How would you compare to planetside?

PureChaos

 I am one of prob a few that are interested in the idea of the game but arnt sure what side to lay on, to either give it a shot or not.

I personally love FPS shooter games and planetside ranked up as one of my favorite for the scale of things, im currently only playing Tf2 at the moment as it has been the only game if you ask me of lately to be a great FPS.

So in short how would this compare to Planetside?

johnmatthais

 Doesn't look quite the same, though I'll let someone else go into detail about it.

PureChaos

 Well i mean the main appeal of Planetside was largescale on going battles, no matter the time someplace was being fought over or could start something quick. A game that really doesnt have a end but keeps the fun cause every situation is new.

From what i have read(its not to much mind you) this isnt about factions this is more about your guild being your faction(which has its ups and downs) and them choosing the enemies.

 

johnmatthais

 Yeah, the monthly payment opens up the persistent part of the game, which is large-scale fighting for territory on a grid of sorts between all agencies in the game.

Rayx0r

Seems to be a common question.  I posted it also some time ago,  this thread may answer some of your questions:

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/259539/So-how-is-it-compared-to-Planetside.html

PureChaos

thx i just gave it a overview im still sorta 50/50 about the game, it does look interesting however mmmmmmmmm i wish i could just try it.

Varny

 Theres no large battles like Planetside, this isn't an MMO, doesn't even have battles the size of battlefield.

Jath

There are some large battles if you subscribe, but only AvA. And it can be argued to be an MMO. But I won't go there. Lol.

Jath

Originally posted by Vinterkrig

Originally posted by Jath


There are some large battles if you subscribe, but only AvA. And it can be argued to be an MMO. But I won't go there. Lol.

 

they aren't large scale battles though, its 10v10 or 12v12 or w/e it is that is effected by other groups in another instance, that isn't large scale at all

 

AvA (Alliance vs Alliance) is 60v60 from what I know of, so it is pretty large scale.

bonds0097

I'm honestly not sure why people would want more than 10 vs. 10... The current system allows for some real tactics and coordination with each player taking on a meaningful role (rather than joining the zergfest) while still having large-scale battlefield objectives that are affected by the performance of the various skirmishes.

I'm not saying there's really anything wrong with the whole 60 vs. 60 or 256 vs. 256 (which MAG is providing) but it's just not my cup of tea. YMMV.

Deivos

Zerging never gets you very far in a shooter when facing just about any player that can play a game without shooting them in the foot. You're giving up too much tactically in a shooter by zerging, and it usually results in a lock down on any form of headway in a match because your opponents just settle in for the cannon fodder.

 

MAG has up to 256 players total in a battlefield, split between the three factions roughly evenly. Planetside still stands tall with 300+ in a single zone shooting the hell out of one another. And I'd say Planetside does a great job of exemplifying what tactics can actually mean in a shooter, primarily due to the emphasis on unique character builds that fulfill one or a few of many many roles capable on the battlefield. This in turn leading all the way up to a global domination strategy of the steps involved in the many ways in which one can invade a base to take it over depending on skills, tools, vehicles, and weapons available combined with the actual player count one is being pitted against.

 

That's why you can have Sparta moments where a few squads can infiltrate a base and successfully defend it from a full on siege of multiple platoons trying to recap the base. I'd say all in all, the habit of shrinking the battlefield actually lessens the ability to lay down real strategies and full on warfare tactics versus the habit of the usual arena player of trying to either be an isolated badass or work in a small group to chew through anything that's thrown at them, which would actually be a bit of a way of zerging at small scale, because the reliance on other players in such conditions is usually due to a mitigation of risk involved in getting hurt, which frees the main dps players to just have at it.

 

So yeah, I would actually posit the idea that such small scale matches has more of a habit of breeding 'zerg tactics' than larger scale  battlefield conditions do, namely due to the way in which the classes are handled and the variety of roles that are capable of being fulfilled.

TheMaelstrom

Originally posted by Deivos


Zerging never gets you very far in a shooter when facing just about any player that can play a game without shooting them in the foot. You're giving up too much tactically in a shooter by zerging, and it usually results in a lock down on any form of headway in a match because your opponents just settle in for the cannon fodder.
 
MAG has up to 256 players total in a battlefield, split between the three factions roughly evenly. Planetside still stands tall with 300+ in a single zone shooting the hell out of one another. And I'd say Planetside does a great job of exemplifying what tactics can actually mean in a shooter, primarily due to the emphasis on unique character builds that fulfill one or a few of many many roles capable on the battlefield. This in turn leading all the way up to a global domination strategy of the steps involved in the many ways in which one can invade a base to take it over depending on skills, tools, vehicles, and weapons available combined with the actual player count one is being pitted against.
 
That's why you can have Sparta moments where a few squads can infiltrate a base and successfully defend it from a full on siege of multiple platoons trying to recap the base. I'd say all in all, the habit of shrinking the battlefield actually lessens the ability to lay down real strategies and full on warfare tactics versus the habit of the usual arena player of trying to either be an isolated badass or work in a small group to chew through anything that's thrown at them, which would actually be a bit of a way of zerging at small scale, because the reliance on other players in such conditions is usually due to a mitigation of risk involved in getting hurt, which frees the main dps players to just have at it.
 
So yeah, I would actually posit the idea that such small scale matches has more of a habit of breeding 'zerg tactics' than larger scale  battlefield conditions do, namely due to the way in which the classes are handled and the variety of roles that are capable of being fulfilled.

I never played Planetside, but what you're saying definitely makes sense to me. I get frustrated sometimes with the "Johnny Badass" attitude everyone seems to take in small-scale fights. That's why I tend to visit servers in TF2 that have high player limits such as 32 v 32.

Last night I experienced plenty of people going off and doing their own thing in Global Agenda, but I'm assuming that's more because everyone wants to run around and learn the maps, and less because they all think they can be Rambo. hehe.

shepx22

Originally posted by Varny


 Theres no large battles like Planetside, this isn't an MMO, doesn't even have battles the size of battlefield.

 

Wrong and wrong. This is a MMO built on a FPS. There will be large scale battles, maybe not the size of Battlefield, but there is large scale battles. Funny how you speak as if you know of the game when it isnt even out yet.