End the Fight - "Tours" of duty

[Madfish]

One of the key issues with PS is a sense of no actual progress.

What do you guys think about an end game criteria - hold X amount of territory for X time etc etc, which leads to the game finishing. Everyone who took part gets a "Tour" medal, the winning faction gets a medal and the best outfits and players also get awards.

The planet then resets for it to start all over again.

The reset would also be a great time to introduce new technology / equipment ready to go.

Thoughts? Still just doing the same thing again and again, or would it give a sense of a greater task?

[Sledgecrushr]

Im all for endless war with no resets or breaks. Blood for the Blood God...

[Bazilx]

I want a reset, I feel it would make the fighting feel more worthwhile and enjoyable.

However this has been brought up a thousand times before, I'm sure the devs have heard it and are considering it and will continue to in BETA.

[CorvicM]

if i recall correctly Chromehounds did something similar and it was not pretty as 95% of the people who were achievement "enthusiasts" just joined a "group" just to get said number 1 group achievement. This lead to cheating galore and all sorts of other problems because of boosting. It encourages cheating for a "medal" cause some people have to have everything. (Boosting in PS2 would be either TKing on an alt so your mains Outfit gets the base, or entire sub outfits in other factions dedicated to just taking up space in the pop limit and AFKing so their outfit can get the bases.

Note: This is just what i have seen and foresee happening. Especially if there is a bonus from an award.

[capiqu]

I could see this as monthly events in which outfits and people can participate in. Maybe it could be done on selected continents. Tts not a bad idea, but continues battle is what Planetside is all about and I think most would agree.

[Biohazard]

The war shouldn't stop until we have beaten the ignorant masses back to their footholds and starve them of resources!

[kaffis]

I don't need a reset to have fun.

Progress is taking every inch of ground I can during my play session. That's how I measure victory.

That my compatriots may lose it again when I log off does not detract from that, nor make my victory tomorrow when I log back on any less meaningful.

[fishirboy]

I want a reset, I feel it would make the fighting feel more worthwhile and enjoyable.

However this has been brought up a thousand times before, I'm sure the devs have heard it and are considering it and will continue to in BETA.

Hows does that worthwhile? Have a reset and then bam! your towers you captured are all gone because of it. I would hate that because of the no worth feel to it. Like MW3 and BF3

[GhettoPrince]

I heard some stuff about new planets instead of new continents. I think locking down a planet would make for a pretty cool endgame. I'd love to see some kind of space combat if they could figure out a way to do it that didn't divide the playerbase. We already have a ton of vehicles and the technology can handle it easy.

I don't know about being able to win the war, that just sounds gimmicky and stupid, but if your side can hold a piece of ground for a long time than you should totally be able to win the battle for it.

TL;DR BETABETABETABETABETABETA!

[Tim]

Don't think resets are needed, after all when one faction is penned in half the fun is breaking out again, wouldn't get that chance if the game reset

[super pretendo]

I think conquering a continent should lead to a cert training speed boost for all members of a faction. Nothing big, but something tangible to feel, and maybe medals to show as well.

[Bazilx]

Hows does that worthwhile? Have a reset and then bam! your towers you captured are all gone because of it. I would hate that because of the no worth feel to it. Like MW3 and BF3

I will tell you hows.

That's bound to happen with or without a reset, all the bases and resources you captured are liable to be taken back while you are sleeping. Atleast if there was a reset at the end the x amount of resources your side would have gained from those hours you held that base you captured would contribute to your victory.

As it is now, you'll just be like the tide, sweeping forward and back with no sense of purpose or accomplishment. As people are pushed back they become stronger from having to defend less territory and become more able to take back the territory you conquered which means that even if you fight better than them, the results won't be nearly as noticable as they would be if there was a score and reset system.

I believe it's mainly though a matter of preference, I won't feel like I am doing well unless I have a number telling me I am. I won't take as much pleasure out of the knowledge that technically we are doing better than them unless some arbitrary third party gives me a pat on the back once in a while, it's sad but I believe it's part of many peoples competetive psychology.

I feel it would be like playing a sport but with nobody keeping score and some hippie jerk telling me it's not about the score, it's about the pleasure of the game.

[thegreekboy]

All of the issues brought up here can be solved by one thing-TIME.

Make an end game, but make the game MONUMENTALLY long, my idea is each round takes 6 months to complete, and each faction earns "points" based on how many bases/tower, etc they took and how long they held each of them. That eliminates boosting, and the rounds are long enough so that noone feels like its a typical "match" in a generic fps.

Hell, I would be fine with the round time being 1 year.

[Turdicus]

Its not an endless war if it...ends. I don't understand why people have this need for an endgame. If you fight for three days over a base and then take it THAT is an accomplishment worth remembering. Similarly losing that battle is a big deal. Games with endings are disappointing because if they are good enough it reminds you that it is limited. No endgame makes the game feel unlimited and persistent.

Character progression is enough achievement for me. I wouldn't be opposed to a merit award system either, shiny medals earned on a "tour" that never ends is a cool concept.

[CorvicM]

All of the issues brought up here can be solved by one thing-TIME.

Make an end game, but make the game MONUMENTALLY long, my idea is each round takes 6 months to complete, and each faction earns "points" based on how many bases/tower, etc they took and how long they held each of them. That eliminates boosting, and the rounds are long enough so that noone feels like its a typical "match" in a generic fps.

Hell, I would be fine with the round time being 1 year.

Sorry but my response still applies.

[thegreekboy]

In response to the above comment people want endgames because it gives a sense of satisfaction and closure to the war that you've been fighting. Both parties can be happy with year long rounds, I think.

[Bazilx]

In response to the above comment people want endgames because it gives a sense of satisfaction and closure to the war that you've been fighting. Both parties can be happy with year long rounds, I think.


The amount of time would mean that there are a hundred factors out of my control, out of my influence that would diminish my sense of contribution to the game. I wouldn't feel motivated to take a base since it would be such a tiny thing when considering a year long fight between thousands.

[basti]

No to any kind of reset. Period.

[Turdicus]

I don't need numbers to tell me when I'm having fun, and if I want to feel a sense of satisfaction I'll do something important, not play Planetside. Video games are for fun, at least they should be. Although I suppose some people might only be having fun in the first place if they see that they have a high k/d or something. I don't agree with these people =)

[Warborn]

To get any real sense of progression and "winning" the game would have had to have been designed with it in mind. I don't believe at this point there is any sense in discussing winning or losing in a sort of campaign system akin to World War 2 Online, or whatever, simply because the amount of work it'd take is prohibitive.

The game is designed to be Battlefield 3, on a large scale, with silly skins and hats you can pay money for. That's it. There isn't any deeper meaning to it, nor will there be. It's not meant to be that kind of game.

[Tim]

To those wanting a sense of achievement I'm sure medals and 'achievements' will be included in the game.

[Bazilx]

To those wanting a sense of achievement I'm sure medals and 'achievements' will be included in the game.

Could not care less for achievements.

[Hmr85]

No to any kind of reset. Period.

QFT!!!

[Mathiu]

Personally I'm hoping for "best player" "best outfit" sort of awards at the end of a certain period of time, say maybe a month. You could tally it up by number of kills, number of bases successfully secured/defended, number of revives/healing done.

I don't like the idea of a complete reset however, that would just kill the flow for me. You don't have to stop the fight to give a sense of accomplishment to the game.

[lMABl]

Its not an endless war if it...ends. I don't understand why people have this need for an endgame. If you fight for three days over a base and then take it THAT is an accomplishment worth remembering. Similarly losing that battle is a big deal. Games with endings are disappointing because if they are good enough it reminds you that it is limited. No endgame makes the game feel unlimited and persistent.

Character progression is enough achievement for me. I wouldn't be opposed to a merit award system either, shiny medals earned on a "tour" that never ends is a cool concept.
Agreed, its a persistent world its not supposed to end. I personally wouldn't like an end game, even if it did take 6 months or even longer, having it reset would just be... frustrating.

[Ironside]

there will be no reset, some of you aint got a clue

[Tim]

Could not care less for achievements.

Could not care less for endgame ;)

[Warborn]

Well, there's nothing wrong with a fun, shallow game you can just hop into a shoot guys in for free. I'm sure it'll be fun and entertain us all for a while. Planetside 1 wasn't any different.

[Ratstomper]

No sense of progress? What do you think taking bases/continents is? I don't think there needs to, or should be, any overall end goal.

[TeaLeaf]

I don't think a reset is the way to go about it but I would really like some kind of system to "raise the stakes", as it where. The game world 2 years after launch will be pretty much the same as the game world 3 months after launch (excluding actual new content), I'd rather player actions have a bit more impact.

Like I said, no idea what could help do this in PS2. It'd only work if there where no real pre-set factions and everything was player driven (so if your faction is destroyed, you can just join a new one or start rebuilding) but that would probably gimp the actual gameplay.

Maybe some smaller things such as the game just archiving most of its history in a database somewhere (what the empire map looked like on a particular date for example) would help bring more sense of actually affecting the world.

[Warborn]

No sense of progress? What do you think taking bases/continents is? I don't think there needs to, or should be, any overall end goal.

Capturing a base isn't any different than capturing the payload in Teamfortress 2 or whatever. Or winning a round in Battlefield 3. This thread is about the desire of some people to have longer term goals that you fight to achieve. Capturing a base is something you'll do over the course of an hour or so, and you'll lose it shortly thereafter with nothing really gained or lost in either transaction except for passive flow of resources. So not exactly the kind of progress some people are hoping for.

[Ratstomper]

Capturing a base isn't any different than capturing the payload in Teamfortress 2 or whatever. Or winning a round in Battlefield 3. This thread is about the desire of some people to have longer term goals that you fight to achieve. Capturing a base is something you'll do over the course of an hour or so, and you'll lose it shortly thereafter with nothing really gained or lost in either transaction except for passive flow of resources. So not exactly the kind of progress some people are hoping for.

Yeah, but those games you mentioned are incredibly fun and popular. I'm just not sure why people want more than base and continent captures (which can take the better part of a day in PS1, probably a bit faster in PS2). I think people are just being anxious about things. Once they get in game and get mobilizing with a whole army to work on capping an entire continent, people will stop worrying about "overall" goals, because they won't need them. I think the games current goals will be satisfying enough.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to some bonuses for securing bases/continents, but I'm not sure what they'd be.

[Warborn]

There's no question that BF3/TF2 are fun and popular, and this game is going for the middle-ground between them, with BF3-style gameplay and TF2-style silliness/microtransactions. I think PS2 will do very well even if the gameplay is shallow, because I think most players really just want to be able to log on, shoot people, and not care about any sort of "big picture" stuff. Doesn't mean you can't have both styles of gameplay working concurrently, but PS2 lacking the long view probably won't keep it from being a great game.

[Ratstomper]

The reason I don't want resets is because that is literally like TF2 and BF3, it's just another round where everyone does the same thing they did last time. Having a never ending war means you've always got different battle lines and situations where tactics and battleplans will need to be different. You may have to take a base differently today than you took it yesterday because of any number of battlefield factors: enemy positioning, enemy type, global populations, etc. The best way to make gameplay stagnant is to introduce resets.

[fishirboy]

I will tell you hows.

That's bound to happen with or without a reset, all the bases and resources you captured are liable to be taken back while you are sleeping. Atleast if there was a reset at the end the x amount of resources your side would have gained from those hours you held that base you captured would contribute to your victory.

As it is now, you'll just be like the tide, sweeping forward and back with no sense of purpose or accomplishment. As people are pushed back they become stronger from having to defend less territory and become more able to take back the territory you conquered which means that even if you fight better than them, the results won't be nearly as noticable as they would be if there was a score and reset system.

I believe it's mainly though a matter of preference, I won't feel like I am doing well unless I have a number telling me I am. I won't take as much pleasure out of the knowledge that technically we are doing better than them unless some arbitrary third party gives me a pat on the back once in a while, it's sad but I believe it's part of many peoples competetive psychology.

I feel it would be like playing a sport but with nobody keeping score and some hippie jerk telling me it's not about the score, it's about the pleasure of the game.

If you look back at PS1 you could push them all the way out of a continent, and being able to control a base or tower for a long time like a day is way more then just resetting in every day, we could hold the base for a week or a month if were good. Having the break outs is what is fun and much cooler then seeing a YOU LOSS sign when your out of all continents. This is a build no one else uses and you never have tried it. All you have played is BF3 or Modern War fair. Name one game you have played like PS1 and PS2?

[Envenom]

I like this idea. I played WWII Online and they had a similar setup. I can't remember exactly how it worked but it was either you fight for a 2 week period and the faction with the most territory at the end wins, or until one got totally wiped. At that point there would be a reset.

It was a lot of fun and gave purpose to your advances/movements. I would see this working nicely in PS2.

[Crator]

I don't think a reset is the way to go about it but I would really like some kind of system to "raise the stakes", as it where. The game world 2 years after launch will be pretty much the same as the game world 3 months after launch (excluding actual new content), I'd rather player actions have a bit more impact.

Like I said, no idea what could help do this in PS2. It'd only work if there where no real pre-set factions and everything was player driven (so if your faction is destroyed, you can just join a new one or start rebuilding) but that would probably gimp the actual gameplay.

Maybe some smaller things such as the game just archiving most of its history in a database somewhere (what the empire map looked like on a particular date for example) would help bring more sense of actually affecting the world.

This sounds like the outfit base idea we've had floating around here for a bit. I could see a win/loose condition for outfit bases. And the DEVs have said they want more sandbox features such as this in the future (not at launch)...

[Bazilx]

Having a never ending war means you've always got different battle lines and situations where tactics and battleplans will need to be different. You may have to take a base differently today than you took it yesterday because of any number of battlefield factors:

I don't see how not having a reset would cause that more than having one would, in fact I think a reset would make things like foothold-swapping possible, changing the battle lines far more significantly.

If you look back at PS1 you could push them all the way out of a continent,

And if we could still lock the VS scum off our land I wouldn't have a problem, since that felt satisfying enough. I just don't feel the constant fighting going nowhere would feel satisfying in the same way.

I am hoping that the character progression and the conquest making me feel like I am progressing my character will bring more meaning and be satisfying, but I can't speak to that just yet.

[Deflagrate]

I feel like a reset physically (as in bases, etc) would really serve no lasting change, since they would be hacked back within hours. However the concept of statistics, ranks, etc. could be extremely positive. 3 month or so "seasons" could be used, with, in addition to the long running game long statistics, there would be individual statistics for these 3 month blocks.

The last week of each 3 month blocks could be a "fun week" SOE could grant everyone all weapons/certs etc. for that week, with no competitive statistics measured, just so sit back and blow **** up.

If SOE wants to add a competitive element to planetside, the top players in each season (per class, faction, top outfit, etc) could be invited to SOE Fan Fest for an all out, "battle of the elite" game.

It would add publicity, competition, and bring the community together.

[Neurotoxin]

A three-way revolutionary conflict isn't going to see peace, not even for a minute, not even when the servers are down.

This war doesn't end. Maybe campaigns for individual continents may occur (maybe have a rotating continent system similar to the caverns in PS1) so an owned continent can be locked and one that was previously owned becomes unlocked.

[indirect]

No.

[IMMentat]

How would any reset fit into a Persistant world???
Dumb idea, though I understand the desire to gave a goal.

Planetside is a sandbox war simulation, for the most part, we set our own goals.
I think the AI commander missions will help there, and I can certainly see the merits of outfit/empire leagues played separate from the continental fights, kinda like outfit wars but more frequent and better advertised (maybe even turn it into an e-sport).

[ChillerDuu]

I'd rather have it not reset. I just kind of like it that way to where the world is completely changed by the players and not reset.

[p0intman]

One of the key issues with PS is a sense of no actual progress.

What do you guys think about an end game criteria - hold X amount of territory for X time etc etc, which leads to the game finishing. Everyone who took part gets a "Tour" medal, the winning faction gets a medal and the best outfits and players also get awards.

The planet then resets for it to start all over again.

The reset would also be a great time to introduce new technology / equipment ready to go.

Thoughts? Still just doing the same thing again and again, or would it give a sense of a greater task?


No. What do you not understand about the foreverwar?

[Landtank]

If they brought back continent locks and sanctuaries then this problem would be partially solved, as then you could win continents and feel accomplishment.

I personally enjoy the foreverwar, and wouldn't ever, ever want a reset.

[The Kush]

@OP

Lol no. And this will never be in the game. The devs have clearly said a thousand times and advertise this will be a never ending game. That's what makes it so great.

[Greeniegriz]

No reset, never no.

Now that that's out of the way. Monthly events would be cool. Perhaps HQ starts a campaign and a faction needs to hold/capture/destroy X many of X to win. After a faction wins the campaign ends, nothing "resets", the campaign just ends and the game continues like normal. Guess the campaigns would be like missions, but maybe they last longer? week?

Just spit balling.

Cheers,

GG

[WarbirdTD]

Absolutely no resets in Planetside 2. No thank you, sir.

As far as a sense of accomplishment goes, I think seeing a continent go red/blue/purple after massive week-long (month-long maybe?) battles will be cool enough, but maaaybe a temporary 5% xp boost could fit in somehow. Handing out achievements like blue ribbons? nahhhh.. You are THERE to fight the enemy, not be reminded of how special and unique you are. It's a combat simulator, not a daycare =P

[Turdicus]

oh hey green you changed your bear. it looks fierce. and green

[Yummie]

There can't be an end game for what Planetside is doing.

Lets say there is a reset after a 6 month period. The game tally's the score based a many different factors that happened throughout that six months. What incentive or motivation will those players get when they can only log on once a week and maybe get 5 points out of the 10,000 overall points. How does that make them want to keep playing. Those people will log on and feel like it is a waste cause they aren't "actually" contributing anything.

On top of that. How do you keep a faction motivated if after the first month NC is ahead by a ton of points and any attempt to catch up is just futile. You will get people hopping onto the NC team just for that win or bonus. People will lose interest in the fight if they feel there is no chance to come back. And usually in MMO's if one faction dominates they will always dominate. Sure you can team up with the other faction in PS but still doesn't solve the sense of uselessness people will feel if they are behind by a large margin. Even if you make it hold X territories for X amount of time...If NC is dominating then people will just give up or switch to NC to make it go quicker until it rests.

It also loses the sense of a persistent game. After the 6th month period and everything resets I feel like I am done and don't want to go through that again. I'm sure I'd keep playing but without an end game each base, or each objective is my accomplishment. It's about the battles you have each day across each continent. And with 3 massive continents the gameplay should feel varied enough on a day to day basis.

I know people are complaining about logging off and waking up with everything you took, retaken over by the enemy. But that wont change with an end game. Even a 6 month end game you will still have the back and forth. Even if it is hold X territories for X amount of time and it resets. You'll still wake up with your progress potentially lost or just rest.

[Greeniegriz]

oh hey green you changed your bear. it looks fierce. and green

Aye, the other was much to.... friendly....

Cheers.

[Zar]

Im all for endless war with no resets or breaks. Blood for the Blood God... as much as it pains me *it does as a TR* I agree with the nc rebel scum on this one resets are dumb >.< 24/7 battles.

[TheDAWinz]

No.

:cheers:

[ChillerDuu]

The game is about the battles, not the sense of complete victory. It's best if we keep our sense of achievement when we capture a base. Every place can be our goal and no big trophies to make what we did seem like little things. Capturing each base fills you with a sense of achievement. We like focusing on that and not some big end game reward or whatever and then restart again.

[Hmr85]

The only long term end game goal you should be striving for is that your faction achieves total global domination. Anything less is BS. I also say no to any type of "reset".

[Dloan]

This was a constant theme over the lifespan of PS1 and you can bet it will continue to be so for PS2. Why bother taking and retaking bases every evening? Persistance is meaningless when territory changes hands every few hours. Why not go play something else?

The answer, which was also suggested over and over, was player ownership of the persistance with things like outfit owned bases etc. However, this idea needs to be taken much further. Players need to be able to build their own bases, build their own towers and defenses on empty continents and they need to be able to capture and physically destroy those of their enemies. These player built structures need some real persistance in the difficulty of capture compared to the normal maps. The resource system would be used to pay for these things, which means that taking and holding territory in the "normal" game has a larger purpose beyond paying for tanks and aircraft.

There are hints the devs are already thinking of stuff like this. I just hope the game doesn't go the way of PS1 before they get around to addressing this requirement.

[lolroflroflcake]

If your thinking that then this probably isn't the game your looking for, sorry man. :(

[TheDAWinz]

This was a constant theme over the lifespan of PS1 and you can bet it will continue to be so for PS2. Why bother taking and retaking bases every evening? Persistance is meaningless when territory changes hands every few hours. Why not go play something else?

The answer, which was also suggested over and over, was player ownership of the persistance with things like outfit owned bases etc. However, this idea needs to be taken much further. Players need to be able to build their own bases, build their own towers and defenses on empty continents and they need to be able to capture and physically destroy those of their enemies. These player built structures need some real persistance in the difficulty of capture compared to the normal maps. The resource system would be used to pay for these things, which means that taking and holding territory in the "normal" game has a larger purpose beyond paying for tanks and aircraft.

There are hints the devs are already thinking of stuff like this. I just hope the game doesn't go the way of PS1 before they get around to addressing this requirement.

No, this hurt my eyes to read. Go play battlefield.

[TheDAWinz]

Not really man. It's not a bad idea at all and something that has been spoken of for months. I just don't see how you physically fit all these outfit bases on the conts and then "nail" outfits back to the server their respective bldgs are on. But overall this idea promotes rivalries and that is needed.

The whole idea of planetside IS A PRESISTENT NEVER ENDING WAR. Take that away and its just a shooter and not a mmo.

Edit: that was to all those suggesting endgame.

The outfit thing is quite silly though.

[Fenrys]

No.

[Zenben]

So basically you want WoW PVP seasons? Pass

[TheDAWinz]

What? It gives outfits a place to BS in the off time and form up, call their own and be subjected to attacks. Does this mean they cannot play if it is blown up? Hell no but it is a matter of pride (and resources used to build it) that they would desire to maintain it. Has nothing to do with resetting anything. It's just another bldg on a cont, just this time it is player owned.

Thats basically how it already is...

[TheDAWinz]

I give up.

Good, Because a outfit can be like OH LETS GO REGROUP AT THIS BASE AND HOLD IT! You're basically taking the factions away and making it outfit warfare. Might as well rename it to outfitside....

[SixShooter]

Endgame and resets are not for Planetside. How and why do these threads keep getting started???

[TheDAWinz]

Endgame and resets are not for Planetside. How and why do these threads keep getting started???

Beats me, i say we shoot the op's and people who agree! :bang:

[Graywolves]

I don't need the game to tell me that I kick ass.

[maddoggg]

I like the idea of the persistent non stop battles,but i think it would be nice if they add some medals(or something like that) for holding x amount of points for x amount of time.
And at the end of each month have a statistic about how well eah faction performed and what are the hardest medals it has.

[TheDAWinz]

Wow man, decent argument. Couldn't you just had said this before instead a terse "NO" and that other mumbo jumbo that made no sense? There's all sorts of issues with doing the outfit bldgs, maybe that's why progress has stalled? The whole issue of this game is with OWNERSHIP. It is all so very temporary and people just want more of it.

So whats the point of outfit bases anyway if they are going to be flipped anyway? Durr. Battles last days or weeks sometimes, so you can hold on to bases. Really, if you were really dedicated and really good, you could hold onto a base, forever basically. I can see this happening.

[Dloan]

I have thought though, with the extreme amount of players and thus outfits, how would you physically fit them all on land masses?

You wouldn't. The idea is similar to EVE's 0.0 space. Warpgates, or whatever, to pristine territory with nothing built on it waiting for the various factions to claim and conquer. How it would work, whether it would be outfits only or faction "commanders" build stuff from total faction resources etc is what the devs are paid to figure out.

How it can be claimed this doesn't fit into the idea of a persistant war, I do not know. It's just the same thing on a larger and more persistant scale, except that you could wipe your enemy off these continents and destroy everything they ever built. Which should be "end game" enough for anyone, at least until they mount a major counter offensive.

[TheDAWinz]

You wouldn't. The idea is similar to EVE's 0.0 space. Warpgates, or whatever, to pristine territory with nothing built on it waiting for the various factions to claim and conquer. How it would work, whether it would be outfits only or faction "commanders" build stuff from total faction resources etc is what the devs are paid to figure out.

How it can be claimed this doesn't fit into the idea of a persistant war, I do not know. It's just the same thing on a larger and more persistant scale, except that you could wipe your enemy off these continents and destroy everything they ever built. Which should be "end game" enough for anyone, at least until they mount a major counter offensive.

Edit: woops didn't read that right, my apologies

[TheDAWinz]

I gotcha. Yeah that type of gameplay would require very large playable areas. We certainly aren't anywhere close to that in PS2 yet. Hopefully some day.

Maybe about 10 years in the future. But there is already a game like this, its called ARMA.

[TheDAWinz]

I don't know man. One of Smed's favorite games is Eve and he has talked several times about multi-planets and space battles. It all depends on how much money they can intake from PS2.

Space battles! If that happens then GOTC, game of the century! Also it better be high tech and not low ass tech like halo which space battles are like 16th century ship battles with lasers and tungsten slugs (which we use with depleted uranium on abrams) In 2500 we would of engaged at like 4 light seconds.

[Sledgecrushr]

See I had this idea, you make all of the servers there own planets. Make a server that handles space in between, add in some space craft and relatively short travel times between the "planets" presto you have space wars.

[ChargerCarl]

I agree with the OP. An endgame would be desirable.

[ChargerCarl]

The whole idea of planetside IS A PRESISTENT NEVER ENDING WAR. Take that away and its just a shooter and not a mmo.

I don't understand why an MMO can't have an endgame scenario. Is that some ancient chinese law or something?

[TheDAWinz]

I don't understand why an MMO can't have an endgame scenario. Is that some ancient chinese law or something?

because a mmo is massive multiplayer online, and entails a presistant world that never ends. Please look up the definition of what a mmo is.

[TheDAWinz]

Yeah it would be awesome to tie in space battles with planetary conflict. Hope they can get to that point fast.

Kind of like what dust is doing, but less cosmetic and more game changing.

[ChargerCarl]

because a mmo is massive multiplayer online, and entails a presistant world that never ends. Please look up the definition of what a mmo is.

so...uh...what about an endgame possibility makes this less massive, not a multiplayer game, or not online?

[TheDAWinz]

so...uh...what about an endgame possibility makes this less massive, not a multiplayer game, or not online?

It makes it like a generic fps shooter. Look, planetside is all about a PRESISTANT WORLD. Don't like it? GTFO now.

[ChargerCarl]

It makes it like a generic fps shooter. Look, planetside is all about a PRESISTANT WORLD. Don't like it? GTFO now.

You didn't answer my question.

Sounds like you're getting upset too.

[Zolan]

If Planetside's story was based in an actual struggle between several factions or societies, without re-spawn technology being discovered, I could understand the argument that there should be an occasional "end" to the fighting. (i.e. WWIIOnline)

However, the game is based on Auraxis with the discovery of alien re-spawn technology. As a result, you have a never ending conflict between three factions in which no one truly dies. You can still lose battles, but you can never lose the war on Auraxis. You can, fortunately, push your enemies all of the way back (originally to their sanctuary) which is more than enough satisfaction for me. In a sense, there are already "tours of duty" that exist, at least figuratively there were in the original game when you controlled all of the continents. We'll have to see how much the foothold debacle screws that up before I make an experienced judgement on whether or not this game will have that sense of accomplishment.

Regardless, eternal struggle is fine with me. It worked with EVE Online, it works with Warhammer 40k, and it works with many other games (futuristic and fantasy) as well.

Skulls for the Skull Throne :evil:

[TheDAWinz]

You didn't answer my question.

Sounds like you're getting upset too.

No. I am not, i am pointing what the devs have said from day 1, and they are not going to change it. Also it makes it less massive, and less online.

[ChargerCarl]

Also it makes it less massive, and less online.

How?

[TheDAWinz]

How?

Because its like your playing with randoms with every other fps, and it ends like its a single player game. MMO's aren't suppose to end.

[ChargerCarl]

Because its like your playing with randoms with every other fps, and it ends like its a single player game.

how does it do that?

also, even if that was true, how does that make it less massive and less online?

[TheDAWinz]

how does it do that?

What do you mean how does it do that? If there is an endgame, sure you're playing with multiple people, but you will never see them again once the game ends. Instead you will switch teams, load outs, and servers. It makes it less massive because you are confined to one continent/area. You aren't truly playing with 6000 people if the game ends.

[ChargerCarl]

You really didn't think this through did you?

[GreatMazinkaise]

They've been pretty adamant about the whole "no rounds, no loadscreens" thing in all the on-camera interviews. The continents themselves seem designed not to have any sort of win conditions.

[ChargerCarl]

What do you mean how does it do that? If there is an endgame, sure you're playing with multiple people, but you will never see them again once the game ends.

why? why can't the game just reset?

you're acting like it would be something that would occur every day, or even weekly.

[TheDAWinz]

You really didn't think this through did you?

They've been pretty adamant about the whole "no rounds, no loadscreens" thing in all the on-camera interviews. The continents themselves seem designed not to have any sort of win conditions.

Basically this

[TheDAWinz]

why? why can't the game just reset?

you're acting like it would be something that would occur every day, or even weekly.

If the game resets, everything that you fought for, worked so hard for, is gone, reset, no purpose to taking bases at all if that happens.

[ChargerCarl]

It makes it less massive because you are confined to one continent/area.

why do you have to be confined to one continent?

You aren't truly playing with 6000 people if the game ends.

why not?

[ChargerCarl]

If the game resets, everything that you fought for, worked so hard for, is gone, reset, no purpose to taking bases at all if that happens.

The purpose was you won. Your team conquered the planet.

[TheDAWinz]

why do you have to be confined to one continent?



why not?

Because there would be a population lock on the continents, and your main task is to hold it so there would be no interchanging continents if the game ends.

[TheDAWinz]

The purpose was you won. Your team conquered the planet.

Yeah. Whoopdee fucking doo. I win all the time in battlefield 3. I don't feel like i've earned jack shit except experience.

[RSphil]

that would make it like every other game, just bigger. endless war is the best thing about it. you feel good about taking a base then holding it as long as possible. rounds would make it very repetitive and boring. i vote for keeping it a persistent battleground

[TheDAWinz]

that would make it like every other game, just bigger. endless war is the best thing about it. you feel good about taking a base then holding it as long as possible. rounds would make it very repetitive and boring. i vote for keeping it a persistent battleground

Agreed

[ChargerCarl]

Because there would be a population lock on the continents and your main task is to hold it so there would be no interchanging continents if the game ends.

I don't understand. If the game ends then everything is reset and the battle is on again.

You might have a point about population locks. If one continent is completely conquered and cut off then it could pose some problems for players wanting to continue the battle on another continent.

[TheDAWinz]

I don't understand. If the game ends then everything is reset and the battle is on again.

You might have a point about population locks. If one continent is completely conquered and cut off then it could pose some problems for players wanting to continue the battle on another continent.

Exactly, and if a continent can only have 2000 players, what happens if one continent is full and the other is locked? what happen to the other 2000 players if the other two continents are full?

Or to be more precise, the other 1332

[ChargerCarl]

Thats a good point, and not something which I've thought through.

However your other arguments against it were all very poor.

[LegioX]

Like i have stated before WW2OL had the best "end game" type of play style. Every map felt like you were fighting something and added another dimension to your faction and character.
You would have a global stat calculator, which showed your stats over however long you played the game against other global players.

[TheDAWinz]

Thats a good point, and not something which I've thought through.

However your other arguments against it were all very poor.

My apologies i'm only 15 and i haven't gained the expediences in debating other than bringing up facts to back up my claim in VS. threads like Star Wars vs. Halo haha

[RSphil]

they way the game is set up is not for rounds anyway. with fights going on on other continents and you being able to travel to to any of them at any time to give back up ect the round system would screw this up. rounds are soo last year anyway lol.

it is perfect how it is. and i dont think they will ever change it as it is advertised as persistent and it is one of the biggest selling points.

[ChargerCarl]

they way the game is set up is not for rounds anyway. with fights going on on other continents and you being able to travel to to any of them at any time to give back up ect the round system would screw this up. rounds are soo last year anyway lol.

well its a good thing nobody is talking about rounds.

[TheDAWinz]

well its a good thing nobody is talking about rounds.

Technically having an endgame means you have to have rounds. Unless there are multiple planets and you have planet lock.

[Baneblade]

My 'endgame' is the scars I place in the psyche of the enemy. And the constant reminder of them.

[RSphil]

well its a good thing nobody is talking about rounds.

if you want an endgame then you are. a game from start to finish will be a round. like BF 3 or COD. what else would you call it? you start a round, you fight and take stuff, round ends, reset start again.

no dont like it, keep as it is. you have no sense of victory as you cant keep anything. you are fighting for no reason. the way planetside is atm you have something to fight for, that amp station or that tower. when you take it and keep it you have a sense of victory, a sense of achievement.

well. sleep time. will red the other arguments tomorrow :)

good luck all

[Madfish]

I see this as a TR plot. The VS will naught surrender until red is no more.

Did I forget it to mention it would reset for NS and Vanu only? Naturally!

[Spiritbeast]

in Planetside2 you start the game as a generic soldier, unique in name, function, and form from the other 5 starting classes, (as well as unique from the same class in the 2 opposing empires), but exactly like the other players that also chose your specific class as well as your specific empire, (except for your name, that's always unique ; P. As time progresses you earn currency to purchase certs, implants, weapon customizations, and vehicle customizations (possibly other ways i dont know about) to turn your generic class into your unique soldier. This is the "goal". To build and tweak your generic toon until it becomes the soldier u want it to be, playing however you want, doing whatever you want, and having fun however you want.

The bases are all unique, the landscapes are all unique, with fluxuating resources the army makeups themselves will be unique, and with u continuously tweaking/changing your toon even you are going to be continuously a little different. ; P i dont see any "stagnat" problem...so wtf r u guys worried about

There will also be badges/achievements for u guys...come on u get to make your own little perfect playstyle soldier that gets to fight in unique areas that should be consistently changing...lets all fkn dance /dance

and i didnt even mention the cash shop appearance altering options....til now ; P