Whats the purpose in this game?

[Levente]

Ps1 had a purpose to play, the goal was for each empire to take over continents and dominate. Whats the purpose in ps2? you cant take over a continent, you just fight over the same bases over and over wtihout any sense of achiving something. :rolleyes: :confused::domotwak:

[headcrab13]

Though there will be many new things to do besides just capping continents, you'll still be able to take over a continent in PS2. I suspect the satisfaction will come from pushing your enemy all the way back to their foothold until they're virtually forced to leave.

They won't truly be "locked out" of the continent, but the bulk of their forces will give up and move elsewhere, which is just as much of a win in my book.

[Levente]

what you are talkin about is called baserape. i dont know about you but seeing 500 people attacking an enemy foothold for a week, that will be very frustrating for the other team i dont think thats fun. There should be 3 seperate small islands for each empire which are non capable and 3 other continents which are capable.

[Gandhi]

They won't truly be "locked out" of the continent, but the bulk of their forces will give up and move elsewhere, which is just as much of a win in my book.
I think it won't be the same at all, but I guess we'll see if something else replaces it. I just can't see it feeling like a win if they still have spawn points and a place to pull vehicles on the continent, because as soon as you leave or move to fight the third empire on the other side of the cont the one you 'locked out' will be right back taking territory.

It's basically setting up a permanent stalemate between 3 sides, while the front lines may shift a little each day the battle on a continent will never end. I guess this is by design since we're only starting with 3 conts, but it might get tiring after a while. I hope they reconsider once we have a few more conts in the game.

[headcrab13]

what you are talkin about is called baserape. i dont know about you but seeing 500 people attacking an enemy foothold for a week, that will be very frustrating for the other team i dont think thats fun. There should be 3 seperate small islands for each empire which are non capable and 3 other continents which are capable.

It's only spawn camping if the enemy continues to spawn there. When you push an enemy empire back to their foothold, you'll likely have a few holdouts that try to resist for a while, but the vast majority of their forces will go to a new continent and do something more productive.

I'd say reducing 600-700 enemy players to just a handful is a pretty satisfying win.

[Thoreaux]

If you want combat divided up into discrete "rounds", with a clear winner and loser at the end of each: base captures, same as in PS1.

As for the talk about Planetside not having a point, I always thought that was a bit unfair. No video game has a point. Does TF2? BF3? Sure you win the round, but then it gets reset and you're fighting over the same territory all over again.

What was the point? There wasn't one. Why did you do it then? Because it was fun, simple as that. You keep coming back to a game because of the fun moment-to-moment gameplay

[headcrab13]

I think it won't be the same at all, but I guess we'll see if something else replaces it. I just can't see it feeling like a win if they still have spawn points and a place to pull vehicles on the continent, because as soon as you leave or move to fight the third empire on the other side of the cont the one you 'locked out' will be right back taking territory.

It's basically setting up a permanent stalemate between 3 sides, while the front lines may shift a little each day the battle on a continent will never end. I guess this is by design since we're only starting with 3 conts, but it might get tiring after a while. I hope they reconsider once we have a few more conts in the game.

I definitely tend to agree with you, and I did really enjoy the continent capping system from Planetside. I think the main issue is that we don't want to work for days or weeks to finally cap a continent, and see it suddenly taken back all in a matter of hours.

At the very least, I'd like to see the losing empire have some incentive to leave and go elsewhere rather than just waiting for the attackers to dissipate.

[SKYeXile]

ps1 had a purpose? what?

[Sabot]

the purpose? I'm just here to shot NC and TR scum in the face with high velocity energy weapons... and eat some cake while I do it.

[basti]

Expect those footholds to be removed and replaced by sanctuarys during beta. Simply because we will break the stuff very fast.

[Bravic]

When I play COD, I don't care if I when the match in a team battle. All I care about is if I kicked some ass and my kill ratio stays in the positive. I can't control my teamates, but my personal reasons for fighting are what keep me going despite losing the round.

[headcrab13]

As for the talk about Planetside not having a point, I always thought that was a bit unfair. No video game has a point. Does TF2? BF3? Sure you win the round, but then it gets reset and you're fighting over the same territory all over again.

What was the point? There wasn't one. Why did you do it then? Because it was fun, simple as that. You keep coming back to a game because of the fun moment-to-moment gameplay

Well said. That sums up the whole argument perfectly.

[ringring]

Expect those footholds to be removed and replaced by sanctuarys during beta. Simply because we will break the stuff very fast.

I hope so, at least if it is as I imagined. You never know it may work.

Part of the reason I thought we should have more than 3 continents is that it is more space to expand into. If continent 'A' is full of war and is stalemated you go and attack a different one owned by another empire, that empire goes to defend their territory and hey presto, a non stalemeted fight on cont 'B' plus the change balance of force means a non stalemated fight on cont 'A' too.

It all depend on how many people play per server and whether there is empty territory to perform grand flanking movements.

ps: disappointed to hear Higby say on recent interviews that new continents won't be arriving soon.

[Levente]

If you want combat divided up into discrete "rounds", with a clear winner and loser at the end of each: base captures, same as in PS1.

As for the talk about Planetside not having a point, I always thought that was a bit unfair. No video game has a point. Does TF2? BF3? Sure you win the round, but then it gets reset and you're fighting over the same territory all over again.

What was the point? There wasn't one. Why did you do it then? Because it was fun, simple as that. You keep coming back to a game because of the fun moment-to-moment gameplay

Yes you felt good if you won a round in BF3 or in TF2, the fact that you WON that round made you feel good about it. I dont ask for end game win in Ps2 but i expect something to fight for. The fact that you cannot take over a continent is just takes away a big part of the immersion.

[JPalmer]

Getting resources, having fun, and each base you capture will feel like you just beat a game on a hardmode because there are going to be so many people in battles that are going to last a long time.

[Stew]

The purpose of a shooter game is to achive goal and figth their is where the fun is

AN EMPTY continents thats u OWN have NO PURPOSE whats you will do on this empty conquered continents ? Play pokers with friend ?

I think ultimate Domination is useless and boring

Owning the regions thats u need to get the most ressource as u need and also having EPIC and amasing figth IS the primary goal !

For me is all about having awesome battle Not about having all BLUE continents ;)

[Corax]

stew..... say what now?
I think you basically said that for you having epic and amazing fights is what the game is all about for you....

As for the OP.... Yes PS2 will have a purpose, simply put it will be to drive the enemy back, and force them to give up any land they have taken from you. The purpose will be to kill and keep on killing while taking all the possible real estate there is on Auraxis. The goal here is to take and own everything that the enemy owns, and force them to admit to defeat.

You WIN when you have taken every conquerable piece of Auraxian soil. You WIN when you look at the map and see that the other 2 Empires have nothing but a measly foothold on any given continent.

You know you WIN when you realize you won and you don't need the words "YOU WIN" flashing across the screen.

Its actually fairly straightforward. Take everything and don't give anything up. When you own everything, sit back, take a screen shot, and enjoy the feeling of complete and utter triumph as you realize you have accomplished something truly difficult.

Now actually making all that happen is a whole 'nuther story .

Edit: Thought of the day: Does one need to be told they have won to know they have truly won?

[Kipper]

Getting resources, having fun, and each base you capture will feel like you just beat a game on a hardmode because there are going to be so many people in battles that are going to last a long time.

This.

I'm still skeptical about footholds myself, not because you can't "take over" the place, but because I still worry that it will just mean everyone is completely stalemated in the centre of the map - but only when we get to play the game with full servers will we truly know.

What Planetside offers that others don't however - is the fact that if you REALLY give a crap about a base or piece of territory, you'll make the enemy fight for an hour over one scrap of land. It's not done in 15 minutes, its not "I held more flags for slightly longer, so I win". It's the fact that to win, they'll actually have to drive you out and keep you out - make it so that you can't spawn there and you can't get enough reinforcements from nearby.

And of course, the beauty of it being that when you've put 2 hours of your life into taking my base away from me, you better believe that I'm watching you, and if you don't defend it, I'm coming straight back, with tanks :)

[Rabb]

Expect those footholds to be removed and replaced by sanctuarys during beta. Simply because we will break the stuff very fast.

I hope so I always liked sanc. I don't think the footholds will be as flexible. You will have the disadvantage of the enemy being able to see the composition of any large combined arms force being formed.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I still think only 3 conts is too small. Prime time will be a 3 way stalemate on every cont, and when the map inst moving, PS gets very boring.

[Levente]

it will feel small because 3 footholds on each continent + imagine all the hundreds of players making extra spawn points. i suspect a cod zerg meatgrinding on a big scale, i hope im wrong. we will see in the beta.

[Brusi]

The purpose of a shooter game is to achive goal and figth

F I G H T

The T comes last.

[Kipper]

I don't like it but that's kinda what the game is turning into. A CoD or BF3 match for individuals on a grander overall map.

Disagree. It will be that if you want it to be that, you'll be able to log on and fight for 5 minutes, sure - but you'll also be able to fight for 5 hours if you have the energy and stomach for it.

With the added bonus that it might be over the same piece of turf!

The harder the fight, the sweeter the victory!

[Kipper]

And you can also do the exact same thing in CoD or BF right? Keep grinding maps? Boring...

Fight, reset, fight, reset ... that's boring. I'm talking about a single epic multi hour fight.

To win on a round timer is so short term; to win a planetside battle will be forcing your enemy out and keeping them out, for however long it takes, and by whatever vehicular means nescessary.

[Kipper]

Ironic thing is, if I am presented with the option of fight for hours over a stalemate or a 30 minute timed match that can be won or loss, I would chose the latter.

I'd rather have a memory of an epic battle that can't be taken away, than a checkmark in a win column. Like I remember the time I drove a burning buggy off a cliff in Battlefield 2 and flattened an enemy, shotgunned another and took his flag. But I have no idea how many kills/deaths I had or what rank I achieved.

For me, its the fight - a good result is the cherry on top. And if its a stalemate situation, your job is to rally troops and find a way to break the enemy down.

In any case, I fully expect data to be available on how many times you've been in a hex at the time that it was taken for, or from your faction - or some other measure that helps defines success beyond pure number of kills; or you can use kills if that's your aim. You're not restricted.

I may have to go take that same hill back over and over again with it not contributing to any sort of overall victory objective

But current deathmatch shooters are exactly that, only with those - when you've taken it, you didn't get to keep it.

[The Kush]

Yes you felt good if you won a round in BF3 or in TF2, the fact that you WON that round made you feel good about it. I dont ask for end game win in Ps2 but i expect something to fight for. The fact that you cannot take over a continent is just takes away a big part of the immersion.

Go play BF3 then

[waldizzo]

The purpose of this game is to have fun. Let's take a look at some examples of fun.

Standard FPS:
Join a server. Get put on whatever team has less people. Complete objectives. Get kicked by admin because you killed them. Join another server. Complete objectives. Round ends. Player is presented with awards and bonus points. "YOU WIN / LOSE" Map resets.

Planetside:
A VS outfit decides to attack an NC position. Word gets out and the NC show up in force to defend. The VS zerg shows up. An epic battle with hundreds of infantry, air support and tanks takes place. Another VS outfit carries out an attack behind enemy lines, crippling the NC's ability to spawn armor. The VS rolls all over the NC and claims the region for themselves.

Then the TR show up.....


In my opinion, Planetside has way more purpose(entertainment value) than any of the current generation FPS games.

[Graywolves]

The purpose of this game is to have fun. Let's take a look at some examples of fun.

Standard FPS:
Join a server. Get put on whatever team has less people. Complete objectives. Get kicked by admin because you killed them. Join another server. Complete objectives. Round ends. Player is presented with awards and bonus points. "YOU WIN / LOSE" Map resets.

Planetside:
A VS outfit decides to attack an NC position. Word gets out and the NC show up in force to defend. The VS zerg shows up. An epic battle with hundreds of infantry, air support and tanks takes place. Another VS outfit carries out an attack behind enemy lines, crippling the NC's ability to spawn armor. The VS rolls all over the NC and claims the region for themselves.

Then the TR show up.....


In my opinion, Planetside has way more purpose(entertainment value) than any of the current generation FPS games.

I couldn't say it better myself.

In a standard FPS the win/loss matches are hardly even a single battle in Planetside. Some people just need the "You won!" shoved in their face.

[aceshigh]

I'm sure they will keep track of the percentage of territory help on a daily/weekly/monthly basis. That in a way provides a method of "#winning".

[Bags]

The purpose of the game is fun.

[RadarX]

This is an honest and understandable concern but rest assured something they've considered. Obviously no one wants a single side dominating and having three Empires will help with that.

[aceshigh]

This is an honest and understandable concern but rest assured something they've considered. Obviously no one wants a single side dominating and having three Empires will help with that.

Actually, as long as it is my side, I'm pretty OK with that.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I'm just going to quote myself from a thread I made back in November.

What will be PS2's "win"?

I'm not at all talking about a win condition were one team gets some recognition or benefit. I'm talking about what will mark winning a fight.

In PS1 winning was generally seen as whoever won the continent you were fighting over and got the cont lock. Everyone had a small celebration, grats were given all around, and it gave a real sense of accomplishment and... winning! Taking a base just wasn't the same as finally capping a cont. It also gave a good time to take a small break from the action to regroup back in the sanc and form up for the next mass assault.

So I ask, what will give us that win feeling? Do we need some form of a win? Or, will the constant fighting be enough?

People need to be able to "win", constant 3-way stalemates are NOT fun. Launching with only 3 conts and uncapturable footholds promotes 3-way stalemates.

[Raymac]

I still find it silly that people are hell bent stuck on needing continent locks when they actually accounted for the largest chunk of downtime in the game. Oh you made a continent turn a color on a map. You must be so proud. Nevermind the hour or so of downtime it involved.

[Mod]

The fact that it sounds like a facility is now going to take more of a team effort to capture than the old 15 minute hack time, and that capturing them will directly affect the amount of resources you receive and therefore how much you can buy for the next fight - I think capturing a facility/hex will feel more like an accomplishment that what it did in PS. A mini-win if you will.

Plus there is the potential of turning a whole continent one colour still, I think it will be much harder to do so, but that option hasn't been completely removed. Oh, and the uncapturable foothold isn't really an argument here as the old home continents really had exactly the same mechanic - a warpgate that provided a way back for the home team that could not be taken away.

[Stardouser]

what you are talkin about is called baserape. i dont know about you but seeing 500 people attacking an enemy foothold for a week, that will be very frustrating for the other team i dont think thats fun. There should be 3 seperate small islands for each empire which are non capable and 3 other continents which are capable.

In Planetside the main bases will be footholds. At other bases, while they may not be "main" bases, you may indeed get killed coming right out of certain areas, this is a clue that you need to do something else if you keep dying where you are spawning. It is only BC2 and BF3 that have led players to expect protection at their bases. Main base attacks are absolutely legitimate, though footholds will probably be shielded, and if you send a lot of guys to the foothold, they might come attack through the warpgate, plus there's the other empire to contend with.

Hopefully Planetside doesn't provide the handholding in this regard that Battlefield is. Defend your base, and spawn elsewhere if you are getting raped.

[Gandhi]

I still find it silly that people are hell bent stuck on needing continent locks when they actually accounted for the largest chunk of downtime in the game. Oh you made a continent turn a color on a map. You must be so proud. Nevermind the hour or so of downtime it involved.
That had nothing to do with the cont lock mechanic, that came down to simple 15 minute hack timers. If the other 2 empires in Planetside 2 just up and left one continent for the others then wouldn't you be facing the same 1 hour downtime to capture all that territory?

edit: Also I want to say the cont lock mechanic had some faults, but it gave you some overarching goal to work toward. Every facility capture was a mini win, every kill was a mini win, but above it all you had one 'grand goal'. I feel like that goal is what's missing in Planetside 2, even if it was rather shallow in the end. Whether that's actually a problem I'm not sure, but I don't think resources alone are going to replace it.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Oh, and the uncapturable foothold isn't really an argument here as the old home continents really had exactly the same mechanic - a warpgate that provided a way back for the home team that could not be taken away.

But it IS different. Yes in PS1 they always had a link from the sanc, but when you won the cont they lost all spawns there and got booted back to sanc and usually went somewhere else. Now with only 3 conts, if server pops are high enough, they will get stuck on that cont. You can either camp there WG or let them out cause they are stuck fighting on that cont.

[Kipper]

I do still kinda think that allowing a faction to be driven out of a continent would be better, but balancing by allowing an empire without territory to be able to HART directly into any hex from orbit.

That would mean that people will get their continent 'win' but with a tiny bit of organisation, the exiled team(s) will be able to re-establish a foothold and it won't always be in the same place, so it should be practically impossible to keep them out. (Clever teams will use the HART to attack two or three distant hexes at the same time and split the defenders)

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Like I said earlier. Cap server pop well below combined cont pop. 5K server, 2K conts?

Yea, you replied while i did (i type slow) Capping servers will probably be needed at launch so people will have the option to move around more. I still think they need more than 3 conts, that is just way too low.

[SniperSteve]

I can foresee TR claiming a continent for a week and refusing to fight anywhere else except that continent, and just preventing any other empire from leaving the footholds.

[Kipper]

Surely this is where the 3rd faction comes into play. If you waste enough of your available force trying to camp the smallest faction out of the game, you'll just lose everything on your front line with the 3rd lot.

Likewise, if you could/did drive both factions back to stronghold - your team would only be able to camp them both with 1000 players, whereas each of their teams would be able to break out with 2000 players....

The winning team would take a pop hit too, because some players will switch conts to find a proper battle, we're not all into spawn camping :)

[Trolltaxi]

EDIT: no direct linking from blastwave-comic.com... check this to find out the purpose of our fight! http://www.blastwave-comic.com/comics/20060501.jpg

[RadarX]

That's not the point RadarX. Back in the day one empire or outfit could join a three way on a cont (or 2 way) and simply outplay an evenly pop matched group of players.

A fair point but this is a new game with years of hindsight to look back on. It's been heavily considered.

[CuddlyChud]

I don't think capturing conts was necessarily the purpose of PS1 either. There was a large chunk of the player base that just wanted "the good fight." If you only had 30 minutes or an hour to play, capping bases in PS1 was the point. You would never be around long enough to cap the continent.

Also, I think that people are really underestimating resources. The devs keep insisting that they are going to be an important part of the strategy and purpose of the game, and people keep ignoring them.

[Raymac]

That had nothing to do with the cont lock mechanic, that came down to simple 15 minute hack timers. If the other 2 empires in Planetside 2 just up and left one continent for the others then wouldn't you be facing the same 1 hour downtime to capture all that territory?


It actually had everything to do with the cont lock mechanic. If you are eventually going to get locked out of an area, why stick around? Removing the mechanic of locking players out of a certain area increases the incentive to remain in an area where you are outnumbered. If you know you arn't going to get locked out, you are more inclined to stay.

All of us have Planetside War Stories where we fought against overwhelming odds. They are great moments and shouldn't be discouraged by locking people out.

Maybe we can talk about continent locks once we have 10-15 continents to fight over in order to consolodate the players, but with only 3, it's a terrible idea. I don't know how people can't see that.

[The Kush]

Yea, you replied while i did (i type slow) Capping servers will probably be needed at launch so people will have the option to move around more. I still think they need more than 3 conts, that is just way too low.

Everyone including the PS team wants to make more conts. Clearly you haven't done your research or you would know that 3 is all they could do as of now. As they have already stated, the amount of thought and detail they have put into these enormous maps takes a LOT of time. And I personally prefer them to keep taking their time then rush and put out some shit conts.

PS Higby said in a an interview they hope to remake some old fan favorites like Cy :)

[FINALCUT]

I think the purpose of the game is to kill anyone not wearing Blue and Gold. All that matters to me.:D

[Physed]

I would suggest adding some PvE content to help players feel like they're part of the storyline. Perhaps some instanced combat that allows large outfits to gather up on certain nights and attempt to kill very large, difficult enemies. And make sure the enemy AI is scripted so that players can study the right way to play the hokey-pokey instead of having any type of skill and hand-eye coordination.

And if the 25-40 players manage to kill that big tough enemy, have him drop a shotgun that does one more point of damage than any others. Every few months you just have to add a new enemy that drops a shotgun that does ONE MORE point of damage. I know it's untested, but I bet this model could keep players interested for at least a few years. Probably something to do with Stockholm Syndrome..

Ah! I just had a great thought: Make those AI enemies into giant robots. I know there's not enough time to get this in there for launch, but your first expansion should definitely have giant robots.

Or dragons.

Your call.

[aceshigh]

I would suggest adding some PvE content to help players feel like they're part of the storyline. Perhaps some instanced combat that allows large outfits to gather up on certain nights and attempt to kill very large, difficult enemies. And make sure the enemy AI is scripted so that players can study the right way to play the hokey-pokey instead of having any type of skill and hand-eye coordination.

And if the 25-40 players manage to kill that big tough enemy, have him drop a shotgun that does one more point of damage than any others. Every few months you just have to add a new enemy that drops a shotgun that does ONE MORE point of damage. I know it's untested, but I bet this model could keep players interested for at least a few years. Probably something to do with Stockholm Syndrome..

Ah! I just had a great thought: Make those AI enemies into giant robots. I know there's not enough time to get this in there for launch, but your first expansion should definitely have giant robots.

Or dragons.

Your call.

Bravo!

[Levente]

I don't think capturing conts was necessarily the purpose of PS1 either. There was a large chunk of the player base that just wanted "the good fight." If you only had 30 minutes or an hour to play, capping bases in PS1 was the point. You would never be around long enough to cap the continent.

Also, I think that people are really underestimating resources. The devs keep insisting that they are going to be an important part of the strategy and purpose of the game, and people keep ignoring them.

yes but even though maybe u wanted only a "good fight" like you say, you still had that sense in your head that....all right with this 30 min of good fight im surely will make a progress of capturing that continent with my team later on.

[Gandhi]

It actually had everything to do with the cont lock mechanic. If you are eventually going to get locked out of an area, why stick around? Removing the mechanic of locking players out of a certain area increases the incentive to remain in an area where you are outnumbered. If you know you arn't going to get locked out, you are more inclined to stay.

I don't agree with that. Most of the time if you were heavily outnumbered on a continent it was because the third empire was attacking you somewhere else, and that somewhere else was deemed more important. Most would move to that somewhere else, and a few would stay behind for the against all odds fights. I don't see how that would have changed if cont locks were removed, if anything it would encourage more people to leave since they know they could always come back later and have a starting point with full respawn and vehicle facilities.

Maybe we can talk about continent locks once we have 10-15 continents to fight over in order to consolodate the players, but with only 3, it's a terrible idea. I don't know how people can't see that.
This I agree with, 3 continents is not enough for locks. But I hope the permanent footholds are reconsidered somewhere down the line, it might even be nice to get an inter-continental lattice system back that would give a bonus to the capture time of certain territories on a locked continent.

[Mod]

But it IS different. Yes in PS1 they always had a link from the sanc, but when you won the cont they lost all spawns there and got booted back to sanc and usually went somewhere else. Now with only 3 conts, if server pops are high enough, they will get stuck on that cont. You can either camp there WG or let them out cause they are stuck fighting on that cont.

I would imagine that an NC warpgate on one continent would be linked to the NC warpgate on one or both of the other continents, so that shouldn't be an issue either as people can just jump between the continents as they wish.

And well, if a faction is trapped in their warpgate on all continents then I think there is probably a larger problem with the game...

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Everyone including the PS team wants to make more conts. Clearly you haven't done your research or you would know that 3 is all they could do as of now. As they have already stated, the amount of thought and detail they have put into these enormous maps takes a LOT of time. And I personally prefer them to keep taking their time then rush and put out some shit conts.

PS Higby said in a an interview they hope to remake some old fan favorites like Cy :)

I'm well aware they will continue to make conts after launch. However with only 3 conts at launch, at prime time I fear every cont will be a 3-way stalemate. Those fights suck, which can make a very bad first impression for many.

I don't want this game delayed anymore than it has been, but I think it might almost be worth it to wait till they can get at least 5-6 conts for launch. You need unused lands to allow people to move around and get new fights when the current options suck. The previously mention server cap could help with this.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I would imagine that an NC warpgate on one continent would be linked to the NC warpgate on one or both of the other continents, so that shouldn't be an issue either as people can just jump between the continents as they wish.

And well, if a faction is trapped in their warpgate on all continents then I think there is probably a larger problem with the game...

If the other 2 conts are poplocked, they are stuck on the third. So you either camp them at their WG or let them out.

[headcrab13]

I think we as a community sometimes forget that we haven't even seen all that PS2 has to offer. It's somewhat silly to argue over the "goal" or "win condition" of the game when we have little idea of how the resource gathering, missions, pace, and strategy will work.

Threads like this are sort of a waste of time now, but will become more valuable during beta.

[Xyntech]

I get what headcrab is saying though, and I agree with him for the most part. Some of these threads are more valuable for kicking around ideas right now, some are far more dependent on actually seeing how the new systems work in PS2.

I don't think these threads are totally worthless to have right now, especially to pass the time and shoot the shit, but they will be a lot more important during beta when we are talking about our actual experience.

We just need to keep some perspective and not claim the sky to be falling about game mechanics that we haven't actually tried yet.

[Graywolves]

I can foresee TR claiming a continent for a week and refusing to fight anywhere else except that continent, and just preventing any other empire from leaving the footholds.

Read my mind.

[BorisBlade]

Though there will be many new things to do besides just capping continents, you'll still be able to take over a continent in PS2. I suspect the satisfaction will come from pushing your enemy all the way back to their foothold until they're virtually forced to leave.

They won't truly be "locked out" of the continent, but the bulk of their forces will give up and move elsewhere, which is just as much of a win in my book.

They've already said that this scenario will rarely if ever happen. Stuff is designed so that you cant really take the cont. Actually thats the problem. There no longer is a win scenario. They will most likely have some lame and stupid meaningless resource number and whoever has the most wins. Sounds stupid in my book. Esp when you consider the different types of resources means you may give up total count to get the more important ones and lose number wise but play smarter strategically.

Just playing for a number feels hollow and meaningless, i could really care less. Capping physical territory and bases and taking an entire cont worked well for so many other reasons as well that a lazily designed system thats just a number doesnt even remotely do. One complaint in ps1 was no "win" scenario, although capping a cont effectively was that. PS2 as currently designed, doesnt even have that. They seem to have went backwards on this aspect of PS1 as well. The lazy resource count as a win feels much like the other simplistic and boring changes that make it feel like some cheap deathmatch game of BF or CoD rather than PS.

I seriously hope there is somethin more meaningful than a lame number to count as a win.

[Kipper]

I seriously hope there is somethin more meaningful than a lame number to count as a win.

What, like the number of hexes you captured/hold?

Seriously, what utter tosh. We don't know that much about the strategy side yet, suffice to say that using phases like "as currently designed" unless you know something everyone else doesn't - is misleading.

[Xyntech]

There has never been a total win scenario in Planetside. Even locking all continents isn't really a win, just another temporary victory.

Planetside 2 isn't devoid of victory conditions as we currently understand it. Taking a base or other piece of territory is exactly the same as winning a round in any other FPS, except that it persists as yours until someone else takes control of it.

Aside from being more difficult to do and maintain, taking every territory on all 3 continents will be exactly the same amount of "win" as locking the world in the first game. More of an accomplishment in some ways, due to how difficult it will be.

I'm all for lots of various objectives, big and small, but don't get carried away. There will always be ways of measuring winning and losing and there will never be a total victory scenario.

It's much more productive to toss around ideas for small and large objectives and victory scenarios, spit ball them and get feedback from other members, than it is to just complain about some perceived lack of purpose to the game.

It's a fictional war that, for the sake of ongoing gameplay, can never be won. There is no real purpose other than to have fun. If you want more purpose, come up with more ways of having fun. We'd all love to hear about them/pick them apart/contribute to them.

[Kipper]

I'm all for lots of various objectives, big and small, but don't get carried away. There will always be ways of measuring winning and losing and there will never be a total victory scenario.

This is what I don't get about the "whats the point?" argument.

In a deathmatch/round based FPS - you win a set piece battle with a limited number of vehicles and sometimes even classes, you get some kills, maybe rank up and get a medal, perhaps even unlock a new weapon.... And then you start another round.

In Planetside 2, as far as we can see - you win a battle which, although maybe on a map hex you've been to before, will probably not play out the same as before given that the you could be fighting a different faction with a different composition of vehicles and weapons entirely. You get some kills, maybe rank up and get a medal, perhaps unlock a new weapon/sidegrade... and then you advance, and keep fighting.

Everything that you can achieve in deathmatch you can achieve in PS2, except the match doesn't end when the last flag is captured.

[Immigrant]

I can foresee TR claiming a continent for a week and refusing to fight anywhere else except that continent, and just preventing any other empire from leaving the footholds.

What's so wrong with being territorial? Anyway I thought we're going for all of them. One simply isn't enough for TR. :D:D

[Aveox]

I think we do need the ability to lock a continent. Without it you can drive the enemy all the way back to their foothold, but you know that the second you turn your back they'll recapture it straightaway. It will make it even more meaningless then the battles in PS were.

As well as adding a higher goal to the whole game, locking a continent also moves the action around the planet and prevents people getting stuck in the same 3-way stalemate on the same continent all evening. If you lock a continent for an hour you force people to move and change the balance on the other continents as a result. That ebb and flow in the global battle is really needed to shake things up from time to time and keep it interesting.

As some people already mentioned, there are some issues with locking a continent with the current population caps. I'd say that with continent locking in place the max server population would ideally be 4000 instead of 6000. That allows one continent to be locked without denying anybody the ability to play.
In case a second continent should become locked, then the first one could unlock earlier (maybe with a 10 minute timer on it or something). That should allow for PS-style continent locking without actually locking players out of the game.

[Raymac]

You guys ever been in an outfit with 300+ active members (all played within 2 weeks) and rolled 70+ members on an avg night in organized ops? You think capping a base or a hex is good enough to sustain the interest of that type organization? That type of highly organized structure needs far larger objectives and once upon a time that goal was a cont lock. And the higher the odds stacked against you the better. This is where I think PS2 falls short. It is designed too much (at least as from all that I have heard and seen to this point) for small squad type ops (not platoons, not outfits) so as to mimic CoD or BF.

Bullshit.

You can still have larger goals without having a "cont lock". i.e. holding and sustaining all of a continent's hexes when the enemy can attack any hex, not just the area adjacent to the warpgate like in PS1.

Also, you can't simply ignore that locking people out of a continent just doesn't work when you only have 3 continents in the game.

Get over it. Move on. And quit it with the "mimic COD" garbage.

[SKYeXile]

You guys ever been in an outfit with 300+ active members (all played within 2 weeks) and rolled 70+ members on an avg night in organized ops? You think capping a base or a hex is good enough to sustain the interest of that type organization? That type of highly organized structure needs far larger objectives and once upon a time that goal was a cont lock. And the higher the odds stacked against you the better. This is where I think PS2 falls short. It is designed too much (at least as from all that I have heard and seen to this point) for small squad type ops (not platoons, not outfits) so as to mimic CoD or BF.

Try not zerging it up then and roll with 5-20 people. Odds are stacked against you even more. Very fun when HT send a MAX and then some for every man you have.

[Xyntech]

Wait, so as a large group you enjoy having bigger challenges... So what would be the problem with taking every territory on a continent? Sure it would be a little harder without that cont lock at the end to mop up for you, but you like a challenge, right?

How is taking every territory on a continent so different than getting a continent lock? Jesus Christ, I don't even understand where some of you people are coming from.

As I've said before, I'd like the various objectives and ways of feeling of victorious to be extensive and constantly be added to, but Planetside 2 really isn't shaping up to be any worse off than the first game that way. In fact, the dynamic nature of the hex system, along with Forgelights modifiability should provide ample room for the game to expand on this nicely over the coming years.

The biggest difficulty for Planetside 2 in this regard will be having only 3 continents at launch. Hopefully that wont be too large a problem, and better yet, hopefully it won't even be the case for long. I'd love to see them add 3 or 4 more continents during the first year of the game if at all possible. At least a semiannual release would be nice.

Considering that this entire topic relates to the game and objectives becoming stale, regularly adding new territory (along with new types of objectives to go along with it) will probably be able to solve this long before the initial 3 continents become tiresome.

[SKYeXile]

A win condition just gives people more of a reason to stop playing anyway, "oh we won/lost, time to quit this game/logout then"

It was one of the inherent problems with warhammer, you capture a keep/city and turned everyhting in a zone your colour, people then moved on, switched zones and had to find another fight. it was also a problem in planetside when you got pushed out of a zone and had to backhack your way back to a good fight, that shit was boring, people logged out because they're loosing or they logged out because they just captured a continent and won.

In PS2 the fight wont stop, there wont be any winning, there will just be WAR, it will keep people playing longer than any win condition ever will.

Continents will be packed all the time, a server can only hold 6000 people, it means there's constant fights going on every content all the time. Until they add more contents, there wont be a continent lock or rotation/win condition.

[Xyntech]

Yeah. Keeping people interested in the game long term is certainly a valid concern, but that doesn't mean a win condition is the way to do it.

F2P, or more specifically having no mandatory subscription, will probably be the biggest part of keeping players coming back. There are countless B2P games that I've frequently dropped and gone back to over the years, and most of those weren't getting frequent content updates to keep them fresh.

Quite a few people on the forums seem to have an aversion to 3 way clusterfuck battles, or to having to play mop up on smaller battles after winning the larger fights. Maybe this is due to PS1 having bred a lot of players who are more interested in the commander meta game as the years passed?

I don't want to be in a 3 way battle every single fight, but they were always a blast. Never very productive, but a blast. Sometimes I would log in, fight for a few hours, and log out without any territory having changed hands, and I left happy. Victories are good, but the fights are better.

[SKYeXile]

It is actually a concern with this game with the indar map the way it is, i think you will find that fights very often breakout in 3 ways. The lattice kinda prevented 3 ways with the bases very spread out in relation to eachother andgenerally you were cut off from another faction and you couldn't attack them directly but from this looks like its going to be a cluster fuck.

[Raymac]

You know what the difference between you and me is? You just shake your head up and down like any good old fanboi at anything SOE is offering and I offer constructive criticism and alternatives. If you could read my previous posts without those rose colored glasses on you might see that . Yeah you are right. Time to move on from this site and it's constant fanboi attitude. I hope you all get exactly what you think you are getting and come back here to cry about it later. Which I am certain you will.

Maybe I am a fanboi. So what. I still have enough critical thinking skills to realize denying people access 1/3 - 2/3 of the game is a freaking terrible idea.

Honestly, what is the big difference between PS1 cont lock, and capturing all the hexes in PS2? It's a bit of comparing apples to oranges because of hexes vs. the lattice, but when you look at it, it's the same damn thing. During a PS1 cont lock, you could still quickly capture a tower or 2, and you still had access through the WG.

After some time, and they add some more continents, then it might be a good idea to revisit cont locking. But while we only have 3, let the "big win" come from taking all the hexes, or at least all the vital resources. It will likely be hard, but not impossible.

EDIT: And anytime someone plays that "COD / BF clone" card, yeah, just take that stupid bullshit somewhere else. It's a shooter, so might as well call it a Goldeneye clone.

[Raymac]

It would be impossible to capture every region the way the timers are so brief for capping adjacent areas. A more likely approach would be to move the entire group deep behind the lines. Cap regions in the rear to pull troops back but that isnt a real "win".

Look I am resigned to the fact with just 3 conts it's gonna get stale and any sort of victory's will be brief, repetitive and somewhat unrewarding. But until more conts are released how do you give more victory conditions. Events? Lower server pop limit to give more freedom of movement? Reward weekly overall empire real estate capture victors with station cash/resources/other items? Give outfit that had most resource totals for the week a special skin?

Yeah. Sure. Those could work. You can have a big win without kicking players off a map. Plus, as you've said, in a persistant world, you are NEVER going to have a real win. If you do, the persistance ends right then and there. Or to use your terminology, having a winner and resetting the map mimics COD / BF.

While you say it's "impossible" to capture all the hexes, if Planetside has taught us anything it's that nothing is impossible. Will it be difficult? Sure. But I certainly see it as a strong possibility. Hell, just look at the recent "Burn Jita" event in EVE. That was waaayyyy harder in comparison.

Plus, if it is more difficult, then it will be that much more rewarding for those large organized outfits, no? Bottom line for me, cont locks are a bad idea, at least for now.

[FPClark]

Hey guys what’s the point of skydiving? I mean you are just falling right? What about racing cars? I mean yeah sure you can win but really aren’t you just driving?

I mean if you break everything down to its core you can make pretty much anything seem uninteresting and uncompelling. I think it’s a little early to be trying to figure out what to do when the 'honeymoon phase' of the game has rubbed off.

No one is going to force you (or anyone) to play the game if it becomes stale and boring...The devs know this and it’s their job to keep that from happening.

I think the best part about a game without a clear and defined 'win condition' is the ability to set your own. Having the words "WINNER!" pop up on the screen may be gratifying but in the end the real satisfaction is going to come from creating a 'win condition' out of whatever dynamic scenario is going on at a time and figuring out how to accomplish that.

(Excuse the ramblings im pretty sleep deprived)

[RawketLawnchair]

Hey guys what’s the point of skydiving? I mean you are just falling right? What about racing cars? I mean yeah sure you can win but really aren’t you just driving?

I mean if you break everything down to its core you can make pretty much anything seem uninteresting and uncompelling. I think it’s a little early to be trying to figure out what to do when the 'honeymoon phase' of the game has rubbed off.

No one is going to force you (or anyone) to play the game if it becomes stale and boring...The devs know this and it’s their job to keep that from happening.

I think the best part about a game without a clear and defined 'win condition' is the ability to set your own. Having the words "WINNER!" pop up on the screen may be gratifying but in the end the real satisfaction is going to come from creating a 'win condition' out of whatever dynamic scenario is going on at a time and figuring out how to accomplish that.

(Excuse the ramblings im pretty sleep deprived)

Actually, it was well put, and I couldn't agree more.

And I definitely don't want another crap host based COD rinse and repeat fps where the only thing that matters is your K/DR...

[Corax]

There are going to be many levels of win conditions in this game. Starting at the basic kill the other team for the solo player. Then Squad/Platoon missions that are made by players to help focus a fight. After that there will be empire goals to acquire territories for specific resources to help drive the fight overall as well as moving to defend your own resources. After that there is the overarching goal of forcing the enemy empires to hole up in their footholds.

This will then be applied to 3 separate conts. at launch. There will be plenty to do as the fights see-saw back and forth. It will be a constant tug of war over the land.

As for the battles you will see everything from 1v1 to 1000+. Your going to be constantly in the middle of some fight somewhere. As there are no round timers you are going to be constantly moving forwards. When you have no limitations or boundaries then there is always something more to do.

And with the amount of people both veteran and beginning players, it is going to be nearly impossible to force an empire all the way back to their footholds. And if/when it does happen it wont remain long.

If a fight keeps on happening you are less inclined to get bored with it and leave. Ask any PS1 Vet how long they have stayed in the middle of a fight.

You will be able to WIN. Heck the game will even have shiny letters and messages that announce your victory at a base along with a nice bonus of XP (watch GDC vids).

With ps2 we are getting the best of both worlds here. We get a constant never ending war and fights across a variety of terrain and objectives. And we get the "You Win!" letters across your screen.

You get to WIN and keep fighting....

[cellinaire]

You know what the difference between you and me is? You just shake your head up and down like any good old fanboi at anything SOE is offering and I offer constructive criticism and alternatives. If you could read my previous posts without those rose colored glasses on you might see that . Yeah you are right. Time to move on from this site and it's constant fanboi attitude. I hope you all get exactly what you think you are getting and come back here to cry about it later. Which I am certain you will.

Uhhh.... did we have the ability to capture enemy empire's sanctuary in PS1? I think not. Yes, we managed to have a big sense of winning(global domination) even without capturing enemy's hometown.


So what I'm trying to mean is, your comments sound like PS2 won't have any significant sense of victory. How can you be so sure, I wonder?

[Xyntech]

Aside from a few potential problems with having only 3 continents at first, it seems like Planetside 2 is actually poised to have a lot less trouble with giving a sense of accomplishment than the first game. Some good points by Corax.

Again though, the most important part will be that the game be fresh and engaging moment to moment, and that it continues to have ongoing support and development to keep it fresh.

That and F2P. I think a lot of players left PS1 not just because of a feeling of futility, but because they had to justify paying a monthly subscription instead of a one time payment like most shooters, or F2P like PS2. Add to that the many shortcomings of the original Planetside, along with it's blatant lack of support from SOE, and it's no wonder players left.

I mostly stopped playing because of those dwindling numbers, because those massive numbers were essential to what I thought made Planetside great, so I am fully interested in PS2 keeping it's playerbase high. I just feel that they are on the right track already.

Also, more importantly than how I or anyone else "feels," is whether the solutions suggested for these problems are good or bad. Locking continents isn't a particularly good solution, certainly not with 3 continents and maybe not even with 10+. There are better solutions to be had.

Considering that there will never be any real point to the whole thing, we need to have ideas for win scenarios that don't bring the game to a crashing halt, or ruin huge segments of the playerbases ability to have fun. When a round ends in your standard FPS, a new round starts up quickly and everyone gets to start having fun again. Planetside 2 needs to have all of its victory scenarios be similar. That doesn't mean no large scale objectives or victories, just that the accomplishment of those shouldn't preclude anyone from jumping right from that victory/defeat into the next fight.

A lot of PS1 vets like the lulls in combat from the first game, but that should be dictated by your own play style in PS2. Someone who is still itching for a fight shouldn't be subject to someone else wanting down time.

[Gandhi]

I tried to come up with a solution to this (if "this" is even a problem) that doesn't involve locking continents, but nobody had anything to say about it, not even "That's stupid go away" :(

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40463

[Arteste]

I tried to come up with a solution to this (if "this" is even a problem) that doesn't involve locking continents, but nobody had anything to say about it, not even "That's stupid go away" :(

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40463

I had not come across that thread. I think that's be a great option for the devs to ponder, well thought out! It definitely would make base capture and holding more meaningful. Also, timing would come into play, i.e. you might be forced into deciding to recap a certain base before it made rank 5 status.

BUMP!

[Arteste]

Actually, it was well put, and I couldn't agree more.

And I definitely don't want another crap host based COD rinse and repeat fps where the only thing that matters is your K/DR...

Exactly! That's why my friends and I loved PS1! It's sandbox atmosphere allowed US to decide how to play... wanna jump on the MAG-mowers today, go for it! Man the walls with infiltrators throwing plasma 'nades in a base defense tomorrow, DONE! It should be what we make of it. I'm not the best combatant, but I can fly a Gal and support the effort.

[Xyntech]

I tried to come up with a solution to this (if "this" is even a problem) that doesn't involve locking continents, but nobody had anything to say about it, not even "That's stupid go away" :(

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=40463

Just read it and responded to it, as I had missed that post previously. This is what I like to see. Tossing out ideas so that we can have them readily available once we actually see the pluses and minuses of PS2 in action. It's way too early to be drawing conclusions about how PS2 will play, but it's never to early to come up with some interesting ideas on how to potentially diversify and add depth to the game.

[Tatwi]

The purpose of PS2 for me will be to fly around at stupid fast speeds, barrel rolling through canyons; repairing bases and vehicles; healing people so yhey don't have to respawn somewhere else.

I really don't care about or comprehend the e-thug "competitive" thing people go on about in online games (been playing on a pvp server in wow for years and it's sad the amount of QQ that occurs when "pvp happens".... Lol, i had a guild called that for a while, but the server is so dead I transferred the gl off...most people don't want to "play the game", ie have the chance to lose, they just want to roflstomp lesser geared people...). I'm there to just play the game. PS2 will have this great combination of huge zones, customization, great mechanics (combat and vehicle), and the freedom to do whatever, whenever you feel like it. No levels to grind to gain access to new parts of the game, for instance.

The point of PS2 really is what you personally make of the experience.

[Checowsky]

Personally I was all about game mechanics and just enjoying the arcadey shooting of PS1, that and out playing a more populated side to hold them up. That will most likely go out the window with higher pops let alone the system changes but I imagine another roll for the kind of outfit I roll in will be found with the new game. I shall miss my main love of PS though, the combat mechanics.

Maybe one day they'll do a classic server or make PS F2P some how =)

[Stew]

stew..... say what now?
I think you basically said that for you having epic and amazing fights is what the game is all about for you....

As for the OP.... Yes PS2 will have a purpose, simply put it will be to drive the enemy back, and force them to give up any land they have taken from you. The purpose will be to kill and keep on killing while taking all the possible real estate there is on Auraxis. The goal here is to take and own everything that the enemy owns, and force them to admit to defeat.

You WIN when you have taken every conquerable piece of Auraxian soil. You WIN when you look at the map and see that the other 2 Empires have nothing but a measly foothold on any given continent.

You know you WIN when you realize you won and you don't need the words "YOU WIN" flashing across the screen.

Its actually fairly straightforward. Take everything and don't give anything up. When you own everything, sit back, take a screen shot, and enjoy the feeling of complete and utter triumph as you realize you have accomplished something truly difficult.

Now actually making all that happen is a whole 'nuther story .

Edit: Thought of the day: Does one need to be told they have won to know they have truly won?

Do you realise whats u said ? I dont think so !

If the 2 others empire like u said have to be compleatly wipe out what will be the goal for those people IF as u seams to say are to BAD to take over the dominant empire ?

Theyre will be no goal at all and the game will Not be fun and the game will die !

You (( win )) everytime you sucessfully capture a strategic spot everytime thats u suceed by taking a base a bridge a regions or ressource for ur empire but also sometime denied ur ennemies to get the one they need !

The ultimate domination is stupid and not fun !

The fun is having the figth change from an area to anothers etc..

Whats will be the purpose of the dominant empire in ur (( ULTIMATE DOMINATION SENARIO )) ???

Base raping ? red line camping ? it will be as boring on both side and what will be the purpose of all the based of all the regions if all the figth left are at the 2 others empire foothold ?

All thos awesome terrain to figth will have no more purpose we will figth in the same 1 square km all the time having millions of ressource and denying the ennemies to have some at 100 %

thats ultimate domination senario is a Joke and its impossible to achive ! If the game is NOT BALANCE and one empire is to dominant people will start to quit and THE GAME WILL DIE !

Do you understand thats ?

The purpose of the game is taking as much territory as u can but the regions must be taken and take back our empire strategies have to be focused on whats regions is more profitable for us to hold Not on wipping everyones from the maps !

EX: is their any purpose to play BF3 with 32 players waiting at the ennemies spawn line ? It will be boring for the atackers and for those who are trap in the spawn most of them will quit and the game will be BORING AS HELL !

Planetside is a war game the thing thats make it really fun is the confrontation not the base raping so yeah !

If their is a single empire who dominate at this point thats will mean thats the game and players based are pretty unbalenced and the game will suffer or die from it !

And what will be my personal goal ? It will be COMPLEAT MY MISSION AND SUCCEED BECAUSE FOR ME FAILURE IS NOT A OPTION !

eVERYTIME I WILL suceed my mission my goal of the day or week it will always be a victory for me and my empire i dont need to hold the entire land for absolutly NO real purpose but saying we have all the map in blue yeah !! and whats ? where are the amasing figth ? where are the amasing strategies the multiple bases bridge and tower figth ?

think twice dude Ultimate domination is a joke for fanatiks in my opinions ;)

My empire will be the ritchers and we gonna get rich by holding the very territory thats we need to get the most ressource out of it after thats if the regions do not worth it strategically or ressource wise i do not care who own it until its come back as a profitable regions to hold this is how you dominate in planetside the richers are the winners ;)

[Stardouser]

I have an idea. Let's suppose those regions on a map are basically the equivalent of a BF3 map instance. Does seem to kind of work our that way anyway. Why don't we setup instance queues to form up groups to fight over each of those regions every 30 minutes or so? And since base captures are also fragmented this type of logic could also apply there. World is still persistent and voila, instant win condition. Capture a region, fireworks go off and a win is scored in your in game stats total.

I am just joking (I think).

First of all, that's not really a large scale MMOFPS if it's like that, secondly, when PS2 is successful, the competitors will probably do something like that because they can't manage to do any better than that for at least a couple of years.

[Kipper]

Winning is what you want winning to be. My number one "victory condition" is to have fun when I've got some free time, whether its with Planetside or any other game, or any other form of entertainment. I consider my time to be precious.

When it comes to Planetside however, I expect I will login, decide where I can best help the team (while fulfilling my primary objective of doing something fun) whether that's a last ditch defence, an all out attack, or some other operation - and I'll get on with doing that. "Victory" will be when the enemy is pushed back and base/hex is securely under TR control.

When enemy soldiers and vehicles stop coming back for more in the area I'm playing - that's when I won..... I don't need fireworks to tell me that.

... and then I'll go find a battle elsewhere.

[Kipper]

While I think about it. Did I read somewhere that missions will be generated by the game?

I kinda hope not, I can see why it would - but it sort of takes away from 'free will' if the game is directing too many people to go certain places doing certain things. I'd say fine if its an optional layer to give people some suggestions when they don't have squad/outfit or an obvious objective - but a big 'NO' to there being bonusses for taking AI generated missions on because I want to see player driven strategies develop.

I did also see somewhere else that missions will be player generated by those with high enough cert level but at first who is going to have high enough level to do that?

Good point. But I've heard rumblings also of a 'follower' thing so rather than getting command rank for time spent in a leadership role (which you may or may not suck at), it will be up to people (I assume) to 'upvote' good commanders and team players, which will give them more options to plan missions?

The GDC video was great and all, but I think we really, really need to get some more in-depth descriptions or footage of the strategic side.

[MonsterBone]

The point of any game is community and shared experiences.

[SgtMAD]

the purpose of this game is to wipe the floor with everyone you fight so they run to the forums and start huge threads about how your outfit should be disbanded/nerfed and how it isn't fair that all the talent seems to be joining that same outfit.

thats how you "win"and you can tell how close you are to that goal by the hate generated on the forums.

[NCLynx]

Fight. Win. (And then get it all stolen from you while you sleep, rinse repeat)

[TerminatorUK]

The objective is to turn the map purple - TRay said so.

[Tatwi]

The objective is to turn the map purple - TRay said so.

Objective after that is to keep the map purple. It's purdy!

[cellinaire]

I can appreciate that sort of free form thought but there will be so many millions of people who will have a hard time grasping that concept. They will need to be spoon fed at first and need to "win" quickly. That's probably the entire reason for the mission concept.

While I think about it. Did I read somewhere that missions will be generated by the game? I did also see somewhere else that missions will be player generated by those with high enough cert level but at first who is going to have high enough level to do that?

Oh..... and I guess many of them won't be reluctant to say words like 'elitists' or 'arrogant playerbase' when they leave the game... laying 100% of the blame on the game and developers.


Just sayin :groovy:

[Retrograde]

What is good?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

[Atheosim]

You win the game when you defeat Blackwing or whatever.

[Stew]

planetside isnt the real life their is No end game in end the war by winning or loosing it lol !

If their is no more war in planetside their is no more game the game is actually based on ongoing and perpetual conflict if their is no confrontation their is no game Period !

So please stop asking for a endgame like this it make no sens !

You personally win a small or a big victory when u achive ur missions whatever is ur mission If ur a engineer and your mission is to deploy well place turret to take out some ennely aircraft at a specifics momment and u achive thats this will be a personal win if ur effort contribute to gain controle over a important piece of territory for ur empire this will also be a win !


Thing have to moove on planetside to keep it fresh and interesting ;)

[Guuy]

Maybe they should just add a big ol flashing colour"YOUR THE WINNER!!!" sign (that matches empire colours) when you successfully take over a facility. The fact that nothing tells you you've won seems to be the issue here not that something will of been accomplished.

Taking an entire continent and locking it was never the most satisfying victories in ps anyway it was taking over a facility you've been fighting for 3 hours in.

I always had more fun on bas defenses anyway and those usually always end in a "loss"

[Levente]

What is good?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

get do dah chappppahhhhhhhh :lol:

[Kipper]

The objective is to turn the map red.

fixed a mistake.

[Rocknoise]

Yes you felt good if you won a round in BF3 or in TF2

ROFL! PS is completly different to BF3. Thats why i wanna play ps2 instead of bf3. Winning a round after 20 mins and everything resets.. i won, but what i do i see off it. nothing than a point more on my stats.
In ps, after 3 hours playing u can see what u have done and reached.
TBH after winning a couple of round in bf i feel bored and want to play something differend.
In ps that didnt happen to me.

If u like fighting with your teammate for the helicopter, go for it, have fun... but i prefer the static map with my OWN vehicle. xD

PS: @Dev-Team, pleeaaaassseeee make Sanctuaries. I really would miss them.

[deltase]

What is good?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

The objective is to turn the map purple - TRay said so.

Amin to those!

Lets do this PURPLE TEAM!

On topic:
The goal is to experience the massive battles, in which you play a small part but a vital one. Well that's it for me. Winning or losing, it's all the same for me when the scale is so big, cause it's not like in bf or tf where losing makes things so annoying. At least in PS2, when you get your butt kicked, you will see some epic scenes.
Although i have never played the original PS, from videos and from what the people say, it sounds like an epic experience, something i've always dreamed for.

[Kipper]

There IS winning, when you take an objective. It will probably even come up on the screen to let you know that's what happened.

Only difference is that while you're celebrating, the people you just took it from are coming to take it back - and this time they're pissed off.

No single player is going to have a marked effect on the strategy meta-game, that's for outfits and multi-outfit alliances, and they will say to their members "victory is when we take and hold this hex" and the members will understand and all will be well.

If you play solo, don't expect that - just play the pointless K/D game and feel free to miss the point entirely if you like. But PS is a REALLY a team game like no other. You may die, many times, even many times more than you kill - but as long as you're in the fight and making a contribution....

[Stardouser]

Taking an objective is winning, sure, but it's on a micro level. Winning, to people who talk about win condition means the war, macro level, not the battle. You guys may not like it, but that's how it is.

I suspect, however, that the only real victory conditions that will(or can) exist will be in special events. The problem of 3AM loss of hard earned territory means that weekend, special event, 48 hour and it's done, events, will be the only place a true victory condition can exist. Even in Battlefield 2(I won't say Battlefailed 3), yes there is a win/loss for every round, but they don't really count emotionally, true victories come in organized scrimmages between clans. I would suspect that the parallel between a weekly/monthly clan scrimmage in Planetside 2 will be the 48 hour weekend event. The question is, how often can we have these events and will there be enough room for all who want to participate?

[Stardouser]

Right! I thought I remembered talking about this before....

The question really is, how often can we have these, how many people can participate in each one, how do you sign up for them, etc? And in fact, for extra revenue, something like a $2 entry fee for each one might make sense. Especially since a GM presence will be necessary that might not be necessary for daily play.

I would like to see them be able to have these as often as possible. How would people sign up? All individually? Individually and whole outfits at a time?

[Kipper]

Taking an objective is winning, sure, but it's on a micro level. Winning, to people who talk about win condition means the war, macro level, not the battle. You guys may not like it, but that's how it is.

As I understood it, the discussion was about how you take a BF/MW player and persuade them they're winning things when the round doesn't end. To which I say you can claim victory when you take territory. It will be shown on the map and it will be tangible. Those players aren't interested in the war, they have no concept of it in their games - only unconnected instanced battles.

Win condition for the war is simple - hold the entire continent (or capturable area of it) - but whether that's even possible remains to be seen. If it is, I'd still expect it to take weeks.

At that point, you could give medals and reset the map, it wouldn't break things - though I think it'd be better if that was a very rare occurrence.

[Gandhi]

It's not just about winning, it's about having large scale goals that go beyond "capture this base" or "defend this hex". Continent locks might not have been the ideal goal, but at least it was something.

Things like "This is our home continent, lets kick these fools out" or "Lets boot the TR out of Oshur so we can have vec repair benefits". It's another layer of objectives laid on top of the constant, passive motivation of "get resources". It's the reason why every professional sport has a championship, what's the point in playing 50 games each season if they're just isolated 1 vs 1's? You play those games to secure a playoff spot, then you win the playoffs to secure a spot in the final. Throughout the entire season there's these long term objectives that give a solid reason for playing each individual match, one that goes beyond just "lets beat the other team".

I think every game needs goals like that, especially one with a persistent world without the traditional raid-for-loot mechanics. It's really tough to get right, and like I said I wasn't totally happy with the cont lock mechanic either. But it was a start. And who knows, maybe PS2 already has this covered. I guess we'll find out in the beta.

[headcrab13]

The question really is, how often can we have these, how many people can participate in each one, how do you sign up for them, etc? And in fact, for extra revenue, something like a $2 entry fee for each one might make sense. Especially since a GM presence will be necessary that might not be necessary for daily play.

I would like to see them be able to have these as often as possible. How would people sign up? All individually? Individually and whole outfits at a time?

That's a really intriguing idea about the smaller matches and a tournament mode. Of course, that would only be to shake things up every now and then, as most people will prefer full-scale battles.

One option would be only having tournaments on weekends and only 5% of the population could be in the fight at one time. Anyone beyond that 5% could queue up, but it would take a few minutes to get in. That way you'd still have 95% percent of the players on the continent and the only downside would be a short wait for those people who were queued.

Another option would be around launch when there are possibly hundreds of people queued and waiting to get into each full server, you could give them the option to join a 20v20 or 50v50 instanced tournament, hosted on one of the other open servers. It would just be a diversion while they waited to join the normal fight, but it might be a good opportunity to see whether the community in general likes that sort of thing.

[Artimus]

What I dont understand is that the sanctuary would work fine without the hart and just have warp gates. With an uncapturable foothold on each continent that takes alot of it away for me. I would like to see the continent turn blue with a padlock on it to show the NC took it over. Even though it would just get back hacked it is still a win in my book. Also it will bring back a sense of home continents. A sanc woud also give a place for people to stage if the 3 conts. are poplocked.

[Stardouser]

As I understood it, the discussion was about how you take a BF/MW player and persuade them they're winning things when the round doesn't end. To which I say you can claim victory when you take territory. It will be shown on the map and it will be tangible. Those players aren't interested in the war, they have no concept of it in their games - only unconnected instanced battles.

Win condition for the war is simple - hold the entire continent (or capturable area of it) - but whether that's even possible remains to be seen. If it is, I'd still expect it to take weeks.

At that point, you could give medals and reset the map, it wouldn't break things - though I think it'd be better if that was a very rare occurrence.

Well, I just mean that yes, BF does have a win declared every 30 minutes, but unless you are playing in an organized clan match, it's a soulless number. The meaningless daily rounds played on an unorganized basis are quite easily replaced by daily territory pushes in PS2.

And while an MMOFPS does present the technical possibility of a larger win condition, to do it in the main game itself is going to see 3AM steamrolls and it will happen every night, and will water the game down. World War 2 Online has a victory condition but its maps are so huge that its hard to pin the enemy down to do it. PS2 continents will make Battlefailed look like a sardine can, but they aren't that big. Until we get continents that are 64 X 64 instead of 8X8, that leaves us with no option but weekend events.

That's a really intriguing idea about the smaller matches and a tournament mode. Of course, that would only be to shake things up every now and then, as most people will prefer full-scale battles.


Note that when I talk about 48 hour events like this, I was assuming they would be for several thousand people. Perhaps even a full 6000 people on a 48 hour event server. Depends on how this stuff can be organized.

[Stardouser]

I can see a real danger in these events becoming more popular than the core game. Ideally the victory conditions need to be integrated into the normal game mode. I don't know though with 3 conts, anything like that will be tough.

I don't think we can let that worry us too much BUT I do have an idea on that point.

I assume that not everyone will actually want to participate in these, SO, the idea would be this: If there are 40 servers, group the 40 into 4 groups of 10. Have 4 weekend events per month (one per group of 10); and an individual person will be able to play in the event group of which his server belongs. This means that no individual server will lose players to the event more than once per month. And if the events are more popular than I assume, divide the 40 servers into 8 groups of 5, and have 8 events over a 2 month period, which would mean no server would lose players more often than 48 hours per 2 months.

Now...to prevent people from simply creating a character on other servers to participate in the events, eligibility for the events could be limited to people who have a certain number of hours on the character.

[Marinealver]

Remove strongholds for a space station in orbit.
Side 3 has a secret after all.

[Graywolves]

The longer I see this thread go the more I think there's just an inability for some players to move away from the current mold of FPS gameplay.

It baffles me when you say that there's no victory or win or meaning in battles but argue that that the meaningless match over and reset games have purpose.


I enter matchmaking, I get a map, I win. I enter matchmaking, I get a different map, I win. Hey that's great.


I jump on a gal with 10 other people. We fly to a base, we fight over it. We take it. We hop on the gal again or continue fighting there or somewhere nearby. Now that base is where we deploy from and where other people are deploying from.

A victory in Planetside(2) has actual value within the game world. Match-based wins are nothing more than stats and that kind of stat-tracking for victories is still in the game with your facility captures.

[ArmedZealot]

It's simply to take as much territory as possible.

I'd be happy with a daily victory condition. Something posted to the website to say who had the most territory in a 24 hour period. Same with a ton of other stats to appeal to people who don't focus on capturing territory.

I'm more worried about the lack of end game content than a victory condition.

[Zulthus]

There shouldn't be end game content or a victory condition. Those don't work in Planetside... the point of the game is a 24/7 persistent war that no one can win. That's why I play it. I'm tired of shitty match based shooters with no teamwork and everyone just whoring over their K/D.

[headcrab13]

Kinda of reminds you of Outfit Wars doesn't it? Doubt that would work early on as outfits would just be forming and "leveling up", but maybe later on. The difficulty is how to keep the CoD/BF guys understanding the persistent nature of this game, while not altering it greatly. I don't know, guess that isn't our problem but I just don't want to see a much anticipated "sequel" to a cult legend game go up in smoke in a year or so.

Yeah I was mostly responding to Higby's musing about a few smaller instanced maps, but to be honest we both know that massive-scale combat is the only thing to really focus on.

I guess the "win condition" is a hard thing to describe to someone who hasn't played the first Planetside, but once people start seeing E3 demos, open beta footage, and player-made videos around launch, I think they'll start to get the picture.

As you and others have said, just the persistent nature of Planetside alone is enough to satisfy that need for a "win" confirmation, and once people begin playing I think they'll be totally content with the way PS2 is turning out.

[RawketLawnchair]

Yeah I was mostly responding to Higby's musing about a few smaller instanced maps, but to be honest we both know that massive-scale combat is the only thing to really focus on.

I guess the "win condition" is a hard thing to describe to someone who hasn't played the first Planetside, but once people start seeing E3 demos, open beta footage, and player-made videos around launch, I think they'll start to get the picture.

As you and others have said, just the persistent nature of Planetside alone is enough to satisfy that need for a "win" confirmation, and once people begin playing I think they'll be totally content with the way PS2 is turning out.

I hadn't heard of PS1 until last year, most likely because PS1 was shut out by its competition. Unfortunately. But I really don't see that happening this time around. I can see all of the BF3 kids jumping on the PS2 bandwagon.

Just makes me wish I had gotten in on all the fun the original had to offer.

[Graywolves]

I think you have the inability to page up and see that your Lord and Master Higby is also concerned at the lack of a victory condition. Bow down to your Master, minion. :lol:

I read it and expanded on it.


-edit- in the thread that he actually posted in.

[Kipper]

I hadn't heard of PS1 until last year, most likely because PS1 was shut out by its competition. Unfortunately. But I really don't see that happening this time around. I can see all of the BF3 kids jumping on the PS2 bandwagon.

Just makes me wish I had gotten in on all the fun the original had to offer.

Nah, PS1 suffered because it was ahead of it's time in many ways (subscription? MMO? Fast connection required?) PS2 is just what PS1 should have been, had it been possible at the time - and including features from modern FPS which weren't conceived back then.

In fact, I wouldn't mind if they dropped the 2 and just called the new one Planetside. Though it could be confusing I suppose :)

[headcrab13]

I hadn't heard of PS1 until last year, most likely because PS1 was shut out by its competition. Unfortunately. But I really don't see that happening this time around. I can see all of the BF3 kids jumping on the PS2 bandwagon.

Just makes me wish I had gotten in on all the fun the original had to offer.

Yeah, PS2 has a lot going for it and it could very well be The Next Big Thing. Here's hoping!

Although Planetside's playerbase has waned a little in recent years, there's still a respectable number of players and even more now that the sequel is in the news. If you can appreciate games for their gameplay over graphics, you might still be able to enjoy Planetside quite a bit if you want to check it out before beta starts.

Up to you :)

[headcrab13]

Yeah you know when I think or refer to events I am mainly talking about in-game events. As cheesy as they were, they still broke up stale fights from time to time and also provided a victory condition. Hell if you won a rabbit event, you locked a cont for 24 hours. Things like that. Maybe that can be done before release, maybe not, but also they could come up with land mass, or resource tally victors for the week, with a small reward of some kind.

Yeah, definitely. I think the initial gameplay will draw in a ton of players and keep them playing for a good year or two without the devs releasing many content patches.

I like your idea of adding in challenges, occasional weekend modes, and various optional minigame events that could be added in the coming years and reward players with small bonuses or even exclusive items like a unique visor or a uniform badge signifying the event.