Victory

[Edfishy]

Most of the reviews I had read for PlanetSide complained about the lack of any real victory or goal. Although SOE is talking about removing/redesigning sanctuaries, I would highly suggest the ability to take an empire's sanctuary.

BALANCE
Sanctuaries would obviously have mechanisms (shields, multiple simultaneous hacks required, limited window of opportunity, etc) to prevent spam hacks and to ensure a sanc cap would take a great deal of effort to pull off.

CAPTURED
If the sanctuary is taken, each member of the losing empire has a choice to EDIT fight alongside their choice of the remaining two empires. This choice would last as long as the window of opportunity lasts before a pre-determined "resistance" rises and reclaims the old sanctuary back for the original empire.

Your character and vehicles would get a themed texture to be similar to your newfound ally, for example a mostly red with some blue paint job if you're the NC working with the TR, and you would spawn at their sanctuary with access to each other's tech.

EDIT This would be designed to be difficult enough to require several months to accomplish a sanctuary cap, requiring a full server, etc.

CEASE FIRE
EDIT Taking a single sanctuary occurs once every few months. Taking the final could take years, and is intended as an "unobtainable goal". In the unlikely event the third sanctuary is taken, the lucky players are treated to merits, exp boosts, and some sort of a "Congratulations" victory screen (to save and show off to others), and then either:

A) The server resets to three empires again. (simplest solution)

or...

THE UNDERGROUND
B) a group of players spawn as "the rising underground" for their original faction in various spawn points in their original sanctuaries (or perhaps it rotates/randomizes). Every kill made by the Underground gives bonus experience returns an old comrade to your side (You'd go from a TR mix to a pure VN for example). The sanctuaries would no longer have the defensive mechanisms, so they'd fall in a hurry. This time would mostly be a "celebration time" (cha-cha lines all around) while things quickly returned to normal.

YOUR THOUGHTS?
Should there be even a chance of some sort of victory? Or should sanctuaries be forever locked off?

[Hamma]

I honestly have never liked the idea of a victory condition in any persistent MMO.

[Sovereign]

^ Agreed, there shouldn't ever be even remote ceasefires or anything that would infringe on the games persistent gameplay and battles..

It wouldn't be planetside anymore it would be more along the lines of diplomacy-side aka civilization the mmo! :sick:

[JreaperT]

I dont want to ever log in to find my Empire has lost its Sanc. I dont ever want to fight with or for another Empire. The whole point of Planetside is a never ending war between three incredibly idealogically differant sides.

Simply put. Keep it the way it is. If it aint broke dont fix it. Out of all the things they could change for PS:N, if they do this I wont be playing it.

[Rbstr]

I'm with Hamma. You can't be able to "win" and cause a reset because that ruins even perceived persistence. You can't win and force people to swap empires, because that's just stupid.

The only real "win" conditions in MMO I've found to be decent are EVE-style. Where you can completely take some alliance's space and eliminate them as a space-power...but you can't technically force anyone to leave the alliance...It also only really works with a persistent equipment model and real incentives to hold particular regions (ship's that blowed up stay blowed up, and owning space helps you greatly economically).

[Edfishy]

You wouldn't be swapping empires, you'd still be NC/VN/TR but fighting alongside a different empire (or simply start as "undeground" when your sanc is capped). I don't see this as being too different from the current "Play with enemy weaponry" drop-ins the devs do, only it wouldn't last as long and would be directly correlating to something player's have done.

Capping one empire's sanc would be designed as a very rare occasion requiring an amazing degree of teamwork on a server-packed night; occuring once in a few months, maybe. After the window of opportunity is up, the alliance breaks and the resistance reclaims their sanc.

"Winning" would be something that might happen once in a couple years, intentionally designed as an unobtainable goal. Lore-wise, they wouldn't have actually won, as the temporary alliances breaks up from the resistances and the fight keeps going, but for a brief moment there was peace on Auraxis.

In the end, instead of having to say, "Nah, you can't win the game", I'd like to be able to say, "You'd have to be gods to 'win' PlanetSide".

Thanks for weighing in though, I find it interesting to think of PSN as being the treadmill of MMOFPS's... in a good way! =)

[Wrath]

The only real "win" conditions in MMO I've found to be decent are EVE-style. Where you can completely take some alliance's space and eliminate them as a space-power...but you can't technically force anyone to leave the alliance...It also only really works with a persistent equipment model and real incentives to hold particular regions (ship's that blowed up stay blowed up, and owning space helps you greatly economically).

you must have missed goonswawm forcing bob to disband :P

but yeah I dont see the need to have the ability to win. I always thought the rare occasions you get a lock out in PS. the days worth of brag rights on the forums was more then enough rewards for the efforts

[basti]

Lets put this easy: Its not possible to win, without breaking the game into a scenario mode of "the same every time again wtf?".

Leave it as it is, you cant make people win without making other loose...

[Raymac]

Planetside doesn't need an end-game victory any more than WoW (another persistant world) and WoW has done pretty well for itself I've heard.

[Miir]

I like the relic idea from DAoC.

If you were to give players something to fight and win like a relic. That would be good enough for me.

[Duffman]

i would like something more persistent something to go after.

[Rbstr]

I like the relic idea from DAoC.

If you were to give players something to fight and win like a relic. That would be good enough for me.

Yeah I like this one too. At most you can raid enemy sancs to steal some kind of persistent bonus giver object. Perhaps not even raiding the sanc popper but a certain area of it.

[Teek]

I agree with Hamma, I don't think any larger victory is all that great. I do think that their could be active stat tracking and aggregating allowing an empire to point out that it is winning (and possibly highlight faction imbalance, if any.)

I also think it's important that we take the old reviews with a grain of salt. They, and Planetside itself, are 8 years old now, and fps and online gaming were very different back then. I think that nowadays, with online fps games and mmos far more prevalent, people may warm up to PS:N a bit more in this regard.

[Warruz]

I still support a Meta game. Planetside doesn't have to have win conditions but it needs goals. I think Planetside can take two things from mythic in this respect.

The First is the Relic idea, this gives some constant to keep in mind.

The Other is the Siege the keep esc idea from WAR. Having a special scenario for pushing someone back so far to their sanctuary(picture trench warfare), but because this is planetside(a war of attrition) and cant end and essentially the entire war is to work the otherside down alot, this means alot of resources at disposile so you have a last stand scenario. This barrages the attacking side to essentially a reset.

[demise14]

I definitely think the sanctuary should open up for attack if one empire becomes base-less.

But only if they did it properly and made it out to be epic (with short cinematics or something). Maybe even have a text/email alert system to inform offline players (who agree to being alerted).

When one empire loses all their bases. The remaining two empires get the option to continue what they're doing (to insure some small battles will continue somewhere for people that don't want to take part) or to teleport back to their sanctuary and load onto an enormous aircraft carrier.

The defeated faction spawns at a heavily fortified facility in the sanctuary and awaits the impending beach assault (and gets a few minutes to prepare). Cue epic cinematic scene for all that are involved and have the carriers of both remaining factions set sail to the enemy sanctuary in real-time. The travel time should only take a couple minutes (this would build some crazy anticipation for the attackers).

The defenders by now will be dug into their sanctuary defenses and looking out to the sea to watch the giant carriers closing in.

Unlock the vehicle/air/boat terminals on the carriers and witness a battle so epic it would rival that of DDAY. And it should be the only time in the game where everyone only has 1 life so it doesn't drag on for days. Oh and make the carriers sinkable so the defenders can win and lock their sanctuary (defenders have infinite lives).

I'd play that shit.

[Peacemaker]

Nah. The endless war will be.... um... endless.

[Warruz]

I definitely think the sanctuary should open up for attack if one empire becomes base-less.

But only if they did it properly and made it out to be epic (with short cinematics or something). Maybe even have a text/email alert system to inform offline players (who agree to being alerted).

When one empire loses all their bases. The remaining two empires get the option to continue what they're doing (to insure some small battles will continue somewhere for people that don't want to take part) or to teleport back to their sanctuary and load onto an enormous aircraft carrier.

The defeated faction spawns at a heavily fortified facility in the sanctuary and awaits the impending beach assault (and gets a few minutes to prepare). Cue epic cinematic scene for all that are involved and have the carriers of both remaining factions set sail to the enemy sanctuary in real-time. The travel time should only take a couple minutes (this would build some crazy anticipation for the attackers).

The defenders by now will be dug into their sanctuary defenses and looking out to the sea to watch the giant carriers closing in.

Unlock the vehicle/air/boat terminals on the carriers and witness a battle so epic it would rival that of DDAY. And it should be the only time in the game where everyone only has 1 life so it doesn't drag on for days. Oh and make the carriers sinkable so the defenders can win and lock their sanctuary (defenders have infinite lives).

I'd play that shit.

Best part of any FPS shooter is planting the flag on the capital

[Senyu]

Simply locking an Empire should suffice for victory and grant gain boost to all.

One idea though if continents are locked and open on time limit. The empire that is locked, upon the next continent that will be open, will have a time limit before their faction is allowed onto the continent. This limit could be 15-30 minutes. Since locking Empire doesn't happen to often this small limit to gaining land on the new continent and allowing the other empires to grab a few bases before you seems reasonable but small benifeit to them as well as the XP gain.

That or the empire that locked the other will gain double or 1.5x more experience in capturing bases. Could be called Victory March. And lasts for a set time.

[Stardouser]

I hate to necro this thread, but I was about to make a thread on this exact same topic and figured I'd search for an old one first.

Personally I like the idea of a victory, but at the same time, I understand the desire not to have the ongoing war be interrupted.

If there are going to be separate servers that people can choose(didn't PS1 have different servers back in its golden age, and not just the one?) maybe one of them could be a victory-possible server that people could choose to play on, and victory could come whenever one faction captures X% of the world.

And here's another thought: What if the game never ends, but whenever a certain faction successfully captures a certain % of the world, some kind of news release about it comes out?

Speaking of news releases, are there any sites planning to do sort of pseudo-news coverage about battles?

[sylphaen]

EDIT: Sorry about my reaction Douser, I thought it was a new thread.
:)

You are a great addition to this community !
____________________________________________


Is it me or do we have 3 new threads per week about victory conditions ?

I said no and I said why at least twice. I will not bother explaining again. People need to understand that PS is a game with 3 FACTIONS. Take some time and THINK about it.

If you find a good victory condition that does not create more issues than it solves, please, share it with the devs.

[Mirror]

You "won" Planetside by sancing both other empires. You continued to win by keeping them stuck in the Sanc.

I guess Planetside 2 will be same lock/camp the empires in those footholds and laugh at them.

[fod]

dont like victory conditions

the one thing i liked about PS1 was the never ending war

[Stardouser]

Is it me or do we have 3 new threads per week about victory conditions ?

I said no and I said why at least twice. I will not bother explaining again. People need to understand that PS is a game with 3 FACTIONS. Take some time and THINK about it.

If you find a good victory condition that does not create more issues than it solves, please, share it with the devs.

I searched for victory and this is the thread that appeared, the only one.

What did you think about the game never ending but some sort of pseudo-news coverage for when one faction holds a superior majority of the continents?

And how would you share something with the devs other than posting here?

Edit: Saw your edit lol, yeah this was the only victory thread I could find.

[Nephilimuk]

its a mmo if it had a victory conditions that would be end game

Not good in a MMO

[sylphaen]

I searched for victory and this is the thread that appeared, the only one.

What did you think about the game never ending but some sort of pseudo-news coverage for when one faction holds a superior majority of the continents?

And how would you share something with the devs other than posting here?

We pretty much share a similar idea.

I tried to describe most of the issues I could find from trying to force a end-game victory condition into Planetside but I could not find anything perfect.

I'll link the few threads about victory conditions discussion I participated in before so you can get some reading and get a better idea about PS dynamics.

Edit:
End Game: Pros and Cons:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39563

Winning Condition:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35921

Resource distribution, whats right and fair?:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38554

[SUBARU]

If you want to "win" have your faction control all of the rare resources.That will make the other 2 sides have to buy thing they want with station cash,and not with resources.That sounds like a win to me.

[Stardouser]

If you want to "win" have your faction control all of the rare resources.That will make the other 2 sides have to buy thing they want with station cash,and not with resources.That sounds like a win to me.

We pretty much share a similar idea.

I tried to describe most of the issues I could find from trying to force a end-game victory condition into Planetside but I could not find anything perfect.

I'll link the few threads about victory conditions discussion I participated in before so you can get some reading and get a better idea about PS dynamics.

Edit:
End Game: Pros and Cons:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39563

Ah, I searched "win" and "victory", never thought to search for end-game...

See, I'm not so much attached to the idea of an overall victory as I am the possibility of a kind of news service that can report on major "victories" in a more micro sense...ie, THE ENTIRE CONTINENT X FALLS IN 2 HOURS AS FACTION Y FAILS TO HOLD THEIR GROUND could be an example.

And people could even do their own sort of "ireport" where they describe their squad/platoon/etc's battles as part of those things.

[sylphaen]

Ah, I searched "win" and "victory", never thought to search for end-game...

See, I'm not so much attached to the idea of an overall victory as I am the possibility of a kind of news service that can report on major "victories" in a more micro sense...ie, THE ENTIRE CONTINENT X FALLS IN 2 HOURS AS FACTION Y FAILS TO HOLD THEIR GROUND could be an example.

And people could even do their own sort of "ireport" where they describe their squad/platoon/etc's battles as part of those things.

I never thought about that reporting idea from people who participated in a victory !

While it would not solve the problem of creating a "fair" victory system, it would certainly promote trying to achieve victory as an empire.

I was thinking of uniquely numbered victories that would appear on some Hall of Fame listing victories on the official PS2 website and could also keep a history of which players were online when they happened and that gave them a merit to show it off and a Hall of Fame of victories on the official PS2 website.

The hard part really is about defining a fair victory condition for a game with 3 factions that will not be trivial.

Edit: btw, I listed the threads I was aware off that discuss victory conditions. If anyone knows other threads, please, help me link them.

[Kipper]

I think its possible for individuals, squads, outfits and empires to "win" without stopping the game for everyone and saying "x won, now everything is back to zero".

Simply tally up the achievements for every day for tomorrows titles, once a week for next week's titles, once a month for next month's titles, and once a year for next year's titles.

There are plenty of achievements to go for - just a few:

Most Kills Total
Most Kills Per hour (subject to minimum hours)
Best/Worst Ratio
Best/Worst Streak
Best/Worst Accuracy
Most Air/Land/MAX/Infantry Kills as an Air/Land/Max/Infantry
etc etc

Each one could have a unique fame-indicating title for the 'level' (daily/weekly) such as veteran, distinguished, heroic etc as well as an appropriate description for the achievement - "Survivor", "Tankbuster" etc.

Crucually, the titles are temporary, the bigger the award, the longer you get to keep it (You'd always get a 'history' of your achievements to show off on the web, but only if you had an active title would it be seen in game).

If possible, you could also display different titles inside of an outfit - so your title might be "TR's distinguished survivor" and you're the only one in TR with that, but someone else in your outfit might be "[outfits] distinguished survivor". If one person wins all the titles consistently then the 2nd/3rd in line pick up the others after the most prestigious.

Outfits themselves could earn achievements for placing hacks or taking hexes/facilities (presumably determined by having the most number of players in the area when shit went down) so everyone in the organisation/or who took part gets to be known as the "Conquerors of [base]" until that base falls to another faction.

And uber titles could go to one person for achievements on the entire planet too.

That way, everyone gets a chance to win and have bragging rights for a lot of the time both within their empires and their factions, and without disrupting the battle. And because everything is internally reset for the next days/weeks/months scores to be calculated - a casual player gets as much chance at winning one as a veteran. (albeit not some of the long term ones perhaps - unless it was averaged out over time online above a minimum, so if you're in game 12 hours a day, it doesn't give you any advantage over a 2 hour a day person because it would be about consistency).

Thoughts?

[Skitrel]

Remake this poll after launch and watch the ratio of yes to no be completely reversed.

[ThGlump]

Titles for killwhoring? No. The less they promote that the better.

[Aurmanite]

Titles for killwhoring? No. The less they promote that the better.

Heaven forbid you reward killing people in a first person shooter.

[Stardouser]

Heaven forbid you reward killing people in a first person shooter.

If there were rewards for kill stats, people would never try to capture anything. If there were rewards for kill to death ratio, you'd have snipers hanging back trying to get as many kills for as few deaths as possible.

And then people would wonder why we need a huge game world...

[Aurmanite]

If there were rewards for kill stats, people would never try to capture anything. If there were rewards for kill to death ratio, you'd have snipers hanging back trying to get as many kills for as few deaths as possible.

And then people would wonder why we need a huge game world...

Capturing = XP/Resources.

Character advancement requires XP/resources.

[WiteBeam]

What's the point in fighting when you can't win. It doesn't mean "end game". I always thought it was hilarious when a faction got kicked to the sand for a few minutes.

[EightEightEight]

I think there should be a WIN but the conditions on that mean that you have to turn all of the capture hexagons to your color on ALL continents. Which based on the new system seems almost impossible. At least if there is an option people will work for it. I remember logging in on nights where we were close to a global cap and the couple of times we did it, it was amazing everyone way hyped and having fun.

[sylphaen]

Remake this poll after launch and watch the ratio of yes to no be completely reversed.

Yes or no, and if ever a final victory condition has to be set, I'm still trying to think about an acceptable one.

What's the point in fighting when you can't win. It doesn't mean "end game". I always thought it was hilarious when a faction got kicked to the sand for a few minutes.

This never happened unless 2 empires turned against 1 at the same time. Ask the VS about it.

I think there should be a WIN but the conditions on that mean that you have to turn all of the capture hexagons to your color on ALL continents. Which based on the new system seems almost impossible. At least if there is an option people will work for it. I remember logging in on nights where we were close to a global cap and the couple of times we did it, it was amazing everyone way hyped and having fun.

Just curious but would you have details about when (weekday/time) and the player populations when it happened ?

I remember it happened a few times but it was always due to absurdly low pops and/or technical difficulties.

[Stardouser]

Yes or no, and if ever a final victory condition has to be set, I'm still trying to think about an acceptable one.



This never happened unless 2 empires turned against 1 at the same time. Ask the VS about it.

I have a thought, but there's something I need to know.

Back in the golden days of PS1, if a server was at peak population, how full was the server? I mean, what percentage, on average, of the game world was seeing fighting and what percentage was not?

[ThGlump]

If you convince them to add some victory condition, then i hope they give us some choice. Different servers one with victory condition and one just endless war. Im sick of resets, and i never miss anything like that in ps1.

Victory condition with reset just force you to give up. If you are losing its better to let them win faster, so you can start from scratch. Without it you know you have to do something, that it wont magically be better, you have fight to turn the tide.

[Stardouser]

wait a second, if I had played PS1 I would know this but I didn't so...if there was no victory condition, what happened when one team got backed up to their sanctuary? Did the devs have to step in and reset it anyway? And if so, did that happen often?

[Tom Peters]

You could get sanc locked for a while if one faction managed to take BOTH of your main continents, and the team that did it got temporary access to the other faction's vehicles/weapons.

[ThGlump]

If someone was pushed back to sanct, they gather everyone, pull tons of tanks, fill everyone into galaxies and raided nearest base and took it back. Why interfere? players can manage it and get back up.

[Kipper]

The less territory you have, the easier it should be to defend and the more stretched your opponent is going to be ... with the new mechanics in play meaning that you can break out and go for ANY hex on the board, all it will take is a couple of co-ordinated squads attacking different points far enough away to turn the battle back on its head.

Either they end up capturing outlying hexes unchallenged and giving the cornered regime 2 or 3 new spawn points, or they divert troops to defend them and allow a proper counter attack from the main base into the next hex.

But all the same, if it does happen - no to a map reset for reasons stated above, people will just log out and stay logged out until the reset happens. Also those who have "won" may quit the game having "beaten" it.

[sylphaen]

I have a thought, but there's something I need to know.

Back in the golden days of PS1, if a server was at peak population, how full was the server? I mean, what percentage, on average, of the game world was seeing fighting and what percentage was not?

I do not remember but someone else would know. In any case, the total was divided between continents since there were caps on how many players could be on a continent at the same time.

OFF-TOPIC: btw, concerning your comments about killwhores, I tend to disagree and think they are very important. The strength of Planetside (next to its scale) was about offering niches for various kinds of players. This diversity of gameplay made the game a true MMO instead of large deathmatch.

A game played by only killwhores would be a disaster. With large numbers of players, killwhores become less of an issue as players with different mindsets play a role to fill the other needs in the game.

PS2 needs to keep its richness and instead of controlling behavior through censorship of K:D and other "bad" stats, there should instead be more efforts spent on creating stats that will give support players something meaningful to track their own performance.

[Stardouser]

I do not remember but someone else would know. In any case, the total was divided between continents since there were caps on how many players could be on a continent at the same time.

OFF-TOPIC: btw, concerning your comments about killwhores, I tend to disagree and think they are very important. The strength of Planetside (next to its scale) was about offering niches for various kinds of players. This diversity of gameplay made the game a true MMO instead of large deathmatch.

A game played by only killwhores would be a disaster. With large numbers of players, killwhores become less of an issue as players with different mindsets play a role to fill the other needs in the game.

PS2 needs to keep its richness and instead of controlling behavior through censorship of K:D and other "bad" stats, there should instead be more efforts spent on creating stats that will give support players something meaningful to track their own performance.

Well, let me put it another way: I have no problem with giving rewards for kill stats based accomplishments so long as the devs don't pull a DICE/EA and 5 years later when it's time for Planetside 3, say "telemetry indicates everyone is out for kills, so this time we're going to have 64 player rounds with small maps focused on tight KDR combat".

[WiteBeam]

wait a second, if I had played PS1 I would know this but I didn't so...if there was no victory condition, what happened when one team got backed up to their sanctuary? Did the devs have to step in and reset it anyway? And if so, did that happen often?

When one faction got double teamed to the point that they got bumped back to the sanctuary, it wasn't to hard for them to regroup and take a base back on another continent. The great design PS has of the 3 factions usually allows for two weaker sides to gang up on the stronger one if they choose.

[sylphaen]

:rant:
What annoys me with this poll is how the term "victory" is used. Someone might think Planetside is a boring game where no one wins.

Quite the contrary: victories occured everywhere.

Every unit destroyed was a victory.
Every bridge taken was a victory.
Every base captured was a victory.
Every inch made ours was a victory.

And when your empire got steamrolled on a continent in less than an hour... Would anyone not feel defeated ?
:doh:

[ThGlump]

Yea. Victory is where players make their personal or empire victory conditions. Why there must be something ingame that means it will end, congratulations to winners, all is forgotten, here is new map and start again.

[Kipper]

The idea of the titles would be that they're non-permanent, and you can only have one at a time - even if you were the most kills and best KD ratio, one of these awards would go to another player.

While you're off winning the most kills or best streak award because thats your thing, other people might be going for most revives, shield hacks, base captures, tank kills with rockets, or anything else you can dream up.

Thus the players all get a chance to achieve something by doing what they like, because not everyone is uber at killing. And if there are 50 awards between 1000 active players per faction, then I like the odds of getting one much more than if there was just a single trophy.

[Skitrel]

Resources earned from sectors in Planetside 2 are going to change dynamically. That sector you currently own that's high value might be worth nothing in 30 minutes. This is going to force constantly evolving strategy around controlling the important sectors.

My bet is that this won't be a random thing, it's going to be something the GMs control, so when they need to rebalance the game they'll change the resource values of various sectors and manipulate play knowing full well exactly how gameplay patterns in the world react around such changes. It'll be interesting.

Given that, even if there were an end game, I don't think we'd see it. Not unless the two losing factions were so retarded they didn't join together to defeat the winning faction.

[Sifer2]

:rant:
What annoys me with this poll is how the term "victory" is used. Someone might think Planetside is a boring game where no one wins.

Quite the contrary: victories occured everywhere.

Every unit destroyed was a victory.
Every bridge taken was a victory.
Every base captured was a victory.
Every inch made ours was a victory.

And when your empire got steamrolled on a continent in less than an hour... Would anyone not feel defeated ?
:doh:


Yes but the problem was those places switched back to enemy control probably by nightfall much of the time. Leaving people feeling like nothing they did really mattered. That there was no lasting impact. Take EVE for example where the outcome of a players small war might have long lasting effects. I think that is sort of what some people want that Planetside couldn't really offer.

In Planetside 2 so far the only thing they have offered is that you get resources this time for holding territory. That's an improvement as it provides a bit more of a feeling that maybe what you did the other day still mattered since now you got more materials. But in the long run they need to do more. Or people will just get burned out in a few months of trading the same ground back an forth like last time.

I don't think it should be possible to wipe an empire out for good. But stuff like being able to take over continents completely or even the whole Planet would be cool. It would need to be hard of course. With like Foothold bases that gave a lot of advantage to the defending side so you really had to overwhelm them. I think they should bring back something like the Sanctuary but this time have it be on large space ships in Orbit. If you lost all territory Planetside all you could do is launch small invasions by drop pod.

[SUBARU]

If you need somebody to tell you ,that you won,maybe this game isnt for you.
There are alot of things in PS2 ,I wish were more like PS1.I can sit here and cry about it ,or i can except the game for what it is,and just enjoy it.This game is an MMOFPS,with a persistence world.If you cant handle that,if you need a match to tell you that you won ,your looking at the wrong game.

[megamold]

maybe its just me but i rarely had the feeling i "won" a game of BF3 just because we had some tickets left.
then you could also say you "win" in ps2 by capturing a base

the only time i ever got the feeling that i "won" anything was when i played clanbased counterstrike

[Stardouser]

maybe its just me but i rarely had the feeling i "won" a game of BF3 just because we had some tickets left.
then you could also say you "win" in ps2 by capturing a base

the only time i ever got the feeling that i "won" anything was when i played clanbased counterstrike

So many people on both teams in BF play for KDR only, that you often seriously have to wonder whether or not victory means anything. After all, the winner could simply be the team who happened to have the least snipers not capping flags, not the most skilled team.

One way you can tell this is in the attitudes toward attacking uncappable bases. This is a completely valid tactic but a lot of people cry about it. Why? Because they care more about preserving their personal KDR than being able to do what's necessary to help your team win.

[Coreldan]

I voted yes, but probably in a way different manner than what the OP planned.

I wouldn't mind something like... 30 mins of impossible for the opposing faction to leave that continents foothold/sanctuary, if one factions manages to completely take over a continent. 30 mins just to sort of be able to "ok, we took over the whole continent". With no "grade period" of any kind, the enemy can just keep pushing and pushing from the foothold that can't be taken and you might never feel like you managed to take over the whole continent. The 30 mins would probably make the resistance leave for another continent at least for a while, so you could at least get a moment of the feeling that you captured it.

Anything longer/bigger/more impacting victory condition I wouldn't want.

As for winning in BF3, I agree. Winning or losing has no feeling to me unless it's a steamroll-kinda win or loss, during which I mostly just have negative feelings. It's so random whether you win or lose that I dont even consider the win/loss ratio as anything. I only play 64 man public hardcore games, so whether we win or lose really isnt up to me. I can often be easily the best player in the server either by scores or by K/D or even both, but we still may have had no chance to win the game due to others being too useless.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

No