherwise you’re better off not bothering.

      • fish99 says:

        The weapons are not all sidegrades. How is a G2A lock on launcher a sidegrade over the dumb fire one? It let’s you performs a completely new role. Also rocket pods are not a sidegrade, they are way more effective at killing everything than the default ESF guns. Same deal with the 2nd buster for the MAX, or A2A missiles for ESF, or even an infantry shotgun. And that’s not even getting into the stuff I don’t use like tanks and libs.

        Then you have camos that are deliberately made to look like the other factions, which can only buy with money.

        • Brun says:

          The ESFs are, quite honestly, completely ineffective as air superiority fighters without the A2A rockets or the rotary cannon. The default weapon just doesn’t do enough damage to other aircraft.

    • Schiraman says:

      How useful upgrades are seems to vary pretty wildly by role.

      From a VS perspective, I’ve found no problem using a default Mag – sure the Saron HRB makes it noticeably stronger than it is with any of the cheaper guns (which is a balance issue IMO) but even without that the main gun is so powerful that it’s still a great way of getting kills.

      And the Lightning is fine with the default turret. Strong versus basically everything (I even shoot down foolishly low-flying aircraft now and then), what’s not to like?

      But aircraft clearly benefit hugely from unlocking things like AtA missiles, rocket pods or the Zepher or Dalton cannons and likewise GtA is basically pointless without an expensive weapon upgrade of some sort.

      Balance issues aside though, I agree with Jim – for the most part there’s not enough compelling reason to buy stuff, and the prices just make it feel like a rip-off. It’s weird – I love the game and I’d love to give them money for it, but all the actual things they sell seem like a bad deal so I end up giving them nothing. Definitely needs some work.

  6. SuperNashwanPower says:

    The videos never seem to quite match up to the screenshots for some reason, i.e. the stills look so much better than video. I had thought this was one F2P that really went all out on the visuals, but much of whats available looks very flat and inert.

    • CMaster says:

      The reality is that in-game the atmosphere is excellent, even if the graphical splendor is brought down by serious overuse of filters (it’ really obvious when you make biome transitions, and everything that was yellow a moment ago is now green).

      However, first time I logged in and was sat in a warpgate, with carriers full of infantry flying off and battle tanks readying up, I felt like I’d been dropped right into a sci-fi action film. Equally, sitting at the edge of a base at night with 24 other RPSers, waiting quiet and hidden until the “Go” order came through from Quanta, and everything abruptly erupted into laser fire and explosions – the game just nails the “feel” at those moments, with great sound design and great effects.

      Where the game does actually fall flat on its face is awful, awful UI decisions.

    • Docs says:

      There’s quite a few graphics options only available through an ini file, so although a lot of people claim they’re playing at max settings, it isn’t always the best the game can look. Textures are a particular problem on high settings, certain objects look very ugly, but editing the ini helps.

      If you look back at some of the early Alpha videos from GDC or Totalbiscuits channel the graphics were much better than they are now, unfortunately they had to tone them back quite a bit for performance.

      I will say though, it’s one of those games where it can sometimes look a little mediocre, but in other areas it’s breathtaking. Mainly areas that make use of the amazing lighting in the game (Night time looks pretty incredible when a huge battle is happening).

      • P7uen says:

        It’s gorgeous! I never take screenshots in games, but many times in PS2 I have lost my gunner seat in a Sundy because I pressed F12.

  7. DaftPunk says:

    I have pretty moderate computer and still even on LOW settings this game lagged like hell,but high settings wouldn’t help game looking any better because its one of the more generic sci-fi shooters i played.. Also no PRONE WTF WERE THEY THINKING!!!

    • ata says:

      I’ve got a decent enough system which also really struggles with the game, struggling to get above 20fps in larger fights, which can be incredibly frustrating, hopefully the big patch at the end of the month will help.

    • Asurmen says:

      Don’t play on low. Seriously. Playing on low shifts a lot of graphical settings from GPU to having the CPU work them, which is a bad idea on what is heavily a CPU not GPU bound game. Plenty of people have seen an FPS gain by turning up graphics settings.

      • Unclepauly says:

        lol who told you that? Graphical effects do not switch back n forth from cpu to gpu who is passing along this disinfo? That would have to be a pretty high tech futuristic engine to support something like that. Even then it wouldn’t make much sense, and would just cause confusion.

        • Reefpirate says:

          I’ve read that advice on a few different occasions from one of the PS2 lead programmers. So yea, I’d take his word for it especially when he’s trying to write up some optimization tips in the forums.

          As for it having to be a ‘fancy high-tech engine’…. Well yeah, it’s a new engine that SOE wrote and it’s supposed to do some crazy stuff. But really I didn’t think it was that far-fetched to have the CPU take over some GPU functions depending on the settings…

        • Gnoupi says:

          Hm, no, that’s a real thing.

          A lot of games have their “low setting” for different effects shift from a usual GPU algorithm, to a more basic one running on the CPU. If you happen to have your CPU being the bottleneck, it can be a problem.

      • mondomau says:

        Don’t know about the technical side, but switching from med to to Low actually works really well for me – I am currently stuck with my backup gaming machine which is an XPS with an beefy i7 cpu but crappy Optima GPU. For not much of a drop in quality, I’m seeing a massive spike in performance. Until the client goes all wonky of course…

  8. jealouspirate says:

    I tried to get into Planetside 2 but found it extremely difficult to tell friend from foe. I’d be squinting at my screen spamming the ‘q’ button and then just get sniped from someone miles off behind me.

  9. GernauMorat says:

    Right I’m finally going to give it a go. Any advice? Maybe a RPS group i could join? (Massive noob)

  10. DarkFarmer says:

    While PS2 isn’t yet the large-scale video wargame of our dreams, it has the best chance of being that of anything out there right now and anything that will be out there in the next 5-10 years. If you have ever dreamed of being in a large-scale warfare based video game (I have since I was about 7), take a step back from PS2 and remember that, this is the best and closest thing we probably will have to that for a very relevant chunk of our gaming lives. I am on break right now playing HoN, but I bought alot of SC during the 3x weekend, and will surely return to PS2 soon.

  11. strangeloup says:

    For all the potential strengths, the fact that it was essentially “a kind of three-sided deathmatch free-for-all” was what put me off. It seemed to fall awkwardly between two chairs; lacking both the more objective-focused, smaller-scale multiplayer of, say, TF2, and the persistent effects that come with victories or defeats in something like EVE.

    Admittedly, if I’d known that going in, I would have happily filed it under ‘not really for me’, but from what I’d seen before it was released I got the impression that there was more persistence to it; maybe something like the online modes of Chrome Hounds or Armored Core 5 where the war reset every so often, with a decisive winner, and benefits for holding territories.

    • Docs says:

      I think the main issue with it is that they released it too early to really implement any kind of good meta game. The current system of giving an empire a discount to certain resources for owning all bases on a continent was added in a few weeks before release, just a bit of a rushed job.

      The game is very much a bare bones product right now, it has huge potential though. They are planning on adding in some more meaningful goals, and have actually got a lot of the community involved. (Played from the very start of the tech test for this game, and they really have took notice of the communities suggestions).

      Problem is that they want to have more continents in the game before they start doing anything like locking down a continent once an empire has captured all the bases. This means it might be a little while before we get anything super interesting to aim for.

  12. Jakobud says:

    Also check out this site that shows Google Maps style interface for the PlanetSide 2 Maps: http://ps2maps.com

    • darkChozo says:

      Now someone needs to start a PS2 surveying project so we can get more than a high res version of the in-game map. Or, dare I say it, PS2 Street View?

  13. Brun says:

    Been playing this game the past couple of days and I’ve loved every minute of it so far. As you say there is no win scenario, but I think that’s the point – you could play endless map rotations in Battlefield and no one will “win” (people will win individual rounds but the conflict goes on forever). This just ties it into one big, continuous war. I’ll admit that I had always been intrigued by the original PlanetSide, but unfortunately it was out when I was still too young to have my own credit card, so I couldn’t play it.

    The game wasn’t terribly difficult to figure out if you’ve played any of the recent Battlefield games, the UI and control scheme are almost identical. As for the actual gameplay it hasn’t been too bad so far – some bases occasionally turn into meat grinders (which they are addressing in next week’s update) I’d say it’s no worse than certain maps from other FPS (Metro I’m looking at you).

    The cert grind isn’t too bad, although some items (those priced at 500-1000 certs) are obviously going to be much easier to just buy with real money, since your average player is going to get *maybe* 50-75 certs a day. That said, the base kits on pretty much everything (with the exception of perhaps the ESFs and Liberators) are good enough give you reasonable success. They do have weekly and daily sales on items as well, and some of those are good deals. Most of the people in my outfit wait until the item they want goes on sale before buying it.

    Also joining an outfit and using voice chat (PS2’s built in voice chat is good enough, a lot of people use Vent or Teamspeak, though) is, in my opinion, *critical* to enjoying this game long-term. That, more than anything, is probably going to be what keeps me playing this game over similar FPS.

    Overall this is a fantastic game, and it’s strange to me that it hasn’t really had any imitators.

  14. Cooper says:

    Please think about joining with one of the RPS outfits details here.

    We keep things friendly, and you are more than welcome. We have no strict requirements for joining; just that you be nice and that it helps if you listen-in on our voice comms.

    Despite not being strict and hierarchical, we’ve become not only one of the largest VS outfits in Europe, but one of the more effective ones. Part of a burgeoning alliance and coordinating with other outfits / platoons, when you shoot lasers with us, you’ll be shooting lasers with hundreds of other people, shooting lasers together. That’s a lot of lasers.

    Come shoot lasers with us!

    • sinister agent says:

      Co-plug: I went for ages without joining this, as I don’t like the non-NC weapons and preferred playing on another server with my established NC infiltrator/heavy combo woman. And then I joined the RPS giraffes at Quartz Ridge.

      Easily one of the best experiences I’ve ever had with a game. The Terrans put together an alliance unprecedented in scale, and we worked with our own allies to hold them at bay for hours, downgrading their aim of “conquer the continent” to “conquer something, for an hour or so”. It was beautiful.

  15. jalf says:

    The gun-feel thing is less of a problem, in my mind, simply because there are so many different guns across the three factions and they all feel so different.

    I’ve only unlocked a couple of new infantry weapons, but they were so staggeringly similar I had trouble telling them apart, so that comment surprised me somewhat. I literally had to go into the equipment screen to check exactly what each weapon looked like, and try to match that up against what I saw on the screen when playing. Because they looked similar, and they sounded and felt *exactly* the same. And any differences in stats were slight enough that I really didn’t notice the difference.

    Maybe I’ve just chosen the wrong guns to unlock, but to me, it felt like the variety was nearly nonexistent.

    • Brun says:

      Some of the guns look and feel nearly identical when they’re unmodified. An example is the TRAC-5 vs. TRAC-5 S (TR Engineer Guns). Without any attachments the two guns are literally identical, but the TRAC-5 S can be augmented with literally every carbine attachment in the game, whereas the base TRAC-5 can only handle a few attachments.

      I agree that the gun *models* are way too similar though – each faction has its own gun aesthetic but within that faction all of the guns of a particular type (carbine, sniper rifle) look very similar. They really could stand to flesh out the art assets in the game a bit, as every faction uses the same gunship (Liberator), air transport (Galaxy), ground transport (Sunderer), light tank (Lightning), and ATV (flash).

      • jalf says:

        It wasn’t *just* the models, but also the sound and general feel. But again, maybe I just picked the wrong guns to unlock, and should simply experiment more. :)

        • HothMonster says:

          They could really stand to have a better trial method, for cash and certs.

    • Vander says:

      Yeah, fell the same. Some guns do have different stats, but the difference when you use them is minimal.
      And they lack punch, especially if you are not playing for the NC.

  16. appropriate touching says:

    Just want to say that I’ve got ~24 hours logged and <200 kills, and I'm completely fine with that (not because I’m totally terrible, k/d 0.8) – it really is unlike anything I've ever played.
    PS2 was one of my favourite games of 2012.

    • fish99 says:

      I suspect you’ll find an awful lot of players in PS2 with a KDR in the 0.5-1.0 range. In theory the mean should be 1.0 because every kill gives someone else a death, but there’s suicides to figure in, so the mean is actually below 1.0. But the mean is not a revealing stat in a game like this, because you have some exceptional players with KDR of 5, 10, even 30, and those players force the KDR of average players down. Plus everyone in a vehicle has a higher KDR, because vehicles so completely own infantry in this game, and a lot of people play infantry only. Median would probably be a more useful average to look at and I suspect it’s probably right around 0.7-0.8.

  17. Muse says:

    I’m glad you’re enjoying the game, but I do think that you’re underselling some of the reasons why people dislike it (and ultimately quit). I was super-super excited for this (love the Battlefield games, which are most similar in feel), but ended up really hating PS2 for a few major reasons:

    1. Meat grinder effect: Want to take a base? Do you have more people? Yes? Congrats! You’ve (probably) taken the base! No? Sorry, you’re going to spend the next hour feeding the opposing faction(s). I didn’t see any of the “tactical depth” you’re talking about, not even at a theoretical level.

    2. Not friendly at all to smaller groups: I’m not even talking about soloing, I mean that I have a group of 4 or 5 that I routinely play these sorts of games with. Even on voice coms and strongly coordinating classes/fire/strategy, there wasn’t any reasonable tactical objective that we could achieve with 4/5. Part of the reason is that everything was designed for huge globs of people, and the other reason is that the spawning system is very, very stupid. Without special certs/equipment, you can’t spawn on your teammates, as you could in Battlefield, and therefore when you die you end up running around for 20 minutes trying to find them again — by which point THEY will inevitably have died and any “progress” you’ve made is toast.

    3. TTK is insanely short: At short range, if you see the opposition first, you tend to win. And within fractions of a second. Similar problem at longer ranges, but exacerbated by faction (New Conglomerate was hopelessly outmatched at range by both Vanu and TR). And because you spend so much time dead, it exacerbates the problems mentioned in #2 with not being able to spawn on your squad.

    4. Bizarre base design: Bases are huge and wide open, leading to issues with #3 and #1, already discussed.

    Sorry, rant over. But I really wanted to like this game, and really, really did not.

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      You’re just wrong about small groups playing tactically. Yeah, almost all fights are decided by numbers, but a single squad can be very effective if you avoid big battles, and can even hold off medium sized platoons if you coordinate well enough. Tactics and coordination are force multipliers that will win anything aside from big zerg battles (which are, admittedly, most major battles).

      Your spawn-point gripe is nonsensical. I can’t believe you’ve played this game very much if you don’t know how to deploy a Sunderer AMS or a Spawn Beacon or even just pressing Insert to spawn on your squad leader once every 20 minutes.

      • Muse says:

        Deploying a Sunderer is not spawning on your squad, it’s spawning on a point in a fixed area that may or may not be near where your squad was when you died. The Spawn Beacon was usable, IIRC, once every twenty or thirty minutes (perhaps that’s changed). And, as you say, you can spawn on your leader once every 20 minutes. That accounts for a very small fraction of deaths the average player will endure in an hour.

        Sad to see strawmen and ad hominem attacks on RPS, but I guess it’s not immune from internet syndrome.

        • jalf says:

          Sad to see strawmen and ad hominem attacks on RPS, but I guess it’s not immune from internet syndrome.

          Huh? I saw neither in the comment you responded to… Do you know what those words *mean*?

          (Technically, I think what you just said might qualify, though)

          • Muse says:

            Fair enough on the strawman point.

            But the dismissal of a point as nonsensical and then incredulously insisting that I must just be too dumb to have engaged with the game at all is an attack on me rather than an attack on my argument, which is the definition of ad hominem.

            And no, pointing out that a response to my opinions on a game is rude is not, itself, a fallacious argument. *Sigh*

          • sinister agent says:

            But the dismissal of a point as nonsensical and then incredulously insisting that I must just be too dumb to have engaged with the game at all is an attack on me rather than an attack on my argument, which is the definition of ad hominem.

            But that’s not what they said, is it? “I can’t believe you’ve played the game much if you don’t know x” is not the same thing as “You are too dumb to have engaged with the game”. And if something doesn’t make sense, then describing it as nonsensical is simply an ordinary statement, not a personal attack.

          • CMaster says:

            There was still no straw man – he didn’t falsely present a position of yours for easy attack – or ad hominem – there was no attempt to personally attack you and therefore discredit your arguments.

            Yes, the attitude was dismissive, but that’s neither of those things.

            Incidentally, spawn beacon cooldown is much shorter than you think, and small teams can be effective and battle winning – just don’t expect your team to achieve anything in isolation.

            Oh, also, 12-24 people Gal dropping can (and frequently does) end an 80vs80 meatgrinder. Equally, ~30 people in the right place can hold off 2-3 times their number. Stratergy and tactics do matter, but there is a limit to how much they can make up for numbers, yes.

          • Brun says:

            Stratergy and tactics do matter, but there is a limit to how much they can make up for numbers, yes.

            Kind of like in real warfare.

            Also, lawl “Stratergy”.

          • P7uen says:

            Any man who thinks numbers win has never defended The Crown.

            But pride aside, the point is The Crown is easily defendable because of the natural position, elevation, terrain, nearby resources etc, just like a real fortress might be.

            Obviously, this means that other locations are in equally good/bad positions for attack/defense. It’s also not a ‘natural position’, which means that the devs can tweak terrain around bases, a valley here, a mountain there, as needed in the future.

            It wouldn’t be good if you were playing the same map many times in another game, but if all the bases were tweaked so they were all equally difficult to attack/defend, we wouldn’t be telling our grandkids about the time we stayed up till 3am defending The Crown until the Aussies woke up.

            Personally, I really like the fact some are easy places some are hard, that’s the appeal of feeling like you’re on a world which happens to have a war going on.

    • adammtlx says:

      While I can understand your perspective, I think you’re being overly critical.

      1. Meat grinder effect: This is simply not the case, at least not always. I’ve been part of platoons that have held off superior numbers for long periods of time, long enough for reinforcements to arrive. I’ve also been part of groups that have gotten beaten back by an outnumbered enemy properly using the tools available to them. Where it does come into play, the lack of “tactical depth” you are griping about is less a problem with the game and more a problem with lazy players just running headfirst into gunfire.

      2. Not friendly at all to smaller groups: Perhaps not. I usually poke around for the most active squad or platoon I can find. None of my friends play PS2 so I don’t have any real life people to play with.

      Without special certs/equipment, you can’t spawn on your teammates,

      This is factually inaccurate. You can spawn on your squad leader every time your “instant action” timer is up (every 20 minutes I believe). You cannot spawn on your squadmates at any time and this is by design. With a minimal cert investment, you can, as a squad leader, drop a “spawn beacon” which also allows your squad to drop in around you. PS2 was intentionally designed without a 100% reliable “spawn on squad” mechanic. This adds an element of strategy to the game as well as a reason to avoid death other than K/D ratio. Even with that in mind, I almost never spend more than a few minutes away from my squad or from a fight I’m interested in. If you can’t instant-action to your squad, spawn at nearby bases and spend a couple minutes running to the fight or spawn on Sunderers (trust me, they’re everywhere).

      3. TTK is insanely short: Not anymore so than BF3 in hardcore mode. With a cert investment of 100-200 (achievable in a few hours or so with a good squad) you can make a given class probably 50% more survivable. I play NC almost exclusively and I’m a terrible player and can still manage just under 1:1 K/D ratio most of the time which is about what I get in most FPS games. I don’t see this as a big problem and it seems to me like you’ve been reading too many whiny official PS2 forum posts or something.

      4. Bizarre base design: The wide-open design of bases is intentional. Multiple points of attack/defense and entry allow for a multitude of tactics to be used in taking or keeping a base. Stay with your squad. Defend Sunderers. Support friendly troops. I am not a skilled player and I simply do not have the problems you have, which to me indicates that you aren’t trying very hard.

      PS2 has its problems but I think the problems you are having are more with the way you play the game and less with the game itself. You seem to expect it to be BF3 on a massive scale. It’s not. It is a very different game than BF3 and should be played as such.

    • Cooper says:

      Numbers can too often be all that’s needed.

      But as was pointed out above; a couple of decently organised squads can make havoc with a disorganised mass.

      As for small 4/5 person groups. They can be useful. I’ve certainly used them before. It does require a certain playstyle though.

      Take a Galaxy. Pick your targets carefully (get someone to certify for commander chat so you can get intel on air / enemy presence). Spawning can be solved with spawn beacons.

      Or by counter the other small squads that try to “ninja cap” friendly territory.

      Do things like secure quiter outposts during larger base fights. Work as a small spotter / sniper group in hills.

      A tight formation of 4/5 fighters can be incredibly deadly.

      All these things don’t need large numbers, and can be effective. Just don’t expect to join over a hundred other people and the four of you make much difference.

      • sinister agent says:

        Playing mostly solo as an infiltrator, I have two main principles to help out my NC mates in whatever it is they’re doing.

        1) Find somewhere noisy. Make it quiet.


        2) Find somewhere quiet. Make it noisy.

  18. adammtlx says:

    As someone who has been playing since beta, I think it’s actually a pretty great game at its heart. Right now it has some critical issues in that players on most servers are self-optimizing and only fighting on one continent (Indar) and only at a few areas (the Crown, for example). The other two continents just regularly change hands without any resistance. SOE needs to figure this out and get the fighting spread out. Merging some servers to concentrate population might also be good, since numbers are way down from release. Like Jim says, there also should be a more purposeful direction to the combat, rather than just fighting to fight. All the bases and territory seem like a pretty big waste when the rewards for capturing them (or conquering an entire continent) are barely noticeable.

    But again, the game itself is fantastic. It’s provided me with some of the most awe-inspiring moments I’ve had in gaming in my life. The sight of dozens of infantry running over hills flanked by tanks and aircraft dogfighting overhead assaulting an entrenched enemy holed up in a base is like something straight out of a sci-fi movie and it’s really fun to be a part of it.

    • Jools says:

      I agree that the core game is really good, and I’ve pumped quite a few hours into it between beta and retail, but the metagame is so severely flawed that it’s hard to justify putting in much more time when there are other games out there. I could get a better core shooter experience in just about any other FPS and there are several games (like Natural Selection 2) that offer a more unique take on the genre. What Planetside 2 really brings to the table – the sense of scale and the context of fighting as a small part of a larger war – is just painfully under-developed.

      The continent bonuses are paltry and almost totally irrelevant on an individual level, especially for players who aren’t spending enough time playing in a single session to really run down their resources. A 10% discount on a particular type of in-game purchase is absolutely insignificant when compared to the personal benefit of finding a meatgrinder and whoring certification points. What this means is that there’s absolutely no incentive to stay on a continent where you’re getting your ass kicked; might as well pack up and go somewhere else. It destroys any sense that you’re fighting for a larger objective since… you’re not. The only thing that matters is that you are, right now, in a place where there’s a lot of things to shoot at. It doesn’t matter if you win or lose that particular fight, as long as you’re not losing so hard that you can’t get kills or whore healing/ammo points.

      Tech plants are another possibly more serious metagame issue. There are three types of “major” facilities in Planetside 2 which grant a bonus to the controlling faction in all territory connected to that facility. Of the three, tech plants provide the only bonus that actually matters. Without a connected tech plant, your faction can’t spawn main battle tanks, except at their uncappable main facility. The other two facilities? Faster turret speed and out-of-combat health regen that’s barely noticeable. In terms of strategic objectives, tech plants are the only points on any continent that matter at all. This is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of the map is made up of minor facilities which provide no bonus other than passive resource gain and that are almost entirely indefensible. The majority of any given continent outside of tech plants barely qualifies as actual gameplay space, aside from a few notable chokepoints that just happen to be easy to defend.

      This turned into kind of a huge rant, but I want this game to be good so bad, but it doesn’t feel like SOE are capable or willing to respond to the structural flaws in the metagame that are bringing the whole experience way down.

  19. TehK says:

    Also I think SOE are doing a pretty good job so far with their updates and patches (incl. the MDMI session where players can put forward their design ideas).

  20. geldonyetich says:

    We largely thought Planetside 2 was trying to rush a release date and deliver a game prior to it being prepared. Somehow, however, SOE has pulled it off. They’ve managed a nice 80%+ metacritic score, last I checked.

    So it should be a happy ending. It is strange, then, that I met the release with a great deal of apathy.

    Part of that might be because they simply did not implement my favorite Planetside 1 activity in Planetside 2. No more setting up static defenses of sporkfire turrets, mine fields, and motion sensors. Instead, Combat Engineers set up a static heavy machine gun for themselves to use. How unlike a FPS engineer role.

    The greater majority of the remaining part might be because I’ve played Planetside 1 so long that I know where this is going. Back and forth over the same battle field, ad naseum, the hard spoils of your taking over bases over 2 hours and 20,000 respawns later, simply undone in 15 minutes by a single person in the middle of the night.

    “A whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing,” is not how I imagine, “persistent state massively multi-player environment” is supposed to work.

    • durruti says:

      wow, that is indeed a sad departure from its predecessor, i never use that stupid turret anyway: there are always tanks/max suits that need repairing…

      • sinister agent says:

        I’d like to make use of the turret when I dabble as an engineer, but I’ve just taken too many Vanu engineers’ heads off from afar while they’re stood behind one of them to feel safe.

        It seems to be awfully weak too, on the few times I’ve had a chance to use one before a tank blew it up. Certainly compared to the damage you could be doing by proxy if you repaired a few tanks instead.

        • Yargh says:

          I’ve found the deployable turret really comes into its own during mid-range to close quarters encounters, especially in areas vehicles have trouble reaching. They are in particular very good at taking down MAX suits as they lack the precision aim needed to shoot you in the head.

  21. sinister agent says:

    I wouldn’t say you level characters up, really. Or that you even create them. Levels are completely meaningless (a Good Thing) and you really just unlock extra equipment, much of which is redundant or worse than what you have already, or at least, has a major drawback to compensate for any advantage it has.

    I wish RPS didn’t cling to the Vanu, though. I play mostly as an infiltrator, and the NC is the only faction whose infiltrator gets decent weapons.

    Victories in Planetside are temporary, but then aren’t they in everything? If you’ve conquered somewhere in another game, the only option is to start all over again. It’s really not so different. You kind of have to set your own goals, have your own fun – in a weird sort of way, Planetside 2 is a sandbox, or can be anyway. Setting out to “win” it is only fun insofar as the other factions will stop you eventually, and it’s the fight that’s the fun part, not the victory. I don’t even care about points, frankly, and have loads more fun than most other people seem to have as a result.

    My only real complaint is about how tedious too many other players are, sticking resolutely to what’s efficient rather than what’s fun. Yes, well done, you can carpet bomb the base from three miles up. You just carry on being a boring git with that, while I’ll go somewhere else and use my jetpack to jump 200m off a building directly onto a tank, then blow it up with C4 and run off, giggling. And when I get bored of my jetpack, I’ll switch to an engineer’s turret. And when I’m bored of that, I’ll charge into the fray with a heavy’s power shield. And then switch to an infiltrator and cloak into a base to turn the other side’s defences against their own vehicles.

    Even playing solo, teaming up temporarily with the randoms, there’s just so much variety to it if you look around a little. It really is my favourite and most played game of last year – even over Crusader Kings 2, which threatened to take over my life. I would like to say I like CK more because it’s more cerebral and historical and all that, but it’s Planetside that I find myself booting up almost involuntarily when I have a few hours to get some playing in.

    • mouton says:

      “My only real complaint is about how tedious too many other players are, sticking resolutely to what’s efficient rather than what’s fun”

      Major part of any multiplayer playerbase will always go for the most efficient tactics. If the game design does not strongly encourage “proper” behaviour, then this is a problem with the game design.

      • sinister agent says:

        Yes, and that’s because some people would rather run calculations than play a game. It’s the players’ fault. We expect developers today to work around it somehow, but it’s still the players who choose to do that.

        • Emeraude says:

          Yes, and that’s because some people would rather run calculations than play a game.

          Another way to say this: different people will enjoy playing the same game by different rules.

          There’s nothing wrong with that. The problem arises when meta-conceptions of what it is to play the game collapse and wrecks the experience upon meeting.

          Good design can address part of of this, by specifically tailoring the experience toward one profile of players. What it does when doing this though, is exclude from enjoyment a fraction of the potential audience in favor of another.

          Again, nothing wrong with that, as long as everyone involved understands what it means.

          • sinister agent says:

            Oh yes, I see your point there, and I wouldn’t want to impose the way I like to play on anyone else.

            But unfortunately, this is precisely what happens when one type of play is found to be more efficient, regardless of how fun it is. If it means you stomp all over everyone else unless they do the same, it’s effectively imposing that playstyle on them.

            It’s not unique to Planetside 2 by a long shot, and in fact Planetside’s scale and natural ebb and flow means that it’s far less of a problem than in many other games – there’s usually somewhere else you can go to simply avoid it. But it’s still there, and it still becomes a real killjoy when it happens. And much of it happens not because different people like to do different things, but simply because gamers always find the most efficient thing and do that whether they find it fun or not.

          • Vander says:

            Sinister agent: Yes, but the thing is that the more efficient way to play is the one with wich you have more chance to win. And winning is fun.

          • Emeraude says:

            And winning is fun.

            But not the only one way to have fun.

            One heated debate we often have with friends: panache and style versus efficiency in fighting games.

    • P7uen says:

      You kind of have to set your own goals, have your own fun – in a weird sort of way, Planetside 2 is a sandbox


    • Schiraman says:

      Excellent post, thank you.

      And really makes me think I should spend more time as a Light Assault or Infiltrator :)

  22. goettel says:

    F2P… is just wrong for proper PC gaming.

    • wu wei says:

      Unsubstantiated opinions…are just pointless for RPS comments.

    • Gnoupi says:

      F2P is the only way to maintain a multiplayer community more than a few months on a shooter which is not CoD, BF, or CS, nowadays.

      The ghost servers on Brink, Lead and gold, Section 8 (prejudice), Shattered Horizon,… tend to point in this direction.

  23. Fallward says:

    Whoever said the graphics were disappointing – shame on you. The graphics are amazing and amongst the best out there (especially for a F2P game). Admittedly, the performance is terrible even on a high end PC; but that will hopefully be sorted in the patch which is supposedly coming out at the end of January. I’m lucky enough to have a powerful computer, and with some tweaks in the .ini file you can increase the graphics to absolute max – it truly looks amazing; especially the lightning at sunset with lasers and fireworks all over the show. I agree about the lack of grand strategy and the lack of continent spread – but the developers are completely aware of this and are working on it. By far my favourite game of 2012, and I definitely see this game sticking around for some time. Recommend to all.

    • Fallward says:

      By the way, for tweaking; head to: steam/steamapps/common/planetside 2 and open the UserOptions.ini

      In the [Rendering] section, delete everything and paste this:


      NOTE: These settings are for low performing machines. If you have a high end, change AO=0 to AO=1, and change ShadowQuality=0 to ShadowQuality=3. The rest of the settings are all on max, which seems to run best despite your machine’s performance. Note, ShadowQuality=0 turns shadows off, which is a massive improvement for low-end CPU (anything prior to Sandy Bridge). Additionally, check out the CoreParking utility here: link to coderbag.com

      By unparking cores (with QuadCore or higher), Planetside 2 has seen massive improvements.

      Happy gaming!

      • Jickelsen says:

        Thanks! I was pretty happy with how the game was running and looking on a i5 3570k and 560 TI but these made the game run even smoother AND look better (changing shadow settings to 2).

        Would be nice if they re-enabled the PhysX effects from closed beta though, I was never around back then so I only have videos like these to go by link to youtu.be

        • Fallward says:

          EDIT: This was meant to be a reply for a guy further down complaining about length of time to unlock 1000cr weapons

          Agreed, the game is clearly AAA quality – if you’re complaining about the price of new weapons (even though there is ALWAYS an option for 100,250, and 500 credits) then you don’t deserve this game. Sure, F2P is becoming a commodity – even expected, but don’t expect to play a game of this calibre for free without some reservations about weapon prices. I for one have spent $50 NZ dollars on this game, not because i really wanted to unlock some guns, but because the developers bloody well deserve it.

  24. bradbierman@gmail.com says:

    The tacticalgamer group I run with has a platoon of 2-4 squads most nights (20-40 folks) and this game is fantastic. We have taken to doing the “non-zerg” things like picking an outpost (or often a biolab) that appears to be in the way of the enemy zerg and setting up a coordinated defense. It is satisfying to hold up against overwhelming numbers for a period of time even if you ultimately get pushed off.

    I agree with a lot of the RPS article and find that playing with TG vs non-TG this is a totally different experience. For those that are solo, I suggest an ATA reaver, but don’t head-out on your own, instead stick with other pilots, so even if you aren’t formally grouped you can have some support.

  25. Napalm Sushi says:

    This game has been the standard nightly rallying call for my circle of friends since mid beta. The tribal warcry of “Right! Back in the bus!” is becoming etched into my deepest consciousness. There are still numerous times in the game where I’ll simply stop on top of a hill, look around slack jawed, and say “shit”.

    One thing does give me a weird mental itch though, and it’s an odd thing that isn’t even a criticism really: for all the talk in this WIT of “ultra-futuristic science-fiction ground warfare”, I’ve got to say that one thing PS2 distinctly doesn’t feel to me is sci-fi.

    Maybe I’ve just become too much of a cyberpunk/hard SF nerd of late, but still: Deus Ex feels like sci-fi. Endless Space feels like sci-fi. Sanctum and Natural Selection 2 feel like sci-fi. Planetside 2 feels like World War 2 with disco lights.

    It’s a confluence of the weapon handling and aiming systems, the types of weapons available, the speed and range of aerial combat, the dearth of truly speculative technologies or ideas… I just can’t help but feel that the game I’m playing would be more at home in a Red Alert-esque atompunk setting or something similarly fantastical. It’s not enough to dent my enjoyment of an otherwise truly stellar game, but it’s always there like an annoyingly persistent bluebottle nonetheless.

    Does anyone else feel similar, or do I just need to learn to switch off more of those pesky higher functions at manshoot time?

    • Cooper says:

      “World War 2 with disco lights”

      I -exactly- why this game is amazing

  26. mwoody says:

    Others have mentioned it, but I need to reiterate:

    Do NOT spend money other than, if you want it, the membership fee. They occasionally do triple points days – i.e. pay $5 and get 1500 points instead of 500 – and it really does make you feel like a sucker if you just bought a bunch of gear.

    Which isn’t to say the game isn’t fun, but I’d only recommend it if you have friends to squad up with. It’s amusing like BF3 is amusing alone, but it’s hilarious fun when a buddy.

  27. MinisterofDOOM says:

    I found PS2 to be an unexpectedly pleasant surprise. I really enjoy it. I also ABSOLUTELY agree with the comments about them making it too hard/unappealing/weird/uninspiring to give them money. This is something ALL SOE/”Station” products have in common. Even when there IS something I might want to buy, the hoops I have to jump through make it unappealing, and I end up giving up on the purchase. A baffling business model, especially for a free product.

  28. Erithtotl says:

    My problem with PS2, the latest Tribes, and almost every other massively multiplayer combat shooter, is that the developers don’t tightly integrate the team play aspects into the game engine. I should not have to search forums for squads to join and teamspeak servers to use. Either the game should integrate with these mechanisms or provide its own. These games are little fun to play for more than a few days solo, and I don’t have the time or patience to track down a regular group.

    • Brun says:

      PS2 has built-in VOIP that works very similar to Ventrilo, with separate channels for Proximity, Squad, Outfit, and I assume for Platoon as well. The in-game system perfectly functional, I don’t understand why people feel the need to use TeamSpeak or Ventrilo. Perhaps it’s because SOE made the rather baffling decision to transmit VOIP data over UDP and many routers and firewalls block UDP connections by default, breaking in-game voice for people who don’t want to do a bit of tweaking.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        Brun, if PS2 has the voice chat built in, why is the RPS group using mumble? Or is mumble somehow integrated into the game?

        I’m new to both PS2 and mumble, so please forgive my cluelessness.

        • Brun says:

          My guess is that it’s one of two reasons:

          1) A lot of their members couldn’t get in-game voice chat to work, either because they didn’t know they had to unblock UDP connections (as I elaborated above), or because apparently the voice chat system has some issues with certain sound cards (or integrated sound).

          2) Quality, latency, etc. I hear those arguments raised about third-party software in general and Mumble in particular, but so far the in-game voice has been adequate for my needs. There’s no disadvantage to using third-party VOIP as long as everyone in your squad/outfit uses it.

          • Erithtotl says:

            That’s interesting and certainly a good thing the game includes integrated voice chat. It’s shame thought that people aren’t using it, as that just encourages isolation for non-hardcore players with premade gaming groups.

            Does it have ‘looking for squad’ options, and persistent, in-game squads (guilds)? All of those things would make me reconsider giving PS2 a serious try.

          • HothMonster says:

            Personally I’ve found the in-game to be merely functional. Lots of people are garbled or just loud noises, maybe it’s me. But yes, it has public squads you can browse or join by pressing insert and persistent outfits (guilds).

          • Svant says:

            It has a social tab were you can auto join a random public squad, or search for a specific squad based on name. You can also join an Outfit, which is pretty much a guild in any other mmo. Outfits can create squads/platoons that are outfit only.

            RPS use mumble because you can join the voice chat without being in the game, for example if you are in a queue or the game crashes. You can also chat with people in the squad even if the squad is full.

        • sinister agent says:

          I disabled in-game voice immediately upon starting, because I’ve met the internet before, and most of it can fuck right off.

          • Asurmen says:

            That’s a bit silly. I can’t say I’ve encountered anyone spamming annoying shite down their mic, but you mute individuals anyway.

          • Brun says:

            I just squelch proximity chat (or turn it way down), so I can only hear people in my squad or outfit (usually the same group of people).

            Not a lot of people communicate over proximity chat, at least on my server. Primarily it’s done within squad chat.

          • Erithtotl says:

            Yeah the internet is full of **** people but I don’t see how a game like this can be played properly without voice chat.

  29. kkkwwwkkk says:

    Please drink tea(place order from http://www.heyheytea.com ) when you play game or watch the computer.The Tea can helpful your health.Dont trust?let’s try it.Just come on.

  30. PopeRatzo says:

    I am so slow on the uptake. Maybe I don’t feel so bad. It sounds like you guys are playing Europe at exactly my prime gaming time here in Chicago, so I’m definitely going to join you. I’ve played a few times, and I can see how this could be big fun if I was part of a squad.

    It’s taken me t weeks of having the game just to figure out some of the most basic mechanics, though. SOE might have done a better job for noobs, but maybe they just would have ended up with more disappointed people.

    Whatever, I see the framework for a magnificent game in Planetside 2, especially if they take the time and have the inclination and imagination. I’m determined to learn this sucker so when it goes worldwide, after some patching, I’ll be in on the ground floor.

  31. HelenSmithe22 says:

    up to I saw the draft which had said $5854, I be certain …that…my neighbour woz realy bringing home money in their spare time from there computar.. there aunt had bean doing this 4 only 6 months and recently repayed the dept on there cottage and purchased a top of the range Mitsubishi Evo. read more at, Fox76.com

  32. fish99 says:

    The game has far too many big and little annoyances right now, whether it’s faction balance, air-ground-infantry balance, bugs, badly thought-out or badly implemented features, bad overall design, not enough players, performance issues, lag problems, and to top it all a small but significant hacking problem (apparently much worse on the US servers). I could on for pages about all the things wrong with it (in fact I have, scroll down).

    Not saying I haven’t had fun with it, but it’s wearing thin at this point.

  33. Dowr says:

    Does it still take 4,526 years to unlock a gun?

    • Schiraman says:

      Kinda. Most classes of weapon have one option for 100 cert points, one for 250, one for 500 and a few for 1000. It’s not unreasonable to earn 50 points in an evening, so I guess you can do the maths from there.

      I play the game a lot (really, too much) and I’ve yet to unlock anything that costs 1000 points, but I have several things in the 100-500 range.

    • fish99 says:

      You’re supposed to buy guns with money not certs. It’s a little unreasonable IMO to expect to play a game like PS2 and never spend any money on it, it is after all AAA quality, cost a lot to make and costs a lot to keep running and developing.

      If you’re happy to spend money on other new AAA games, then go into PS2 planning to spend some money if you like it. A lot of people seem to confuse Free To Play with Free. F2P means you can play it for free, but expect grind and to have a worse time than people who invest money. That’s the F2P model. The advantage to you as a consumer, is you can try it for free.

      Personally I spent about £24 which got me enough SC for about 10 guns/vehicle weapons by taking advantage of their double and triple SC sales. I’ve had about 200 hrs entertainment for that so I can’t complain about the value.

      For the record I get about 20-25 certs per hour btw, which is probably about average.

  34. SAM-site says:

    The game’s problem is exactly the same as the original – there is no point to any of it, you take a base, lose a base, die a bit, kill some dudes and nothing changes.

    In the short term this doesn’t matter, you’re quite happy to zerg from one base to another or dig in and defend against overwhelming odds, but after a while you just stop caring. Victory is impossible for any side, and therefore your success or lack thereof carries no value.

    As far as digital warfare is concerned nothing comes close to Planetside at its best for spectacle , or immersion, but it simply stops being engaging when you realise that nothing matters.

    Countering inevitable arguments against this point, TF2, COD or any other FPS don’t have an overriding objective either, but they do have a win condition at which point the game is over and it starts again. Standard multiplayer is a football match – you play for 90 mins and there’s a winner declared, you play for a season and a champion is decided, then it all resets and you go again.

    A persistent war is a different kettle of fish and for me what PS has always lacked is a reason to fight.

    • Brun says:

      you play for 90 mins and there’s a winner declared, you play for a season and a champion is decided, then it all resets and you go again.

      You fight over a facility for 90 minutes and it is captured. You fight over a continent and a faction conquers it. Then the populations shift and you go again.

      See what I did there?

      • MrUnimport says:

        The analogy doesn’t really apply here, in my opinion, because when you play a match of a given match-based game there’s a defined beginning, middle, and end. Once you win that match, nobody can take it away from you.

        In PS2, on the other hand, you typically jump into a rolling battle that began without you and will continue after you’re gone. Destroying men means nothing, and materiel relatively little. The only way to rout an opponent is to make them log out for the evening, or otherwise decide to take a different facility on another part of the map, or when the third faction starts threatening their flanks. This would be alright, except that the walls of most larger facilities are too short to keep out jetpackers, resulting in an extremely porous defense in which it is difficult to call the base interior “yours”.

        You cannot win permanently, which is fine, but what’s worse is that you can only win temporarily for so far before you run out of conquerable territory. Continents are fairly small, and if the enemy factions are concentrated on one of the other two continents, say, Esamir or Amerish, then your faction will likely steamroll Indar in a matter of half an hour, making victory feel like the result of transient population dynamics more than anything else. Compounding this problem is the knowledge that the factors that contributed to your victory are likely to reverse the moment you log out, wiping out your progress in as short a time as it took you to make it.

        Once they add all the continents they plan to add, and connect them in some sort of web so it’s possible to kick people off of continents entirely, victories may take more than an hour to reverse, and thus become actually meaningful. Here’s hoping.

  35. sabasNL says:

    Planetside 2 currently misses the “epic” and “satisfying” things that others did accomplish, like Battlefield 1942/2/2142, ArmA 2, etc.

    A huge map and semi-modern combat systems aren’t enough. Objectives, teamwork, proper map-building and especially team satisfaction is hard to find. If they don’t solve those problems sooner or later, it will go bad like M.A.G. did (first FPS that ran 256 players in one medium-sized map without any problems, although having to cut alot in graphics, and it never became popular as it was a PS3 title.)

    They could really take some examples from the competitors, as the problems they currently could have easily been resolved months ago. It feels like an outdated game with design problems in a beta-phase.

    Don’t get me wrong, I do like the game and for a F2P title is quite impressive, the graphics n gameplay. But SOE promised alot more than we got with the initial release, and my experience with games is that you shouldn’t expand a game until it’s foundation is proper. Planetside 2’s foundation isn’t ready yet.

  36. aircool says:

    I’ve been enjoying the game a lot. Mostly solo due to the confusing platoon colours. However, as soon as they put in custom colours (I believe with the Jan update) I’ll be up for more platoon action.

    I’m currently enjoying the slug shotgun with 3.4x scope. It’s what the infiltrator scout rifle should have been.

    What brings the biggest smile to my face is the sheer beauty of night warfare in a large, open area.

  37. AshRolls says:

    I’ve lost my life to Planetside 2. It’s a very good game at the moment that after a few patch cycles should be a great game. The things I’ve seen! The pure joy of flying over a continent seeing tracer fire from the different fronts shooting into the air at night. Play this game!

  38. jkz says:

    Weak gunplay, terrible flight models, bad optimisation and a lack of a point or chance of victory are why I’ve not played in a while. Hopefully it will improve over time and get a little more depth in gameplay. There isn’t really anything else like it and it’s a shame that it isn’t firing on all cylinders.

  39. simulant says:

    I’ve dipped my toe in a few times and it looks fun but some tutorials would be very useful.
    I’m having alot of trouble figuring out which weapons are good for what and I do not want to be playing a game where I’m screwed for long periods of time because I unlocked the wrong kit.

    It’s a lot to chew on. It may be similar to BF3 but the Sci Fi setting makes it more difficult for me to get a feel for the game. Not yet convinced that I shouldn’t just keep playing BF3 instead.

  40. Grimley says:

    Playing as Laldy with the RPS crew. Just thought I’d throw in my tuppenceworth here.
    The RPS folk are a great bunch to play with, and I rapidly found on joining them, that this is a whole new game when played as part of a (colour) coordinated outfit.
    Even though there may, as yet, not be an overarching goal to achieve in the perpetual war on Auraxis, there are plenty of moments where intense bursts of gaming satisfaction can be had, as well as sights that cannot be seen in any other game (Massed armour formations smashing into each other under an Aurora Borealis is one of my favourites).

    On another point Jim, which key is it to throw rocks at your opponents? I thought when you had run out of ammo you were stuffed, didn’t know you could lob scenery at the bad guys.

  41. El_MUERkO says:

    As an NC player weapon & vehicle balance has spoiled many aspects of the game for me, the Reaver, Vanguard and Jackhammer I spent my Alpha Squad SC points on feel like wasted money.

    Playing ARMA2 Wasteland at the moment, I may go back to PS2 in a few months, assuming it still exists as server populations appear to be plummeting.

  42. Flappybat says:

    Good to see some criticism. The game really suffers from being a choke point orientated spam fest, they are working on the base design but it should never have made it out of beta like that. They still have to address a lot of duff weapons.

    The problem with the shop is that so few of the items are enticing. The lack of art direction has left the weapons as dull as possible, being near identical versions of each other with no personality. It’s like an FPS where one team with variations on an M16 and the other variations on an AK, functional but not very interesting and it’s not helping them extract cash from players.

    • Svant says:

      The next big patch will have all new SMG which will have brand new models with moving parts and new looks, the videos they have shown so far also mentions that they are possibly working on a overhaul on wepon models etc. At the very least new wepons should have brand new models and handling. Hopefully they will deliver on the promise of some reworkings of old models.

  43. dontnormally says:

    But yeah, the fundamental reality of PS2 is that all this stuff I’ve just gone through equates to a lot of learning, and a proportionate requirement for awareness and UI literacy. It’s a big ask, even for a game that is free.


  44. xaphoo says:

    I enjoyed this game and found both the gameplay and atmosphere compelling. It has some of the best sound design I’ve ever encountered. But unfortunately I can barely run it on my PC. I get 15fps at the lowest settings if there is any action on screen, and thus compounds the difficulty of effectively using the already clunky-feeling weaponry. I have to give it up until I get a new PC in a year or so, at which point I hope the game is still around.

    Overall, I think this is a better game than Tribes Ascend — if only they could optimize the performance.

  45. fish99 says:

    Also have to agree about the flight model, it’s very simplistic, to the point where if you actually play fight sims, expect to be very confused and disappointed with how everything flies. You can say it’s the future, but the aircraft still have moving control surfaces, so should handle appropriately. You can tip an aircraft over 90 degree and until you pull back, it keeps flying straight and level. It’s accessible but unsatisfying.

    Also the FOV in all vehicles is fixed and very low, and you don’t have free look in most of them, and you’ll often fly into things just because you couldn’t see them.

  46. fish99 says:

    Surprised you don’t mention the hackers and lack of GMs, and the way the game being F2P affects hacking. I’ve seen 6 definite hackers so far, like guys who appear behind you in a sealed spawn room, or who can shoot while cloaked, or guys who kill 100 enemies in 5 minutes all with headshots. There’s videos of all these hacks in action on youtube, with the hacking UI visible. There’s also the guys who can dump base turrets in spawn chambers, killing everyone who spawns there, or make vehicle spawn pads levitate.

    The hack detection in the game is useless, they’re relying on players filing reports, and then they investigate, but in the 200 hours I’ve played this game I’ve only seen a GM once. One of the US servers had a spawn chamber blocked with a turret for 12 hrs, it was reported dozens of times and nothing was done about it.

    Even when they do catch people, they’re giving them suspensions instead of banning them, and they’re getting to keep their cheated XP/certs. And of course since it’s F2P, when they do eventually ban people they just make another account.

    It’s still at low levels overall, and in a typical nights play you wouldn’t see a hacker on average, but it’s getting worse, and certainly deserves a mention in any review.

  47. Vault Boy says:

    Got to check this one out.

  48. piesmagicos says:

    Its been awhile in MMO gaming where i had the enjoyment that PS2 offered me. Mostly in the form of sniper v sniper v sniper combat. Where the massive tanks/helicopters/infantry clash on the open space….a handful of snipers from each side will spot that one perfect vantage point and then the awkward 5 seconds when they realize they were not as clever as they thought….then a half hour pitched battle ensues of desperately trying to find that buffer to get a clean shot using combination of sprinting, quick turns, rocks/trees and short lived stealth cloaks . But…whenever you get the bead someone will have a bead on you. All the while a 1v1v1 mega battle goes on in the background lighting the area up in explosions and laser fire. Heh the epic battles are fun…but the desperate fights with handguns and knives in close quarters are what make this game epic to me.

  49. P.Funk says:

    This game seriously needs a theatre commander. Even if it was just an opt in thing where your SL has to choose to opt in and then they auto join a commander radio network that he can use to order people around or create some broader strategy.

    The sad thing is that most players hate the limitations that good teamwork imposes. They do what they want and as a result its all derp city.

    • shaydeeadi says:

      Well there are the platoon commanders that have control over 4 squads and there is a chat channel (KP1 I believe) that enables you to request more orders or update him on the status in an area, then platoon dude can set waypoints and suggest strategies to all under his command.

      I’m confused about it a bit mind, I was SL last night and I couldn’t find a way to link into a bigger platoon, despite my guys trying to assault the markers I set we were hopelessly outnumbered, I think the platoon commander needs to invite you in or something and I had no idea how to make that happen. I’m guessing the platoon stuff is governed by a certification.

      If it’s going bad you can try to find a better squad in a platoon and my experience has been nothing but positive in the larger groups, with people doing their job, clearing the area and then getting the new orders, rinse/repeat.

  50. Enkinan says:

    I had a blast playing early in beta but got sucked in to WWW in GW2 and havent played since. I’m going home and reinstalling this evening.