What I dont understand is the fact of PS2. When it was under sony, there was no new content, optimizations sucked but people luckily played it. Than it came under Daybreak, people started to be angry after new content arrived, and were crying that there was no new content for like 3 years (even through it was under before Sony, for those fanatics it was error on Daybreak side). And finally there were some optimizations which actually make the game better. People complained even more. I think, when you act nicely, people are more toxic. Humans ...

Well, not being a lobby shooter is also one of the reason why PS2 struggles, also the lack of objectives overall, most of the time you just go around coloring the map. While the big battles are breathtaking and amazing to play, sometimes it shows the game's weakness, like some bases are clearly not designed to house big battles and are just frustrating to play (Bio lab I'm looking at you).


Well, also, CSGO is not the only one, Battlefield, CoD and Overwatch are all very popular lobby shooters and can be good in their own way. I think people saying they hate lobby shooters are just being hipsters, they hate it because it's cool to hate lobby shooters now. While in turn, very few of them actually play and support PS2, even though that's the only open world shooter in the existence as of now.

Lobby game competition is also significantly more saturated where open world is not.

Also considering if this is the new target audience of lobby shooter fans then it will be interesting to see how they swallow the asymetrical balance considering most lobby shooters are built on symmetry and competitiveness for the quick matches.

IMO i dont really see 40kec becoming a competitive style game unless they start mirror matching by adding similar capabilities across all factions.

This is going to be a very interesting launch to see how they market this to the general gamers and non 40k fans for that purpose. Most may compare it to a less polished Gears of War rip off as most non 40k nooblets do.

Competitive games dont necessarily need mirror matches. DOTA has no mirror matches and is doing just fine in competitive gaming.

Although I do agree that EC wont be a competitive game. For that we would need a mode where you can create a private match. (eg. guild vs guild)

Mainly its hardware requirements and optimization were complete ass. Hey we've heard that before somewhere...where though?

Just because they got "open world" to work doesn't mean their game ran without a hitch.

Also PS1 was just better balanced overall than PS2 I think and it turned PS1 players off.

To get it out of the way, Planetside 2 is still a very successful game overall and is a real achievement in terms of multiplayer shooters.

With that out of the way, Planetside 2 stopped growing because it got almost no new content in years of release. Maybe one map (that wasn't a very good one) and a new vehicle, but nothing exciting beyond that.

True for MOBAs perhaps also hindering this from any competitive modes aside from GvG with any seriousness is the third person nature and seeing around corners. Lots of hate for that in competitive fps forums.

I do think GvG is being added at some point, hopefully it adds value to the game via guilds but I wonder how seriously adopted it will be. Im not too well versed in solid 10+ player GvG closed lobby match success in games.

I don't think GvG will work well on a small scale with such ridiculously large and empty maps.

Well not all maps are so big. Obviously someting like 5v5 wont work well.

Lobby shooter are going well like CoD or Overwatch, but they are a different game (not an MMO more like MOBAs) to what this game is trying to be. Those matches will be no more then 20v20 if that, and doesn't last more then 15-20min a round normally, this gives people the freedom to have a quick match and hop off.

if this is just going to be a lobby shooter with 30v30 then at launch how is it going to compete with other more polished games like CoD infinite warfare or even titan fall 2? The devs say they will eventually make the battles more massive with proper short to long term campaign goals but at this point it's all just empty talk.

Since it's hub and spoke all your victories will just be a mark on a point in the "World Map" until some other faction decides to "take" it, and then what? get in to a queue and wait for the defending side to "show up" or would the attacking side just "Fast Travel" to an empty map or with like 2 players defending it?

The current queuing system is so borken right now, like how one of the large guilds who took 25min in queue and still couldn't find a game (viedo here he had some good point to be worried about)

I want this game to succeed but it's just so hard when everything is headed to the wrong direction.