OW would've been a vastly superior game if they went in the other direction and made it 12v12 with similar class limits. The entire game would've become an enjoyable clusterfrick.
Would overwatch have been better if every character had a movement ability (that doesn't make you have to stand still) and there were powerups like quake?
Dunno if you're shitposting, but I think people do want all the characters to have some more movement abilities to make them more viable in spots, I saw a video of some guy who gave Orisa's Javelin Spin the ability to fly which allowed her to take high ground and such more effectively.
As for Quake powerups I think that'd fundamentally change how the game is played already, so no. While Quad Damage would be funny once in a while when the moronic Russian Junkrat spams a choke and gets a 5k, it'd be too unbalanced.
tl;dr : People will dodge 1v1 fighting games to avoif to hold that L. Multiplayer games are easier for them because they can blame others when they lose.
>despite bottom having more players, the experience is more solo focussed. top is inherently more reliant on teammates
>more players = less pressure to perform well >you can putz around and still get carried to victory
more players means that the game is more of a fun clusterfrick
more players means one or two of your teammates being moronic won't instantly lose the game for you
>more players means that the game is more of a fun clusterfrick >more players means one or two of your teammates being moronic won't instantly lose the game for you
now you must discover this applies to society.
The most fun you have in online games is when you can do your own moronic thing just for the heck of it
In top scenario your absence is felt much more in the games balance
In 5v5, there isn't as much chaos as when you have 10+ teammates
More chaos = less frustration when you lose since most unexpected situations are out of your control anyway
You learn to deal with it and accept the bullshit as part of the experience
more players means that the game is more of a fun clusterfrick
more players means one or two of your teammates being moronic won't instantly lose the game for you
I played overwatch, the automatic matchmaking fought me so hard to keep me in low rank. My teammates were so bad I was getting gold in everything including healing as 76 every match. I got tired of that so I switched to Mei and started playing the game of how annoying I could be to the enemy team at all times, it was way better. Hanging behind to gank anyone who died and send them back to another loading screen was my lifeblood. They didn't want me in high rank so I ruined everyone else's game.
I tried to play that game on multiple occasions and literally every single time they had reverted all my progress so I uninstalled it after an hour. The devs are Black folk.
Loved to log on in this game just to fly and esf around close to the ground and slaloming between the trees of hossin or in the canyons on the desert map which name's eludes me
actual continents (10) and a flow between them via warpgates. because continents were linked to other continents, if you wanted to get from A to C, you had to capture B, or at least some of the facilities on B to link the warpgates.
generally higher TTK (for example, vanguard took 20 hits from anti-tank weapons) and slower respawn (5-30 seconds depending on different things like how frequently you die or whether you had an accessible biolab). this helps punish zerg/leeroy behavior and makes people with medic and armor repair certs much more valuable.
XP was really hard to get unless you were in a squad, and squads had a bonus where the closer you all were, the more XP you got
the game had levels (battle ranks) and each level gave you certs to spend on unlocking stuff (MBT cert for tanks, AT cert for anti tank weaponry, medic certs, etc). so you actually had a character build of sorts. specialization meant something
there were 5(?) different facilities and each one provided an empire bonus. amp gave vehicle sheilds, biolab reduced health respawn, dropship was the only place on a continent you could get galaxies (otherwise you had to go back to sanctuary). this provided strategic value for each facility
there were multiple ways to capture a facility. you could just hack it and wait for the timer, or some facilities had a CTF style capture where you had to bring an enemy control node to an adjacent friendly facility to cap it, or you could siege it and wait for the power to run out, then just clean up the stragglers. hackers could also hack the facility to install viruses, make facility turrets attack the other teams, and some other stuff
it was one of those kinds of games where you'd defend a bridge for 2 hours, go to bed, wake up, and there'd still be 100 people fighting over that same fricking bridge
>biolab reduced health respawn
sorry, i meant biolab reduced respawn
there's a project called psforever that's trying to reverse engineer the PS1 server. it's making very slow progress. they have a wiki with a lot of this shit on it. it's definitely an archaic game that doesn't hold over too in some regards (pretty sure it uses the same engine as EQ1) but also offers a truly unique experience in many other ways that no other game has ever come close. it fricking sucks that PS2 is what we got
So in Planetside, the faction specific tanks needed a crew. They were also quite expensive to spawn. They were quite strong to compensate.
For Planetside 2, corporate stepped in (pic related) and personally had it changed so that any one player could endlessly spawn cheap tanks that had paper armour and despite having multiple seats had the driver do everything. This was despite the fact that one-man tanks ALREADY EXISTED IN THE GAME, the NS Lightning. He did this because he saw Battlefield 3 was doing hot at the time, and wanted to copy it.
Apply that kind of moronation to every single aspect of the game and you have Planetside 2.
Having near instant TTK in a game that large was a mistake from the start. Noone likes running to a big fight just to die before you even know whats shooting you. The swarms of casuals (aka, the people you NEED for a game like this to even work) left really fast.
Promising my ass.
The game is old, outdated and forgotten.
Updates can only do so much to keep a game going and PS2 has run its course. What's left of the playerbase is a bunch of sweaties who make sure your experience is as miserable as possible with their autistic aim and movement.
Things would be much brighter if Daybreak was working on Planetside 3 but instead they wasted money trying to make Planetside Battle royale.
I was never a hardcore player and didn't put in a ton of hours, but I thought this game was super fun to drop into. I always played on the snow map and it was so fun to ride a snowmobile solo out to some rinky dink outpost and slowly capture it while scanning the horizon for enemies to snipe. Equally fun was bum rushing a huge base with a ton of people and then sticking around to defend it from two teams at once. The overall objective felt pretty futile but I don't play online games to win, I play them to shoot people. This felt like the perfect game for crafting memorable personal experiences.
I can't think of another game where small individual moments of sacrifice that go completely unsung can avalanche into significant changes to the balance of power like it does in Planetside 2.
>Diffusion of responbility
Entirely different concept.
morons play the blame game >REEEEEEEEEEE how dare you not play this meta build and adopt my favorite chink eceleb's strategy reeeeeeeeeeeeee >next season some moron number-crunching eceleb picks up your character/strategy and declares it 'sleeper OP' >suddenly what you were doing is no longer deemed a bannable offense
I hate metagays so much.
for any morons with rotten brains who play shit of babbies, think shit like "support morgana," "support annie," "support fiddlesticks," "support zyra," "support lux," "support veigar," etc.
bottom with alltalk enabled is how I met like 75% of my Steam friends
now every game expects you to a) use voice comms for sweat purposes only or b) already be playing with friends in Discord. The game itself is no longer considered a social space
not only that. you have to walk on eggshells the entire time because comms are monitored and the moment someone gets their panties in a bunch, they'll press the "I'm offended" button and you'll get banned regardless of whether you were right.
Every ban I've gotten is from winning a game where the enemy team was talking shit while they were winning early game and reported me when they lost. Contextless moderation Black folk.
because if you stream it or send screenshots to the poor kiddos, their parents are going to get mad and write angry letters at the poor publishers. think of the poor lawyers
if you have a shit player in the top game then their lack of contribution is easier to notice and you're probably gonna lose
it makes some matches feel completely hopeless and soulcrushing
but if you have a couple shit players in the bottom game theres still plenty of opportunity to play around them and carry, you might not even notice some of your team is shit
Bottom gives more room to just frick around, you know, have fun? Something a lot of Ganker could fricking learn. Top is mentally straining and you've got more pressure on your performance.
Teamwork is genuinely a terrible mechanic in the long run.
6v6 means its easier for sweaty try hards to stomp games with their discord friends with callouts and bullshit, and the becomes a vicious cycle. >Players who don’t have 5 people who want to play your game get stomped >Eventually players stop playing when they don’t have a team of discord trannies to prevent stomps >This makes it harder to win against discord troony groups due to being paired with fresh installs more often now >Causes more people to quit >Most feedback devs see is from troony discord groups who are vocal and autistic >Feedback is shit because trannies don’t know shit about game design and have bias perspectives >Game dies because it’s filled with try hard troony discord groups that make it impossible for you to even play
12v12 is better because its much harder to stomp pubs with discord friends.
I think Halo was still the best game to ever have incidental teamwork.
Like, take Capture the Flag. You need to work together to get it but most of the time people wouldn't and you could frick around for the most part. They'd do their own thing and randomly when they'd hear "FLAG TAKEN" shit would get serious and the guy who's been going on a vehicular manslaughter with his running riot chain gunner will stop everything to try and help that sorry frick get from the enemy base to their base, even waiting and honking the horn several times to get his attention.
And when you were one of those guys it truly felt like you were working together as a team instead of the forced teamwork you have to do in other competitive games these days.
Fortnite sometimes has 50v50, though I don't know how often. Seems like Battle Royale type games are the only ones you're going to find with huge player counts like that any more.
I loved Fortnite 50v50. I want that experience of huge battles with one team defending a fort and another sieging it. Maybe both at the same time like that Bedwars mode they add every so often to Hypixel.
>128vs128 FPS >different rank titles from squad leader up to general >different ranks came with special abilities like mortar strikes or comms jammers >could prevent enemy ability use by destroying or capturing buildings on the map >PS3 exclusive
Such a fun game that was completely hobbled by being stuck on console.
The latter leads to weaker communication. In a small group it's easy for one or two obnoxious guys to bark orders and expect the rest of the team to hear, and it's also easy for those obnoxious gays to keep track of what their teammates are doing since there are so few of them.
In a large group, it's difficult for someone to try and backseat all of their teammates and coordinate with them.
Additionally depending on the game simply increasing player count can produce more situations where failure is a result of being situationally outnumbered rather than actual mistakes on the individual's part.
This is incredibly true. TF2 and Mordhau, at their respective peaks, were the most fun I've ever had with multiplayer games, they were really magical.
My theory on why is that at a micro level, the player has a ton of options to express their skill and/or personality. Plus there is a very high skill ceiling so there's a ton of cool stuff to sink time in.
And at the macro level, since there are so many people on a team, there is no pressure on the individual. So the player has the freedom to experiment, frick around, and have FUN.
This is the absolute best kind of multiplayer game. We seriously need more of them.
my only wish is for MCC devs to allow more players per game, imagine 32 player ctf
and add custom game browsing, then we can have maps like huge grass and extinction with 100 players
Top requires everyone performing at their most optimal, anyone that is slacking is an immediate hindrance to the team and overall enjoyment is lowered. This inherently makes people more inclined to try hard and be less tolerant to anything that isn't seen as trying to win. Furthermore, the game and win condition is balanced around such a player count.
Bottom diffuses the responsibility among a larger team. One or a few people performing sub optimally is hardly felt at all and there is more noise happening that makes people less inclined to take the game extremely seriously. When factors to why you died or lost can be boiled down to being in the wrong place and wrong time or being outnumbered, it drives attitudes to taking losses in stride. When people are less uptight and serious, more fun can be had because there is a lesser obsession over playing at your best at all times.
The less amount of players on a team, the more pressure to do well and impact each individual player has on the game's result, yet paradoxically with more players there's more potential impact one player can have in each scenario simply due to the number of bodies present which is inherently more satisfying when you do manage to do well.
Has a MOBA ever tried bottom? I always thought Dota 2 seemed like an interesting game but everyone hating each other and one person being able to ruin a match (usually me since I kept getting que'd with people much better than me making them all hate me) killed it for me
Perhaps custom dota2 games? Never played it myself so can't say for sure.
That said, I think that whole idea of moba games, at least those I know of, is about teamwork and coordination, and every aspect of the game works towards that. You'd need at very least make a new map that would accomodate more bodies (I think that while small map overloaded with players will be fun for some time, it will get old quickly because there won't be much to do but to rush each other's bases).
I also think that top-down perspective won't work with many players - you'll have a constant mess of vfx blasting everywhere, while being unable to target anything properly.
Probably, closest thing to this would be overwatch, IF it had modes with more than 5/5 players, since I believe mechanically characters of that game are moba heroes, just without leveling and equipment management.
>top is guys with communication and years of teamwork with each other vs guys who randomly queued together >bottom is a chaotic mess where sweaty comms are useless with how much stuff is happening
That fleeting moment there was one Tribes 2 server with 128 players. Absolute chaos. 64v64. Skies filled with vehicles, bombers, tanks, players all over the map in all loadouts, bases constantly under attack and repair...crazy.
The top appeals to Spikes and Johnnies.
The bottom appeals to Timmies and Johnnies.
The vast majority of people are Timmies.
Spikes are the small demographic.
You forgot the copious amounts of rubberbanding and comeback mechanics to make it impossible to snowball and carry anyone because god forbid letting someone take the lead
and you get the problem when devs will cater to Spikes, but keep trying to advertise to Timmies
You forgot the copious amounts of rubberbanding and comeback mechanics to make it impossible to snowball and carry anyone because god forbid letting someone take the lead
More people means the burden of responsibility is lower for each player. Let's look at it this way, playing tank on Overwatch is a miserable experience because you are the SOLE reason for your 4 other teammates not only having fun but also winning the game. Now look at playing as heavy in team fortress 2, you can sure as shit carry a match especially with a good medic but you got like 11 other people on your team so you're not as pressured to perform at your peak.
because you have more players, several other things happen as a result >the map is much bigger, causing the fights to ironically be more spread out then in the game with the smaller team where everyone is funneled into the same 2 rooms >the character abilties are less over the top. 12 overwatch heroes would be fricking stupid because they would just perma stunlock the enemy team or drown them in nukes only to be countered by 12 guys who cant ever be killed.
is this overwatch vs tf2? the issue isn't the team size the issue is the moba/mmo mechanics blizzard put in because they don't know how to make anything else after a decade of warcraft
if you snipe a medic in tf2 the enemy team probably has another medic or a dispenser or is camping near the health pickups. if you snipe the medic in overwatch the team is just fricked now until they respawn and you immdately get in there, which causes everyone to get really fricking salty at the mercy main that keeps getting shot because they're tunnel visoning on healing people
The bottom, having a larger battlefield, naturally creates a large sandbox where a smart player can take advantage of unique situations in a many different ways. You're left free to experiment and actually utilize your brain, or free to turn your brain off and just run at the front line repeatedly. Maybe you can swing around and flank (which you can't do in a 5v5 because one man missing means your team loses the 5v4). Maybe you can get in a vehicle and push in a particular area the enemy is weak (power-varying mechanics like vehicles don't fit well into a 5v5). Maybe you can hang back and snipe (more players means a larger battlefield which means you have more targets available for long ranged weaponry keeping them useful without being overpowered). Or maybe you can just play normally on the front line, but all the enemies trying those tactics makes it a more varied, chaotic, and interesting experience to navigate.
It's just a better paradigm that allows for more engaging game design.
A 5 person team makes each person important and these games usually have characters or classes which have flaws which make them partially reliant on the other members
A large pvp game however cannot be taken too seriously, its very chaotic and typically has plenty of people to carry and get carried without outright making the match feel awful
more players means more opportunity to hide in the blob and frick around instead of actively participating in/contributing to the game
you see this phenomenon in battlefield players and people who defend battlefield-alikes (planetside 2), and they always use words like "chaotic" or "immersive" because it's a movie to them instead of a pvp game
Honestly more players means more strats.
I remember playing shit like Movie Battles And it was actually possible to do stuff like push side and main because 12 people down one way wasn't necessarily better.
The most fun and personally rewarding experience I've had in a shooter is playing planetside 2 and participating in a battle with hundreds of other players. I went on a wide flank as the high mobility class and personally destroyed the enemies only remaining spawn point which allowed my side to win the battle and push the enemy out of the zone. It was a wild gambit that, if I failed, would have had no impact on the outcome of the battle so there was no pressure to perform.
because there are people who play them like it's their job and they're all on your team having a mental breakdown while reporting you for not being as big a homosexual as them
I wouldn't be inherently against competitive games if it didn't solely have one style of gamemode or if people didn't take it a slight that you didn't care to follow the meta to the letter.
It's just the law of large numbers. Larger numbers of players results in a lot more people cancelling each other out and the way it plays out makes the game more fun simply by the variation. In a smaller 5v5 game, the game needs to be balanced around 1 person not being able to 1 v 5 the other team and there aren't a lot of ways you can force that 50% winrate that those systems strive to optimize for. In a 50 v 50 game, 1 person can kill 5 people and it's no big deal, because the guy killing 5 people probably has 5 people on his team dying to 1 person on the other team and occasionally those 2 "champions" bump into each other on the battlefield and it results in awesome encounters. The sort of shit people stop and watch in game.
And sometimes those 2 "champions" end up on the same team and they might kick a ton of ass, but the other team has 10 average people who kill the other 48 people on the "champion" team and then those 2 players are in a 2 v 50 which they obviously lose, but they have fun doing it because it is blatantly obvious they are playing well and aren't overly impeded PERSONALLY by the other 48 people on their team. Those 5 v 5 games with matchmaking systems are total scams. They're deliberately made with a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion mindset. That is, they're made with the philosophy that no one should ever be able to shine. Everyone should sort of just be brown and mediocre. Everyone should have an ~50%. No millionaires, everyone must have equal outcomes.
I'd add that the 50v50 games are usually big enough that you can just go somewhere else and completely avoid the god player on the enemy team for the most part, in stuff like CS you're forced to engage the onetap god in every round
I actually think this way so I can explain.
In a very heavy teambased game, like a tactical shooter or a MOBA that has single digit amount of team members, you feel you have a duty and expectations to uphold. The stress that your whole team can be doing okay or even about to win but then you frick up your role badly that you single-handedly made the team lose feels very bad. And then being chewed out for it afterwards. In a game with 20+ members on both sides and being able to just be an engineer rather than 'the' engineer and fricking up doesn't feel as stressful or as bad because if you lose you can just feel "well there were 5 of us on the team and we all fricked up, it wasn't just my fault."
I guess for some it may be about "being able to blame others for being bad" but that is not the case for me because I feel the least stressed in one on one fighting games where winning or losing is entirely up to me with no random third parties getting in the way of the fight.
all of them? have you been paying attention? shooters get changes exclusively catered to shitters like never before and you still piss and cry because they're not in a 128v128 format
As there are more and more people involved everyone pays less and less attention to the actions and contributions of individuals. It is easier to get "lost in the crowd" if there are a lot of people playing and just have fun because it's unlikely that one or two players fricking up is going to dramatically change everything.
If there are smaller teams, then everyone often has an important role to play that's going to be scrutinized. One player fricking up can make or break a game. One player fricking up can get you killed or affect what you are capable of achieving in a round, which can compromise your fun
don't agree at all, with larger players the games tend to become more spammy and chaotic and you die to random bullshit which is frustrating. Especially if the game has splash damage weapons and chokepoints.
More shit to worry about dieing to = The people who play are more chill about dieing and have more fun
fun vs job
despite bottom having more players, the experience is more solo focussed. top is inherently more reliant on teammates
and as we know, relying on teammates in a algorithmic skill based matchmaking lobby is literal hell on earth
yeah, I forgot that part
matchmaking is hell period. it'll try its damndest to ensure that 50% even if it has to put you up against the top 100.
i really do not get what this image is trying to convey
Smaller team games are more competitive, larger team games are more fun.
bottom: playing pubs in CS 1.6
top: CSGO/CS2 matchmaking/ranked/FaceIT/etc.
meant to say premier* instead of ranked
anyway it sucked the soul out of the game because playing pubs is dead so no one plays to have fun anymore
The top is OW, the bottom is TF2.
OW would've been a vastly superior game if they went in the other direction and made it 12v12 with similar class limits. The entire game would've become an enjoyable clusterfrick.
Would overwatch have been better if every character had a movement ability (that doesn't make you have to stand still) and there were powerups like quake?
Dunno if you're shitposting, but I think people do want all the characters to have some more movement abilities to make them more viable in spots, I saw a video of some guy who gave Orisa's Javelin Spin the ability to fly which allowed her to take high ground and such more effectively.
As for Quake powerups I think that'd fundamentally change how the game is played already, so no. While Quad Damage would be funny once in a while when the moronic Russian Junkrat spams a choke and gets a 5k, it'd be too unbalanced.
I'd definitely take it less serious
tl;dr : People will dodge 1v1 fighting games to avoif to hold that L. Multiplayer games are easier for them because they can blame others when they lose.
more players = less pressure to perform well
you can putz around and still get carried to victory
>despite bottom having more players, the experience is more solo focussed. top is inherently more reliant on teammates
>more players = less pressure to perform well
>you can putz around and still get carried to victory
>more players means that the game is more of a fun clusterfrick
>more players means one or two of your teammates being moronic won't instantly lose the game for you
now you must discover this applies to society.
The most fun you have in online games is when you can do your own moronic thing just for the heck of it
In top scenario your absence is felt much more in the games balance
In 5v5, there isn't as much chaos as when you have 10+ teammates
More chaos = less frustration when you lose since most unexpected situations are out of your control anyway
You learn to deal with it and accept the bullshit as part of the experience
more players means that the game is more of a fun clusterfrick
more players means one or two of your teammates being moronic won't instantly lose the game for you
I played overwatch, the automatic matchmaking fought me so hard to keep me in low rank. My teammates were so bad I was getting gold in everything including healing as 76 every match. I got tired of that so I switched to Mei and started playing the game of how annoying I could be to the enemy team at all times, it was way better. Hanging behind to gank anyone who died and send them back to another loading screen was my lifeblood. They didn't want me in high rank so I ruined everyone else's game.
Planetside 2 should have started the new mmo fps genre but it was horribly mismanaged from start to end and now its fricking dead
I tried to play that game on multiple occasions and literally every single time they had reverted all my progress so I uninstalled it after an hour. The devs are Black folk.
Loved to log on in this game just to fly and esf around close to the ground and slaloming between the trees of hossin or in the canyons on the desert map which name's eludes me
The valkyrie did this but better + it could be a spawn point so you could zoom around while dumping shit tons of squadmates onto the battlefield
I did this in battlefield 2 just pulling loops in the transport choppers in between slaloming.
MMOFPS is a cursed genre.
mordhau's mass multiplayer modes were fun, but I guess that's not a shooter
ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS MAKE PLANETSIDE 2 AND NOT MMOBF3
THATS ALL THEY HAD TO FRICKING DO
What was differwnt about PS1? I only got to catch the second game.
actual continents (10) and a flow between them via warpgates. because continents were linked to other continents, if you wanted to get from A to C, you had to capture B, or at least some of the facilities on B to link the warpgates.
generally higher TTK (for example, vanguard took 20 hits from anti-tank weapons) and slower respawn (5-30 seconds depending on different things like how frequently you die or whether you had an accessible biolab). this helps punish zerg/leeroy behavior and makes people with medic and armor repair certs much more valuable.
XP was really hard to get unless you were in a squad, and squads had a bonus where the closer you all were, the more XP you got
the game had levels (battle ranks) and each level gave you certs to spend on unlocking stuff (MBT cert for tanks, AT cert for anti tank weaponry, medic certs, etc). so you actually had a character build of sorts. specialization meant something
there were 5(?) different facilities and each one provided an empire bonus. amp gave vehicle sheilds, biolab reduced health respawn, dropship was the only place on a continent you could get galaxies (otherwise you had to go back to sanctuary). this provided strategic value for each facility
there were multiple ways to capture a facility. you could just hack it and wait for the timer, or some facilities had a CTF style capture where you had to bring an enemy control node to an adjacent friendly facility to cap it, or you could siege it and wait for the power to run out, then just clean up the stragglers. hackers could also hack the facility to install viruses, make facility turrets attack the other teams, and some other stuff
Ew, I played the remake of the actual game.
it was one of those kinds of games where you'd defend a bridge for 2 hours, go to bed, wake up, and there'd still be 100 people fighting over that same fricking bridge
what a day, what a lovely day
>biolab reduced health respawn
sorry, i meant biolab reduced respawn
there's a project called psforever that's trying to reverse engineer the PS1 server. it's making very slow progress. they have a wiki with a lot of this shit on it. it's definitely an archaic game that doesn't hold over too in some regards (pretty sure it uses the same engine as EQ1) but also offers a truly unique experience in many other ways that no other game has ever come close. it fricking sucks that PS2 is what we got
psforever works fine only problem is that nobody plays it
sounds tedious
So in Planetside, the faction specific tanks needed a crew. They were also quite expensive to spawn. They were quite strong to compensate.
For Planetside 2, corporate stepped in (pic related) and personally had it changed so that any one player could endlessly spawn cheap tanks that had paper armour and despite having multiple seats had the driver do everything. This was despite the fact that one-man tanks ALREADY EXISTED IN THE GAME, the NS Lightning. He did this because he saw Battlefield 3 was doing hot at the time, and wanted to copy it.
Apply that kind of moronation to every single aspect of the game and you have Planetside 2.
basically this
Having near instant TTK in a game that large was a mistake from the start. Noone likes running to a big fight just to die before you even know whats shooting you. The swarms of casuals (aka, the people you NEED for a game like this to even work) left really fast.
Right now the devs are doing Objective: SURVIVE. But the plans they've posted for the sunderer look very promising.
Promising my ass.
The game is old, outdated and forgotten.
Updates can only do so much to keep a game going and PS2 has run its course. What's left of the playerbase is a bunch of sweaties who make sure your experience is as miserable as possible with their autistic aim and movement.
Things would be much brighter if Daybreak was working on Planetside 3 but instead they wasted money trying to make Planetside Battle royale.
This game was brutally murdered by the factional imbalances.
>factional imbalances.
everyone says this but Ive been a day 1 player for like a decade now and the factions were always pretty equal
VS won like 70% of all engagements for a period.
would've been cool if it wasn't so reliant on having friends
last I played solo play was heavily punished, but that was years ago
heard they added a big airship and 10 man tank or some shit but they need a clan to use, shocker
I was never a hardcore player and didn't put in a ton of hours, but I thought this game was super fun to drop into. I always played on the snow map and it was so fun to ride a snowmobile solo out to some rinky dink outpost and slowly capture it while scanning the horizon for enemies to snipe. Equally fun was bum rushing a huge base with a ton of people and then sticking around to defend it from two teams at once. The overall objective felt pretty futile but I don't play online games to win, I play them to shoot people. This felt like the perfect game for crafting memorable personal experiences.
planetside 2 is honestly a really solid shooter
I can't think of another game where small individual moments of sacrifice that go completely unsung can avalanche into significant changes to the balance of power like it does in Planetside 2.
>the vanatu medic reviving homies every 2 seconds
Dissolution of responsibility.
In 5v5 every man matters.
16v16 random matchmaking, who cares?
32v32 even more so.
>Dissolution of responsibility.
>In 5v5 every man matters.
>16v16 random matchmaking, who cares?
>32v32 even more so.
an interesting phenomenon
It's an actual thing outside of vidya as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility
>It doesn't matter if I don't play the objective, because someone else on my team will get it.
the political-religious implications...
The Cultural Implications.
>Diffusion of responbility
Entirely different concept.
morons play the blame game >REEEEEEEEEEE how dare you not play this meta build and adopt my favorite chink eceleb's strategy reeeeeeeeeeeeee
>next season some moron number-crunching eceleb picks up your character/strategy and declares it 'sleeper OP'
>suddenly what you were doing is no longer deemed a bannable offense
I hate metagays so much.
for any morons with rotten brains who play shit of babbies, think shit like "support morgana," "support annie," "support fiddlesticks," "support zyra," "support lux," "support veigar," etc.
if i could kill you and get away with it i would frick support lux players endlessly.
i don't get it
bottom with alltalk enabled is how I met like 75% of my Steam friends
now every game expects you to a) use voice comms for sweat purposes only or b) already be playing with friends in Discord. The game itself is no longer considered a social space
not only that. you have to walk on eggshells the entire time because comms are monitored and the moment someone gets their panties in a bunch, they'll press the "I'm offended" button and you'll get banned regardless of whether you were right.
Every ban I've gotten is from winning a game where the enemy team was talking shit while they were winning early game and reported me when they lost. Contextless moderation Black folk.
>pic
ah yes, just like trying to say k***ht in runescape back in the day
can't stand k***gts to be honest
This Sa****ay I'm going to ******inate some k***hts in S****horpe.
Does it ban it because you cant spell knight without nig?
yeah it's designed to automatically filter anything with nig in it
what happens if you spell it backwards like
reggin
I don't know but here's something even better
excellent
It's a tough life being the Regginator
>single player game
>Filters you from typing bad words
Why?
because if you stream it or send screenshots to the poor kiddos, their parents are going to get mad and write angry letters at the poor publishers. think of the poor lawyers
if you have a shit player in the top game then their lack of contribution is easier to notice and you're probably gonna lose
it makes some matches feel completely hopeless and soulcrushing
but if you have a couple shit players in the bottom game theres still plenty of opportunity to play around them and carry, you might not even notice some of your team is shit
Bottom gives more room to just frick around, you know, have fun? Something a lot of Ganker could fricking learn. Top is mentally straining and you've got more pressure on your performance.
Bottom is having fun fricking around while the tryhards hit objectives. Winning and losing doesn't matter.
Top is pressure to perform, winning is everything. There is no fun to be had. It's a job
Teamwork is genuinely a terrible mechanic in the long run.
6v6 means its easier for sweaty try hards to stomp games with their discord friends with callouts and bullshit, and the becomes a vicious cycle.
>Players who don’t have 5 people who want to play your game get stomped
>Eventually players stop playing when they don’t have a team of discord trannies to prevent stomps
>This makes it harder to win against discord troony groups due to being paired with fresh installs more often now
>Causes more people to quit
>Most feedback devs see is from troony discord groups who are vocal and autistic
>Feedback is shit because trannies don’t know shit about game design and have bias perspectives
>Game dies because it’s filled with try hard troony discord groups that make it impossible for you to even play
12v12 is better because its much harder to stomp pubs with discord friends.
I think Halo was still the best game to ever have incidental teamwork.
Like, take Capture the Flag. You need to work together to get it but most of the time people wouldn't and you could frick around for the most part. They'd do their own thing and randomly when they'd hear "FLAG TAKEN" shit would get serious and the guy who's been going on a vehicular manslaughter with his running riot chain gunner will stop everything to try and help that sorry frick get from the enemy base to their base, even waiting and honking the horn several times to get his attention.
And when you were one of those guys it truly felt like you were working together as a team instead of the forced teamwork you have to do in other competitive games these days.
If you want to understand, just try to caption this.
GunZ the duel beta.
Either you get stomped or you are doing the stomping.
Sometimes I feel like 1 versus 1 games are more like me versus me games
In the end, I'm the only one losing
BUT THEN
Two moronic hill giants fighting?
I have had spectators a couple of times in my games. I hope they had a good time
just straight up true
it's too stressful even in friendlies
Are there even any decent large team games around anymore? Only ones I can think of is Battlefield(and that indie game clone), and TF2.
Haven't played a multiplayer game in like 2 years since the only ones released these days are 1v1 or 5v5 competitive cancer shit.
Fortnite sometimes has 50v50, though I don't know how often. Seems like Battle Royale type games are the only ones you're going to find with huge player counts like that any more.
I loved Fortnite 50v50. I want that experience of huge battles with one team defending a fort and another sieging it. Maybe both at the same time like that Bedwars mode they add every so often to Hypixel.
I liked Isonzo but its on life support. The big team FPS is saturated if anything
>128vs128 FPS
>different rank titles from squad leader up to general
>different ranks came with special abilities like mortar strikes or comms jammers
>could prevent enemy ability use by destroying or capturing buildings on the map
>PS3 exclusive
Such a fun game that was completely hobbled by being stuck on console.
chaos is fun.
we need more games where there are hundreds of players in a match, it's great whether everyone is fricking around or playing seriously
The latter leads to weaker communication. In a small group it's easy for one or two obnoxious guys to bark orders and expect the rest of the team to hear, and it's also easy for those obnoxious gays to keep track of what their teammates are doing since there are so few of them.
In a large group, it's difficult for someone to try and backseat all of their teammates and coordinate with them.
Additionally depending on the game simply increasing player count can produce more situations where failure is a result of being situationally outnumbered rather than actual mistakes on the individual's part.
l4d2 versus gamemode
-------------------------------
TF2 32 player servers
>32 player tf2 weird custom game mode servers
name something more kino than mandrill maze with no timer, you can't
>the version with the invisible walls stretching up to the ceiling that keeps you from being able to spam projectiles over the maze walls
peak gay
>not the version that lets you freely shoot or jump over the walls but instagibs you if you land on the wall itself
overwatch removing 2 players still seems wild to me
This is incredibly true. TF2 and Mordhau, at their respective peaks, were the most fun I've ever had with multiplayer games, they were really magical.
My theory on why is that at a micro level, the player has a ton of options to express their skill and/or personality. Plus there is a very high skill ceiling so there's a ton of cool stuff to sink time in.
And at the macro level, since there are so many people on a team, there is no pressure on the individual. So the player has the freedom to experiment, frick around, and have FUN.
This is the absolute best kind of multiplayer game. We seriously need more of them.
take me back bros
my only wish is for MCC devs to allow more players per game, imagine 32 player ctf
and add custom game browsing, then we can have maps like huge grass and extinction with 100 players
32 player infection on sandtrap with gauss hogs even more cancerous than it was back in the day
Top requires everyone performing at their most optimal, anyone that is slacking is an immediate hindrance to the team and overall enjoyment is lowered. This inherently makes people more inclined to try hard and be less tolerant to anything that isn't seen as trying to win. Furthermore, the game and win condition is balanced around such a player count.
Bottom diffuses the responsibility among a larger team. One or a few people performing sub optimally is hardly felt at all and there is more noise happening that makes people less inclined to take the game extremely seriously. When factors to why you died or lost can be boiled down to being in the wrong place and wrong time or being outnumbered, it drives attitudes to taking losses in stride. When people are less uptight and serious, more fun can be had because there is a lesser obsession over playing at your best at all times.
But more people also means more chance of jackass who hacks and ruins it for everybody like Battlefield games
if you play anything other than this you're a coward
>being a sweaty no fun allowed comgay/tourneygay tryhard
>having fun in groups bad
you must lead a miserable existence.
implying the people playing group games are having fun lmao.
The less amount of players on a team, the more pressure to do well and impact each individual player has on the game's result, yet paradoxically with more players there's more potential impact one player can have in each scenario simply due to the number of bodies present which is inherently more satisfying when you do manage to do well.
Has a MOBA ever tried bottom? I always thought Dota 2 seemed like an interesting game but everyone hating each other and one person being able to ruin a match (usually me since I kept getting que'd with people much better than me making them all hate me) killed it for me
Perhaps custom dota2 games? Never played it myself so can't say for sure.
That said, I think that whole idea of moba games, at least those I know of, is about teamwork and coordination, and every aspect of the game works towards that. You'd need at very least make a new map that would accomodate more bodies (I think that while small map overloaded with players will be fun for some time, it will get old quickly because there won't be much to do but to rush each other's bases).
I also think that top-down perspective won't work with many players - you'll have a constant mess of vfx blasting everywhere, while being unable to target anything properly.
Probably, closest thing to this would be overwatch, IF it had modes with more than 5/5 players, since I believe mechanically characters of that game are moba heroes, just without leveling and equipment management.
>top is guys with communication and years of teamwork with each other vs guys who randomly queued together
>bottom is a chaotic mess where sweaty comms are useless with how much stuff is happening
you being bad
That fleeting moment there was one Tribes 2 server with 128 players. Absolute chaos. 64v64. Skies filled with vehicles, bombers, tanks, players all over the map in all loadouts, bases constantly under attack and repair...crazy.
Don't forget
tsmt
>OW had a bug in custom games that allowed you to do like 12v12 but you needed to add bots
>removed within a couple of days
The top appeals to Spikes and Johnnies.
The bottom appeals to Timmies and Johnnies.
The vast majority of people are Timmies.
Spikes are the small demographic.
and you get the problem when devs will cater to Spikes, but keep trying to advertise to Timmies
You forgot the copious amounts of rubberbanding and comeback mechanics to make it impossible to snowball and carry anyone because god forbid letting someone take the lead
>every RTS game the past decade caters to Spikes and thinks esports will print infinite money
What do these names mean?
Pretty self-explanatory.
>Spikes: Competitive sweatlords
>Timmies: Casuals/"For Fun" players
>Johnnies: Moderately skilled individuals who play both modes
More people means the burden of responsibility is lower for each player. Let's look at it this way, playing tank on Overwatch is a miserable experience because you are the SOLE reason for your 4 other teammates not only having fun but also winning the game. Now look at playing as heavy in team fortress 2, you can sure as shit carry a match especially with a good medic but you got like 11 other people on your team so you're not as pressured to perform at your peak.
because you have more players, several other things happen as a result
>the map is much bigger, causing the fights to ironically be more spread out then in the game with the smaller team where everyone is funneled into the same 2 rooms
>the character abilties are less over the top. 12 overwatch heroes would be fricking stupid because they would just perma stunlock the enemy team or drown them in nukes only to be countered by 12 guys who cant ever be killed.
is this overwatch vs tf2? the issue isn't the team size the issue is the moba/mmo mechanics blizzard put in because they don't know how to make anything else after a decade of warcraft
if you snipe a medic in tf2 the enemy team probably has another medic or a dispenser or is camping near the health pickups. if you snipe the medic in overwatch the team is just fricked now until they respawn and you immdately get in there, which causes everyone to get really fricking salty at the mercy main that keeps getting shot because they're tunnel visoning on healing people
5v5 esport genre is about winning and nothing else. If you don't win its worthless.
Larger scale games like Battlefield or MMOs are more about having fun doing what you want
>the update that disabled limits on team counts
50 versus 50 matchups were insane, even if they crashed the server.
12 v 12
Truly the perfect size. I love Bad Company 2
Chivalry 2 duel servers vs team objective
>autistic teammates watch your every move if you're alive and they're dead
The bottom, having a larger battlefield, naturally creates a large sandbox where a smart player can take advantage of unique situations in a many different ways. You're left free to experiment and actually utilize your brain, or free to turn your brain off and just run at the front line repeatedly. Maybe you can swing around and flank (which you can't do in a 5v5 because one man missing means your team loses the 5v4). Maybe you can get in a vehicle and push in a particular area the enemy is weak (power-varying mechanics like vehicles don't fit well into a 5v5). Maybe you can hang back and snipe (more players means a larger battlefield which means you have more targets available for long ranged weaponry keeping them useful without being overpowered). Or maybe you can just play normally on the front line, but all the enemies trying those tactics makes it a more varied, chaotic, and interesting experience to navigate.
It's just a better paradigm that allows for more engaging game design.
wdym mag was garbage and planetside 2 is a absolute scam. Battlefield games were ok up until 3
>compgay talking: tea and crumpets peace on earth
>compgay in-game: *is as insufferable as humanly possible*
A 5 person team makes each person important and these games usually have characters or classes which have flaws which make them partially reliant on the other members
A large pvp game however cannot be taken too seriously, its very chaotic and typically has plenty of people to carry and get carried without outright making the match feel awful
more players means more opportunity to hide in the blob and frick around instead of actively participating in/contributing to the game
you see this phenomenon in battlefield players and people who defend battlefield-alikes (planetside 2), and they always use words like "chaotic" or "immersive" because it's a movie to them instead of a pvp game
>you have to contribute and be completely engaged
>I wanna win win win win
>no, you can't have fun, I want to WIN
go play a 1v1 game homosexual
>b-b-but muh teamplay dynamics
there's plenty of pve team games too
Honestly more players means more strats.
I remember playing shit like Movie Battles And it was actually possible to do stuff like push side and main because 12 people down one way wasn't necessarily better.
The most fun and personally rewarding experience I've had in a shooter is playing planetside 2 and participating in a battle with hundreds of other players. I went on a wide flank as the high mobility class and personally destroyed the enemies only remaining spawn point which allowed my side to win the battle and push the enemy out of the zone. It was a wild gambit that, if I failed, would have had no impact on the outcome of the battle so there was no pressure to perform.
I don't understand why people act like competitive games are stressful or whatever.
because there are people who play them like it's their job and they're all on your team having a mental breakdown while reporting you for not being as big a homosexual as them
I wouldn't be inherently against competitive games if it didn't solely have one style of gamemode or if people didn't take it a slight that you didn't care to follow the meta to the letter.
It's just the law of large numbers. Larger numbers of players results in a lot more people cancelling each other out and the way it plays out makes the game more fun simply by the variation. In a smaller 5v5 game, the game needs to be balanced around 1 person not being able to 1 v 5 the other team and there aren't a lot of ways you can force that 50% winrate that those systems strive to optimize for. In a 50 v 50 game, 1 person can kill 5 people and it's no big deal, because the guy killing 5 people probably has 5 people on his team dying to 1 person on the other team and occasionally those 2 "champions" bump into each other on the battlefield and it results in awesome encounters. The sort of shit people stop and watch in game.
And sometimes those 2 "champions" end up on the same team and they might kick a ton of ass, but the other team has 10 average people who kill the other 48 people on the "champion" team and then those 2 players are in a 2 v 50 which they obviously lose, but they have fun doing it because it is blatantly obvious they are playing well and aren't overly impeded PERSONALLY by the other 48 people on their team. Those 5 v 5 games with matchmaking systems are total scams. They're deliberately made with a Diversity, Equity, Inclusion mindset. That is, they're made with the philosophy that no one should ever be able to shine. Everyone should sort of just be brown and mediocre. Everyone should have an ~50%. No millionaires, everyone must have equal outcomes.
I'd add that the 50v50 games are usually big enough that you can just go somewhere else and completely avoid the god player on the enemy team for the most part, in stuff like CS you're forced to engage the onetap god in every round
I actually think this way so I can explain.
In a very heavy teambased game, like a tactical shooter or a MOBA that has single digit amount of team members, you feel you have a duty and expectations to uphold. The stress that your whole team can be doing okay or even about to win but then you frick up your role badly that you single-handedly made the team lose feels very bad. And then being chewed out for it afterwards. In a game with 20+ members on both sides and being able to just be an engineer rather than 'the' engineer and fricking up doesn't feel as stressful or as bad because if you lose you can just feel "well there were 5 of us on the team and we all fricked up, it wasn't just my fault."
I guess for some it may be about "being able to blame others for being bad" but that is not the case for me because I feel the least stressed in one on one fighting games where winning or losing is entirely up to me with no random third parties getting in the way of the fight.
I do
get good b***h
Has there been a single multiplayer combat game released in the past decade that didn't exclusively pander to compgays?
That de-roblox'd Battlefield clone iirc
all of them? have you been paying attention? shooters get changes exclusively catered to shitters like never before and you still piss and cry because they're not in a 128v128 format
Big Team Battle SWAT in Reach on huge maps was so fricking stupid but a great time.
>Top: Counterstrike
>Bottom: Halo BTB
As there are more and more people involved everyone pays less and less attention to the actions and contributions of individuals. It is easier to get "lost in the crowd" if there are a lot of people playing and just have fun because it's unlikely that one or two players fricking up is going to dramatically change everything.
If there are smaller teams, then everyone often has an important role to play that's going to be scrutinized. One player fricking up can make or break a game. One player fricking up can get you killed or affect what you are capable of achieving in a round, which can compromise your fun
don't agree at all, with larger players the games tend to become more spammy and chaotic and you die to random bullshit which is frustrating. Especially if the game has splash damage weapons and chokepoints.
Bottom presumably has no ranked points to worry about