Can anyone win?

[Anubisstargate]

I've been giving this some thought and with the 'safe' zones being the bio-domes, could anyone actually win the war? I mean what is the point of taking all these bases if you get resources to get vehicles and upgrades, but then what? You can never say, ohhh we won the war!

What I'm pointing out is planetside 2 should have a means of feeling like we've won, the scale this game is on is going to be awesome and there are going to be tons of people that are dying to be playing this game. I am sure many of you want to be able to 'win' even if its a form of repetitive win, its still that feeling that can be mounted for all time to be looked at.

So my suggestion would be to allow factions to capture all hex's like normal but let's say TR capture ALL and there are no others left, TR can then capture the bio-domes. If the bio-domes are captured then that continent would be reset, resources stay the same but the hex's are neutral again, TR won the first war. Have this on the statistics list so people can flash off their e-peen's later. This will enhance the competitiveness of the factions and the players. Maybe a reward for the winners? And a small buff for the two who lost so that the next war might bring about another winner, let's say NC win, small reward and TR/VS get a buff. It would just make the game so much more.


Regards
Asg

[ArcGuard]

I understand the concern, win conditions are important. I just feel like, for each person in planetside2 it will be different what that win condition is. We each have to define our own, it's a lot more open.

The big problem i see with your example is this: Say the TR push the NC and VS back to their bases. Then the TR capture the NC base, but right after, the VS push back out onto the field. Do the NC then just no get to spawn on that continent until the VS are pushed back for good (maybe four hours from now?). Or, do the TR have to take the NC and VS bases at the exact same second?

[Otleaz]

That is what many people want. Without it, the game will feel like a deathmatch.

Controlling the world without footholds may seem just as impossible as controlling it with footholds, but there is a massive difference between crawling around in the dark and moving towards the light at the end of the tunnel.

[RodenyC]

The win scenario in PS1 was world domination.But with Sancs not ingame you can't "win" anymore.
Vanu Sovereignty celebrates world domination - YouTube
Vanu Sovereignty world domination - YouTube

[SideOfBeef]

I've been through this in a few different games, here's my guess:

There is no formal "win" system. If a server gets consistently dominated (one faction locking every possible territory on every map, for a long time), the devs will declare that faction the "winner", give players a medal on their profile page, and do a server reset.

Stat buffs won't/shouldn't happen, it would take the fun out of the game for everyone involved (exception: XP buffs, or other things that don't directly affect competitive gameplay)

[Raymac]

Planetside 1.

You don't have an overall win, but you have tons of minor wins in individual firefights and in taking bases, etc. You just have to get used to the idea that you are not going to get a stat splash screen at the end of the round telling you if you won or lost.

It's a persistant world, so you simply can't have an overall win, and personally, the persistance is more important. Every fps multiplayer has a "win". Almost none have true persistance.

[Crator]

The win scenario in PS1 was world domination.But with Sancs not ingame you can't "win" anymore.

Not true. So if an empire captures all hexes/bases and pushes the enemy empire into their continent foothold how is that not the same thing as pushing them back into their sanc in PS1. Only difference is they don't have to wait for a loading screen in PS2.

[Raymac]

The win scenario in PS1 was world domination.But with Sancs not ingame you can't "win" anymore.


I think it could be argued that the Sancs prevented an in game win just as much as the footholds. "World Domination" was incomplete because you couldn't attack the sancs. Frankly, it's a contrived win using the existing mechanics of the game, so I'm sure we will invent a similar "win" in PS2 just like we invented the "win" in PS1.

[greenberetdelta]

why dont they just put one sanc on each Continent. 3 factions 3 sancs 3 continents.

[Anubisstargate]

Yeah everyone has their own win condition though you can never 'win' if its a circle of capturing hex's.

But very good point, maybe VS and/or NC get forcably moved to another continent for 2 hours? Which capturing the bio-dome would take an hour to complete.

Even add in the concept of once 90% faction domination happens. The other two factions enter a NAP (non-aggression pact) stage. If one faction can take 90% and more, they got to have more competition. But to stop the bio-dome take over, the remaining faction can help take the dome back for the lost faction. NC could be helping TR, TR could be helping VS etc. It would add a very intense twist to the game.

[Otleaz]

Not true. So if an empire captures all hexes/bases and pushes the enemy empire into their continent foothold how is that not the same thing as pushing them back into their sanc in PS1. Only difference is they don't have to wait for a loading screen in PS2.

Because it is a foothold... On YOUR continent.

[Crator]

I do like the ideas about adding goals in to give a short-term win condition. I see nothing wrong with that. There defiantly should not be any kind of reset map thing going on and at first with only 3 conts available I don't see having lock-out timers being a good thing either.

In PS1 when you captured an enemy empire's home cont you got their ES weapons/vehicles which was the win prize. There was no lock on the cont though. If there is a win condition added I'd like to see more specific things needing to be done to accomplish it...

[Raymac]

Because it is a foothold... On YOUR continent.

Planetside 1 warpgates were footholds on "your" continent as well. It's just their spawn points were on the other side of a loading screen. It's the only difference. Remove loading screens as much as possible please, thank you.

[Sephirex]

Getting into beta is all the victory I need.

[Zalmoxis]

I think that wins here are based on point control. You would "win a match" if you takeover a base/tower/specific control point and you "lose a match" if you lose something like that. This is war, not a mere TDM :)

[Littleman]

While I can understand people wanting a "total victory" in booting their enemies off the continent, that's contradictory to the purpose of not only Planetside, but MMO's in general.

Simply put: The credits should never roll (except in Mabinogi.)

There should always be some place to fight that is fun and competitive. Lock out timers prevent this, and frankly removing footholds is akin to removing sanctuaries, or rather their access to the continent via warpgate.

Bases are a good major victory. I'm hoping in Planetside 2 the very fact we're taking them in portions makes the final capture feel that much sweeter. We'll be able to see the control of the base ebb and flow between 2 or 3 parties until one dominates it entirely.

Either way, come night fall and early dawn in the real world, everything essentially resets anyway. At least after the first few months when we remember what sleep is and the good it can do for you.

[Bravix]

Gotta say, I don't like the idea of footholds on every cont. In PS1, you got that "I won" feel from taking enemy continents.

It just won't be possible now. Once one faction gets far enough, it'll be forced to face 2 empires at once and ultimately won't be able to capture every single hex.

This was easier to do in PS1, including total world domination, due to using bases instead of hex's.

[Sirisian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl3UduQprZ4#t=6m23s

[Anubisstargate]

Hmm, I do see the point, this is why I pointed out that maybe after total domination the hex's get reset. I mean how many times is the whole continent going to fall under total domination? O.o If you know it's possible you are going to try your best to make sure that doesn't happen to your faction.

Right now at it's current state I don't see taking an opposing factions area for them to get a hex outside their bio-dome. You never have that feeling of winning. In every PvP game you aim to kill players to win, in this you 'win' battles and 'win' bases. Overall you don't win the war, I know this game is a consistent warzone, but I'm sure a big portion of the playerbase do you want to 'win' against the opposing factions. On PS1 you can get world domination and sanc lock a faction. Sure the loading screen is the only difference, but because of that you saw you won, you still got that feeling that you won. This game now has permanent 3 faction safe zone's on each continent, no longer do you have NC vs VS in one place, you have the TR there all the time as well.

Countless amount of times you get "oh there's a 3 way battle, I'm going elsewhere" With the resources in this game it's going to be draining to all factions, now yeah even if you lose a fight you still get resources that you may or may not have lost. But that doesn't make up for the fact some people cannot be bothered with the big cluster fights that happen. With all the factions sitting in each of the continents that is going to happen far too much now, a lot of people are going to separate themselves because they don't like 3 way battles. People will get tired because yes it is tedious and time consuming. So many people have limited time to play due to work and like quick battles, this is why a lot of people turn to battlefield and call of duty.

I know PS2 is making this game quicker not having sanc's, but that doesn't make too much of a difference to the overall speed of the game, though we don't want it too fast because that makes taking bases even more pointless.

Even if no bio-domes can be taken, capturing loads of bases for resources for upgrading is nice, but then what? I know it's going to take ages to cert yourself and upgrade all your items. But then what? I'm sure that's what made a lot of people grow tired of PS1, taking the same bases over and over again. With the event that happened this week-end it's been really nice coming back to PS1 and doing it, but already it's "Capture this" and it's the same thing over and over, you play for years and you've probably captured that same base 100's of times over. There should be something ever so slightly different, otherwise it's going to be the same as PS1, just even more repetitive with safe zone's on the actual continent.

Sorry for the big long post xD

[Gonefshn]

This has been beaten into the ground on the forums and has been talked about so much by the devs they understand the concern.

My opinion. If you have never played the original Planetside you might be looking at it with too narrow of a perspective. People are so used to "win conditions" it's hard to see outside of that mindset. In Planetside 1 you could never win truly. Just because you could take over a continent doesn't make it any more of a win than the PS2 system. Taking a tower, base, continent, hex. It's all the same thing really cause it can all be taken back.

In PS1 it just worked. You forgot about win conditions. If you haven't played the original you have no idea just how much the faction loyalty and daily battle with the SAME people fighting the SAME people adds to the experience. Win conditions werent necessary in PS1. You play to be part of the war and to kick ass with your fellow soldiers. I say stop worrying so much about win conditions and give PS2 a try. Get in an outfit, immerse yourself in the experience and you will see what I'm talking about. Win conditions seem small and insignificant when you experience the epic nature of persistant neverending warfare.

[infected]

i think they need to move sanctuary off continent. give them a continent of its own. let the playable continents be fully conquerable like the original.

[fvdham]

I think I have seen VS conquer the entire world 4 times.
The NC and TR were camped outside the warpgates.

[Anubisstargate]

I have played PS1 and I'm with the Outcasters outfit and it's nice having a really good team, even call them friends. But I get that with loads of games and nothing is more enjoyable than playing a game where you win with friends, all of you going "We're the best, we're unstoppable" For me that's the best part about playing with other people.

In all games I've played with PvP me and my friends/guildies always strive to be the best, it's the competitive side in people that shine out the most in games, no competition and you do eventually grow tired and bored. It's like doing the house work, so what if you share the chores with your wife, change what to do maybe, it's still the same old same old, clean something, it gets dirty, clean it again, it gets dirty. That's called doing a chore and that is what it feels like.

For me one of my favourite games was MAG (Before they started nerfing everything). That was a persistent war game with a win to it. Soo many times I played with my friends and if we were in a squad together that pretty much meant we won, we loved playing together and having the winning in each battle was awesome, to then see that our faction had won the bonus, it encouraged us to keep playing, to keep getting better and better, if we lost we can consequences, the other factions had a few bonuses because they were better, so we strived harder and harder each day to get better and better. To me that's perfect, I know this is free to play, I know SOE are trying to grab a very wide audience to play their game, but catching the audience is one thing, keeping them is another.

[Bravix]

i think they need to move sanctuary off continent. give them a continent of its own. let the playable continents be fully conquerable like the original.

I agree.

I think there should be a sort of 'dead-zone' around warpgates. Right now, there are hex's right next to it. Will make them incredibly hard to defend from the people who are trying to push out of the warpgate. Gonna be extremely hard to keep a continent, at least compared to PS1.

[infected]

or maybe rather than making the sanctuary be off continent, they could at least move them back, away from such close proximity to any capture-able areas. as it stands its quite easy to walk out and cap several areas just because they are so close to spawn. that makes it quite hard to gain victory over a continent if the losing side can walk a few feet and find 6 possible areas to capture. its just too close.

[Otleaz]

Ideally, I would want to see sanctuaries off shore or maybe on a massive aircraft. If you want to retake a continent, you should need to use galaxies as transport until you manage to take a warp gate.

[SixShooter]

BOOOO!!! We so don't need new win condition/foothold hater threads
I say again - BOOOOO!!!

[Anubisstargate]

Yeah a faction over sea platform would be cool. Imagine doing a mass recall. Gather light assault ships, gals and flying over at once. Opposing faction waiting on the cliff's firing, now imagine that at night. It would equal the balance and probably bring a tear to my eye for the awesomeness. That also classes itself under the state of true war.

I don't remember any wars in history having a some what safe zone, maybe an area that is so well defended no one can go near it, but not something you can never touch. If someone says "It's not a war game" ... It is, it has guns, factions, squads, platoon's, outfits, aircraft's, tanks, bases, resources. That's pretty much a war to me unless all those history classes years ago meant nothing.

[Otleaz]

Yeah a faction over sea platform would be cool. Imagine doing a mass recall. Gather light assault ships, gals and flying over at once. Opposing faction waiting on the cliff's firing, now imagine that at night. It would equal the balance and probably bring a tear to my eye for the awesomeness. That also classes itself under the state of true war.

I don't remember any wars in history having a some what safe zone, maybe an area that is so well defended no one can go near it, but not something you can never touch. If someone says "It's not a war game" ... It is, it has guns, factions, squads, platoon's, outfits, aircraft's, tanks, bases, resources. That's pretty much a war to me unless all those history classes years ago meant nothing.

A safe zone is fine imo, even in a war game. Just don't put it in the middle of the enemy's fucking territory.

[Bravix]

or maybe rather than making the sanctuary be off continent, they could at least move them back, away from such close proximity to any capture-able areas. as it stands its quite easy to walk out and cap several areas just because they are so close to spawn. that makes it quite hard to gain victory over a continent if the losing side can walk a few feet and find 6 possible areas to capture. its just too close.

Unless you're the VS, in which case you just bring out the Mags :D

[infected]

A safe zone is fine imo, even in a war game. Just don't put it in the middle of the enemy's fucking territory.

right now, they are right in the middle of the action.

hopefully after beta feedback, SOE will extend it out and either put them on a peninsula or sea platform. as it stands the enemy could have the continent, and you spawn in with half a dozen of their capture points right outside on your front lawn.

[Satch]

Planetside 1.

You don't have an overall win, but you have tons of minor wins in individual firefights and in taking bases, etc. You just have to get used to the idea that you are not going to get a stat splash screen at the end of the round telling you if you won or lost.

It's a persistant world, so you simply can't have an overall win, and personally, the persistance is more important. Every fps multiplayer has a "win". Almost none have true persistance.

This.

[Dloan]

Win conditions seem small and insignificant when you experience the epic nature of persistant neverending warfare.

PS1 tells a different story. Epic warfare wears off. "Now what?" was a constant issue on the forums. Some of you seem to have forgotton that continent locks came along because capturing the same objectives over and over again, even on a massive map, isn't enough to keep people interested. Same with the increase in BR.

People are going to want an epic metagame to go alongside the epic warfare.

[Flaropri]

1. On a personal level, I like the futility of the War as a narrative. I mean, you've got eternally re-spawning clones of people that are evidently willing to die over and over and over and over again. Honestly it reminds me of the DS9 episode with the prison planet and Kai Opaka, although with fewer scars and more factions.

2. I'd think that capturing everything but the footholds will feel as much an accomplishment as capturing everything but the sanctuaries, even if on first blush it isn't as visually appealing.

[ZaBa]

If you could win, that would undermine the entire point, that being that despite victory being impossible, everyone fights forever anyway; as will the OP, despite his complaints of a lack of concrete victory conditions.

It is ironic, and also hilarious.

[Crator]

Did a little searching on this subject and found this --> A Winnable PS? Dev Discussion read inside (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=526)

A brief discussion about it with a DEV. Note that this thread was created in 2002, before PS1 was released.

[ZaBa]

Hmm, I do see the point, this is why I pointed out that maybe after total domination the hex's get reset. I mean how many times is the whole continent going to fall under total domination? O.o If you know it's possible you are going to try your best to make sure that doesn't happen to your faction.

Right now at it's current state I don't see taking an opposing factions area for them to get a hex outside their bio-dome. You never have that feeling of winning. In every PvP game you aim to kill players to win, in this you 'win' battles and 'win' bases. Overall you don't win the war, I know this game is a consistent warzone, but I'm sure a big portion of the playerbase do you want to 'win' against the opposing factions. On PS1 you can get world domination and sanc lock a faction. Sure the loading screen is the only difference, but because of that you saw you won, you still got that feeling that you won. This game now has permanent 3 faction safe zone's on each continent, no longer do you have NC vs VS in one place, you have the TR there all the time as well.

Countless amount of times you get "oh there's a 3 way battle, I'm going elsewhere" With the resources in this game it's going to be draining to all factions, now yeah even if you lose a fight you still get resources that you may or may not have lost. But that doesn't make up for the fact some people cannot be bothered with the big cluster fights that happen. With all the factions sitting in each of the continents that is going to happen far too much now, a lot of people are going to separate themselves because they don't like 3 way battles. People will get tired because yes it is tedious and time consuming. So many people have limited time to play due to work and like quick battles, this is why a lot of people turn to battlefield and call of duty.

I know PS2 is making this game quicker not having sanc's, but that doesn't make too much of a difference to the overall speed of the game, though we don't want it too fast because that makes taking bases even more pointless.

Even if no bio-domes can be taken, capturing loads of bases for resources for upgrading is nice, but then what? I know it's going to take ages to cert yourself and upgrade all your items. But then what? I'm sure that's what made a lot of people grow tired of PS1, taking the same bases over and over again. With the event that happened this week-end it's been really nice coming back to PS1 and doing it, but already it's "Capture this" and it's the same thing over and over, you play for years and you've probably captured that same base 100's of times over. There should be something ever so slightly different, otherwise it's going to be the same as PS1, just even more repetitive with safe zone's on the actual continent.

Sorry for the big long post xD

Why even play games anymore? It's just the same thing over and over right? Really man, find some fun people to do it with and any old rubbish will be fun. It really seems like you're way over thinking this.

[Sephirex]

Every time a NC or TR soldier dies, I win a little inside.

[SKYeXile]

Map moving is serious business for some people, but they never win.

[HeatLegend]

I think that wins here are based on point control. You would "win a match" if you takeover a base/tower/specific control point and you "lose a match" if you lose something like that. This is war, not a mere TDM :)

This guy has a point.

[Landtank]

The NC have already won, they are just letting the other factions live so they can have fun with them.

[CutterJohn]

1 - There are only 3 continents. You won't be capping jack until they add more.

2 - Continents are exactly as captureable in PS2 as they are in PS1. You could not cap the warpgates. You cannot cap the footholds.

[Rivenshield]

Every time a terrified seperatist rezzes in his spawn tube, screaming and pooping himself, the Republic wins.

That's good enough for me.

[ArbitraryDemise]

A win condition in Planetside was merely a mass delusion.

All you did was shut a continent down for a period of time.

I'll be honest. I'm not playing this game to lock the doors on a continent for a short time and take a tour of the continent. I'm playing the game to log on every night and fight tooth and nail for every base, tower, and tree on Auraxis.

[Crator]

^^^ Well said. I think what people really want is an objective. Not just a simple zerg and hack objective but one that has more dynamics to it. So when they complete it they've won.

Now, these objectives are supposed to be supplied by in-game players via the mission system. I hope it gives the ability to provide these dynamic objectives which are implanted into the game design....

But, I wouldn't mind giving the entire empire an overall objective either. Which could tie into how the player base sets up their individual objectives. And have these sort of things reset on a monthly bases....

[Bravix]

1 - There are only 3 continents. You won't be capping jack until they add more.

2 - Continents are exactly as captureable in PS2 as they are in PS1. You could not cap the warpgates. You cannot cap the footholds.

I beg to disagree on point 2.

Footholds have permanent spawns in them. You couldn't spawn in PS1 warpgates, nor could you pull vehicles (which I'm assuming you'll be able to).

When trying to get onto a new cont in PS1, you had to fight to take one base (or more if you had another link in or a neutral base). This made the defenders able to set up a defense more effectively. Offense always has the advantage of surprise (barring being spotted). Not too big of a problem in PS1 because they can only attack 1-2 bases. In PS2, they can attack, I'm guessing, around 6-8 hexes that are right next to their warpgate? It's going to be hard for the defenders to move men around the circumfrence of the warpgate fast enough to deny the attackers from a straight route in. All while defending the other hexes.

[Envenom]

I liked the way WWIIO handled it. World domination=server reset. Tooth and nail battles with a victory condition. So fun and it made your fighting feel worthwhile.

[Crator]

^^^ When you say "server reset" do you mean set all owned hexes/bases back to how it was when the game 1st started? I would have to say no to that because this is a MMO which advertises persistent world. But , what if the overall empire objective isn't related to something like that. It's just another system in addition to the land control system. With that in mind, you can simply build the system in conjunction with each other and make it work the way you want....

[Xyntech]

I liked the way WWIIO handled it. World domination=server reset. Tooth and nail battles with a victory condition. So fun and it made your fighting feel worthwhile.

But there are only two sides in WWIIO. What happens when one side loses in Planetside 2? No more TR until the NC and VS finish battling it out for the win? Or does one side not win until both enemy sides are pushed back simultaneously?

There would also have to be some seriously strong and well thought out measures to mitigate the world getting back hacked to hell during low population hours, because that was how one empire was able to lock the entire world in 90% of the times that it happened in the first Planetside.

Capture the world, take a screen shot, boast about it on the forums. That's your total win scenario. I'd like to see some more large scale objectives and victory conditions added, but I think it's best of the war never ends. If you want to justify it lore wise, just say that one side would have to hold on to every territory for quite a few days before they were able to override the enemy footholds and finish destroying the rival factions.

Of course they could add a system where you could capture an enemy foothold, as long as it wasn't their last foothold in the entire world. That would certainly help continental victories feel a little bit more solid.

[InternetZombie]

I beg to disagree on point 2.

Footholds have permanent spawns in them. You couldn't spawn in PS1 warpgates, nor could you pull vehicles (which I'm assuming you'll be able to).

When trying to get onto a new cont in PS1, you had to fight to take one base (or more if you had another link in or a neutral base). This made the defenders able to set up a defense more effectively. Offense always has the advantage of surprise (barring being spotted). Not too big of a problem in PS1 because they can only attack 1-2 bases. In PS2, they can attack, I'm guessing, around 6-8 hexes that are right next to their warpgate? It's going to be hard for the defenders to move men around the circumfrence of the warpgate fast enough to deny the attackers from a straight route in. All while defending the other hexes.


THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!!! They don't want 1 side being dominated and being completely shut out, hence why there are 3 factions. You can't win a war with 2 fronts and every faction in PS is fighting a war with 2 fronts.

If a server is full and a continent gets locked down you have just prevented 2000 or so people from playing the game, thats a good way for people to stop playing and not come back.

[infected]

THATS THE WHOLE POINT!!!! They don't want 1 side being dominated and being completely shut out, hence why there are 3 factions. You can't win a war with 2 fronts and every faction in PS is doing just that.

If a server is full and a continent gets locked down you have just prevented 2000 or so people from playing the game, thats a good way for people to stop playing and never come back...

you wouldn't be completely shut out. there are other continents you can move the battle to.

the whole point is you lost your foothold. let them have their victory for the moment, rather than just grabbing one of the 1/2 dozen hexes right outside your door, forever denying them the right to celebrate pushing you back all the way down to your sanctuary.

come back later once the dominating faction lightens its population and when you are good and reorganized, and then give the continent another go..

sanctuary should not be that close to cap points.

[InternetZombie]

you wouldn't be completely shut out. there are other continents you can move the battle to.

If the other continents are pop locked, how are 2000 people supposed to move to continents that are already full? They will simply stop playing.


the whole point is you lose. let them have their victory for the moment, rather than just grabbing one of the 1/2 dozen hexes right outside your door, forever denying them the right to celebrate pushing you back all the way down to your sanctuary.

come back later once the dominating faction lightens its population and when you are good and reorganized, and then give the continent another go..

sanctuary should not be that close to cap points.

Have you ever seen how a 2 front war works? if all 3 factions are fighting on the same continent then 1 side should never have enough strength to keep 1 enemy held while pushing the other back to their warp gate...

If that happens then there are some serrious pop issues with the 2 losing factions and some even more serrious balancing issues as even with a smaller pop as you push the enemy back it should be harder to move forward without devoting more resources to that fight and having to give up fighting the other enemy.


I really highly doubt we will see any of the factions get pushed all the way back to their warpgate when PS2 launches

[Flaropri]

The problem with winning is that it means the game ends (and if it restarts, all your effort is undone by a mechanic, rather than by good solid play). If you want persistence AND continuous game-play you can't shut others out completely from the given game field. SOE wants both, so...

[infected]

I really highly doubt we will see any of the factions get pushed all the way back to their warpgate when PS2 launches

thats because there are so many captureable hexes right outside of every factions front doorstep.

the discussion is... in the case that one faction does accomplish such a feat, they should not have to risk losing everything so quickly due to the enemy sanctuary being in such close proximity to the winner's territory.

we are simply asking that the sanctuary be pushed back (create peninsula?) so that it takes more than 20 seconds (at least a few minutes) to get from invulnerable spawn before reaching (6) enemy capture points.

If the other continents are pop locked, how are 2000 people supposed to move to continents that are already full? They will simply stop playing.


pop lock isnt a simple 2000 person limit. its 666 players max per faction. if the other continents already have 666 of your faction then you go to the continent that isnt maxed. otherwise the server is full.

as for the scenarion you propose, i dont see it happening: you lose all territory on one continents, yet at the same time the other 2 continents are faction pop locked? not likely. that means there are plenty of people online, which means there is not much of a chance in hell your faction can't manage to get a single base.

the scenario would go more like this: its 4 am on an american server. one faction has a lot of australians on the american server and play all through the night and take a bunch the bases on a continent. the other 2 factions had low population across all continents, not just the one.

but in this last scenario, even a low pop can deny a large force full continent domination at 4 am due to the fact that there are so many hexes near sanctuary.

[InternetZombie]

thats because there are so many captureable hexes right outside of every factions front doorstep.

the discussion is... in the case that one faction does accomplish such a feat, they should not have to risk losing everything so quickly due to the enemy sanctuary being in such close proximity to the winner's territory.

we are simply asking that the sanctuary be pushed back (create peninsula?) so that it takes more than 20 seconds (at least a few minutes) to get from invulnerable spawn before reaching (6) enemy capture points.

In the case that one faction does accomplish such a feat, I'd simply stop playing. As the amount of territory my faction owns shrinks but the pop stays the same the harder it should be for the enemy to push us back.

If they are able to push us all the way back to our warp gate and keep the other faction at bay then there are some serrious balancing issues that need to be addressed.

Even if there are no hexes around the warp gate, it wont make a lick of difference as now instead of capturing the hexes around the warp gate we just rush to the hexes that are nearest, does it give the conqouring faction a chance to defend? Sure but if the whole 666 or so VS are coming at you after losing all their hexes there should be no way you could possible defened against it without giving up fighting the NC and having them push you back anyways...


You guys are asking for something to help in a situation that should never happen, and if it does happen something went very very wrong.


as for the scenarion you propose, i dont see it happening: you lose all territory on one continents, yet at the same time the other 2 continents are faction pop locked? not likely. that means there are plenty of people online, which means there is not much of a chance in hell your faction can't manage to get a single base.

Thats why a faction will never be pushed back all the way to their warpgate.

Thats what I've been saying the whole time...

EDIT: Even with you're 4am situation... Lets say that late at night 1 faction does go and conqours everything because they faced so little resistance... Then if there was a way they could hold that when the servers are full then there is clearly a problem with the game.

[infected]

please read 2nd part of my last post. i added more before you posted i believe.


Thats why a faction will never be pushed back all the way to their warpgate.

Thats what I've been saying the whole time...

no. you're assuming the population will never get low. 24/7? it will get low at some time of day for one or all factions, eventually.

[lolroflroflcake]

Why does everyone want to turn Planetside into a round based FPS, if anything no clear cut end to the war, gives you as a player more of a sense of winning then any match based game possible can.

When you win a map in Battlefield, Crysis Wars, UT 2K4 or any other FPS where the object is to capture land/bases chances are you will be right back where you were 15 minutes later as if nothing happened. Those resets, if anything, don't give you an increased sense of victory at the end but rob you of any lasting sort of victory. In Planetside your accomplishments in conquering actually mean something as they are persistent and they last until your enemy gets their act together to retake their base.

THAT people is the proper way to design a feeling of victory into a game and the original Planetside has been that way for years now.

[Bravix]

InternetZombie....

Have you ever played PS1 by chance?

There have been COUNTLESS 3 front wars where 1 faction pushed both of the others out.

Believe it or not, there is more to battle than population and balance 'issues'. If you get a well-organized outfit(s) on one faction and the other faction mostly has a bunch of people zerging, obviously one side will have the advantage.

On top of that, unless there's a pop-lock, pops generally aren't going to be even.

[Katalliaan]

Anyone here read Nineteen Eighty-Four? Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia were all powerful enough to defend most of their territory, with the front lines shifting, certain areas passing hands, and treaties changing as the war shifts.

I'd imagine that we have a similar scenario here, where the three factions are all powerful enough that no single faction can defeat the other two. There'll be some hexes that will never change hands once captured, and there's some that won't stay in one faction's hands for long.

[CutterJohn]

Offense always has the advantage of surprise (barring being spotted). Not too big of a problem in PS1 because they can only attack 1-2 bases. In PS2, they can attack, I'm guessing, around 6-8 hexes that are right next to their warpgate? It's going to be hard for the defenders to move men around the circumfrence of the warpgate fast enough to deny the attackers from a straight route in. All while defending the other hexes.

Your disagreement is noted and dismissed.

1 - Defense has the advantage of having far faster cap times. It will take many minutes to cap an enemy base surrounded by other enemy bases. It will take significantly less time to take a base surrounded by friendly bases.

2 - Offense can attack more than just one or two bases in ps1. There was also the option of draining a base to neutral. This is modelled by point 1, where the more friendly areas you have linked to a base, the longer an enemy hack will take, and the shorter a rehack will take.

[infected]

There'll be some hexes that will never change hands once captured, and there's some that won't stay in one faction's hands for long.

i disagree with the 1st part

[Bravix]

Your disagreement is noted and dismissed.

1 - Defense has the advantage of having far faster cap times. It will take many minutes to cap an enemy base surrounded by other enemy bases. It will take significantly less time to take a base surrounded by friendly bases.

2 - Offense can attack more than just one or two bases in ps1. There was also the option of draining a base to neutral. This is modelled by point 1, where the more friendly areas you have linked to a base, the longer an enemy hack will take, and the shorter a rehack will take.


Noted and 'dismissed' huh? Nice polite mod I see :rolleyes: Obviously you aren't here for discussion, as you've already decided that you're correct. I won't bother validating your points with a response as any discussion would be pointless. Oh, and way to take my quote out of context to support your statement. Like how you decided to cut out the first sentence of that paragraph that acknowledged neutral bases.



I'd imagine that we have a similar scenario here, where the three factions are all powerful enough that no single faction can defeat the other two. There'll be some hexes that will never change hands once captured, and there's some that won't stay in one faction's hands for long.

I gotta agree with Infected. It might seem that way, and I understand why, but from personal experience in Planetside everything gets taken. While PS2 is certainly a new beast, one empire always gets an influx of power at some point during the month and is able to take over more territory than you'd think possible. I imagine it will be similar in PS2.

Another possibility is people just going all out to get those 'never taken' positions ;D I can see an entire outfit invading a hex way behind enemy lines and holding it forever just to get bragging rights.

[Katalliaan]

the problem is with the 2nd part there. (and i disagree with the 1st part)

since hexes are surrounding the sanctuary, it is near impossible for anyone else besides that faction near them to hold these hexes. which basically means the other 2 factions would be wasting time even trying to hold them. that effectively means that that map design is broken, as the entire map should promote the idea that any point can be taken and held by any faction. this will not happen so long as the sanctums are surrounded by capture points. they should be moved further away. rather than the ones near the sanctuary virtually being a fire hydrant with closest faction marking as their territory.

That would be the case in any real world-wide war, though. The higher-value hexes are likely going to be the ones that are more towards the center, and that would make sense both from a balance perspective (make players want to get as many of them as possible) and from a "lore" perspective (the ones closer to the warpgates have probably been mined out for longer simply because they're easier to defend).

Returning to my example, if you look at the map of the world as it appears in Nineteen Eighty-Four, you'd see that there's a large amount of land that's always being disputed. Guess what? That land is not only along the borders of the superstates, but also (if viewed from the proper angle) can be considered to be between the territory that's firmly in the control of each superstate.

EDIT: It seems infected changed his mind as to what he was contesting while I was working out the best way to phrase my response. Some of my points are still applicable, such as the fact that the more valuable hexes will likely be the ones towards the middle.

[Lazaruz]

Personally I'm not looking for fast paced 15-minute deathmatch rounds. But considering this game is going to rely on the large gray mass of F2P players, I think a "long term campaign" system wouldn't be a bad idea at all (be it world domination or something else that takes weeks/months to achieve). Then add a medal system, and voila: you have a gratifying system of false accomplishment, that leaves the people craving for more...


No one wants to play musical chairs, where everyone has a place to sit everytime.

[Soyokaze]

They're currently saying "winning is impossible."

They said that for PS1 and it still happened all the damn time.

It's a contingency that needs to be planned for. Something as as an achievement for being online when your faction caps all bases, or a stat for outfits/players tracking how many times you've accomplished this would do wonders.

[Ratstomper]

I'm not sure I understand why people need a "win". You'll have the ability to win all the time in PS2: You'll win firefights, you'll win bases, you'll win continents. You'll lose them all too, sometimes. You won't crush your enemies under your bootheel, never to rise again. Why? Because it would be really boring from that point on.

I mentioned this in another thread about map resets, but the best way to make the game boring and uninventive is to make a way to end the game. It's like sport fencing, you don't do it to kill the other guy, you do it for the sake of the art: the tactics, the gun handling, the feeling you get when you and your team work to complete an objective efficiently and effectively. You do it for the glory. You do it for the fight.

Once an empire pushes another straight up to their foothold, having the game say "You win!" is FAR less satisfying than seeing how that empire will get out of that situation. You can brag about the fact you pushed an opposing faction back as far as they'd go. How is that not enough when there's so many other satisfying facets of the game?

[Envenom]

But there are only two sides in WWIIO. What happens when one side loses in Planetside 2? No more TR until the NC and VS finish battling it out for the win? Or does one side not win until both enemy sides are pushed back simultaneously?

There would also have to be some seriously strong and well thought out measures to mitigate the world getting back hacked to hell during low population hours, because that was how one empire was able to lock the entire world in 90% of the times that it happened in the first Planetside.

Capture the world, take a screen shot, boast about it on the forums. That's your total win scenario. I'd like to see some more large scale objectives and victory conditions added, but I think it's best of the war never ends. If you want to justify it lore wise, just say that one side would have to hold on to every territory for quite a few days before they were able to override the enemy footholds and finish destroying the rival factions.

Of course they could add a system where you could capture an enemy foothold, as long as it wasn't their last foothold in the entire world. That would certainly help continental victories feel a little bit more solid.

Yea, you've raised a great point. The third faction kind of throws a wrench into that whole method. This one is a bit of a conundrum. I can't really think of a perfect scenario with the advent of three factions without inevitably neglecting one.

[cellinaire]

To the OP :

You clearly didn't 'search' for this kind of thread in advance, did you? ;)

[Eyeklops]

If you take all the hexes, consider that a "win." The reward is the knowledge that you were there when it happened. There need be no entitlement for this. I swear people want medals and pats on the back when they successfully fart these days.

[infected]

EDIT: It seems infected changed his mind as to what he was contesting while I was working out the best way to phrase my response. Some of my points are still applicable, such as the fact that the more valuable hexes will likely be the ones towards the middle.

i didnt really change my mind. i just decided not to push the discussion down that road.

[DarkChiron]

If you need some reward for doing things in the game beyond having fun in the game, you can have a stash of cookies next to your computer, and let yourself eat one every time you help capture a base.

Is that enough incentive to play?

[Otleaz]

If you need some reward for doing things in the game beyond having fun in the game, you can have a stash of cookies next to your computer, and let yourself eat one every time you help capture a base.

Is that enough incentive to play?

For quite a few people it is incentive to play, and since this is a free to play game looking to get as many players as possible they should probably do something like that.

For the rest of us, regardless of what you may say, it is more enjoyable to have an over arching goal when playing a game... Even if it is nigh impossible to reach.

[DarkChiron]

For quite a few people it is incentive to play, and since this is a free to play game looking to get as many players as possible they should probably do something like that.

For the rest of us, regardless of what you may say, it is more enjoyable to have an over arching goal when playing a game... Even if it is nigh impossible to reach.

See how many bases you can capture before dying.
Try to capture all the bases on a continent.
Try to capture all the bases on the planet.
Try to top your last kill streak (this is tracked by the game!)
etc, etc, etc

This game is limitless challenges and endless combat full of battles and experiences and camaraderie. If that isn't enough for you, maybe this isn't the game for you.

[Otleaz]

See how many bases you can capture before dying.
Try to capture all the bases on a continent.
Try to capture all the bases on the planet.
Try to top your last kill streak (this is tracked by the game!)
etc, etc, etc

This game is limitless challenges and endless combat full of battles and experiences and camaraderie. If that isn't enough for you, maybe this isn't the game for you.
Get off your fucking high horse. This is going to be a free to play game that relies on getting as many people to play it as possible.

Forcing these people to make their own goals will not help the game in the slightest. You need to make them feel like they can win, and make them feel like they won when they meet the conditions.

[Anubisstargate]

Who has played a game where you don't win?
Single player games you don't win, is this a single player game? No

I may be wrong but off the top of my head there is no multiplayer that you cannot win at. Even in a MMORPG you do a raid, you finish the raid, you've won. I understand everyone going 'capturing a base is classed as a win' and yeah it is, but like a lot of people here say, they want that feel that they've won overall. How can anyone say their faction is the best? You can just do the normal FPS e-peen style and go by K/D ratio, rank and accuracy. Yet I see many of you complaining you don't want you to end up with a FPS like all others.

Now why are there a few saying it would be unbalanced if one faction was doing really well? HA do you guys say a game is unbalanced everytime a player or team is better than you? Planetside 1 players know this for sure, a well organised platoon can make mince meat of a base with no problems, because they work together and are organised. But you know that already that's why you don't call planetside 1 unbalanced. Its the bloody same!! If one faction can take over the whole continent does it mean its unbalanced? Oh of course it does (sarcasm).

Before I continue, I'm going to ask a question:
What is the concept of war?

[InternetZombie]

InternetZombie....

Have you ever played PS1 by chance?

Yes, for a short time but I've played a lot of Cyssorside...


There have been COUNTLESS 3 front wars where 1 faction pushed both of the others out.

Yes, but there are 10 conts in PS, only 3 in PS2. The cont capping system of PS1 doesn't work with only 3 conts, hence why we dont see it in PS2 but I'm sure as more conts get added that it will make a come back.

Believe it or not, there is more to battle than population and balance 'issues'. If you get a well-organized outfit(s) on one faction and the other faction mostly has a bunch of people zerging, obviously one side will have the advantage.

Yes, and by all means they should be able to have an advantage if they are working togeather, but with the way the footholds are set up the zerg will be very hard to beat as the area that makes up the front line gets smaller and smaller.

On top of that, unless there's a pop-lock, pops generally aren't going to be even.

True, but with all the hype I really do think that the PS2 servers are going to be very busy for quiet a while after launch.

[maddoggg]

I agree that some form of possible wining should be added into the game.
I think there are several ways to do it:
1)Every month based on how each faction performs there should be a declared winner.
2)3 continents 3 factions.Each faction should have a safe zone ON JUST ONE continent.On this continent the other 2 factions should have no safe zone.Meaning that they can theoreticly push the other 2 factions outside of that continent.
I think that would be really cool,to have a home continent for your faction.
3)When a faction captures 90% of the map it's declared the winner of the war,and the other 2 faction are allied until the wining faction teritories are reduced to atleast 50% of the map.

[Anubisstargate]

1) A monthly statistics winner would be nice to see.

2) I wouldn't say that just yet, the idea of having a sea platform off the continent seems to be a favourite by a lot of people.

3) Yeah that was pretty much my idea to start off with xD So good man haha.


But for those of you who are still so sure that winning isn't the best part. What happened with the PS1 event? On Sunday we were given the event to hold a base for 3 hours, so the Terran Republic did and we celebrated afterwards. E-peen's were being flexed left right and center and it was nice to say 'we won' it's an achievement that couldn't be taken away after 5 minutes! That's the whole point, you win a base and you can lose it almost straight away. I love playing Planetside 1, playing with my outfit and generally having fun. But I would like PS2 to be different, I know it's going to be different in a lot ways and I'm well looking forward to it, but this concept I think should be changed.

[Blue Sam]

Who has played a game where you don't win?
Single player games you don't win, is this a single player game? No

I may be wrong but off the top of my head there is no multiplayer that you cannot win at. Even in a MMORPG you do a raid, you finish the raid, you've won. I understand everyone going 'capturing a base is classed as a win' and yeah it is, but like a lot of people here say, they want that feel that they've won overall. How can anyone say their faction is the best? You can just do the normal FPS e-peen style and go by K/D ratio, rank and accuracy. Yet I see many of you complaining you don't want you to end up with a FPS like all others.

Now why are there a few saying it would be unbalanced if one faction was doing really well? HA do you guys say a game is unbalanced everytime a player or team is better than you? Planetside 1 players know this for sure, a well organised platoon can make mince meat of a base with no problems, because they work together and are organised. But you know that already that's why you don't call planetside 1 unbalanced. Its the bloody same!! If one faction can take over the whole continent does it mean its unbalanced? Oh of course it does (sarcasm).

Before I continue, I'm going to ask a question:
What is the concept of war?

You are wrong. Pretty much every multiplayer game ever you don't win, with the sole exception being arena-based FPSs and other arena-based games.

[deltase]

A win condition in Planetside was merely a mass delusion.

All you did was shut a continent down for a period of time.

I'll be honest. I'm not playing this game to lock the doors on a continent for a short time and take a tour of the continent. I'm playing the game to log on every night and fight tooth and nail for every base, tower, and tree on Auraxis.

The TR guy has a point. This is not a normal FPS, its a <u>MMO</u> FPS! If you lock down the continents what will happen to the other two fractions? Go outside and play? The win condition should not exist or it should be in a form of points. For example, taking territories adds to some points poll and in the end of the season the winner is with the most points. Thats a good victory goal. And remember locking content from everybody is not fun and will shrink the playable area.

One more thing: if footholds were at the sea and not in mid continent, wouldnt it be like the sanctuaries in Ps1? In my opinion yeah, so if you desperately want sanc's to be back, just put the those bases at sea and problem solved.

[lolroflroflcake]

This is the third time we've had this topic and its just as silly and pointless as the first time. Planetsides victories are far more permanent then they are in any FPS on the market stuff you win stays on your side until the enemy captures it. I'm not trying to be hostile but if you think otherwise perhaps you should begin seeking a new FPS because Planetside is clearly not the game for you.

The never ending war is the core of the game play there is no point to it if one side wins and everything you have fought for is wiped out at a button push. Please think about what you post before you post it, as this topic has always been silly.

The devs have said it over and over Planetside is about persistence, you can't have persistence if they game itself isn't persistent.

[Bravix]

Yes, for a short time but I've played a lot of Cyssorside...




Yes, but there are 10 conts in PS, only 3 in PS2. The cont capping system of PS1 doesn't work with only 3 conts, hence why we dont see it in PS2 but I'm sure as more conts get added that it will make a come back.



Yes, and by all means they should be able to have an advantage if they are working togeather, but with the way the footholds are set up the zerg will be very hard to beat as the area that makes up the front line gets smaller and smaller.



True, but with all the hype I really do think that the PS2 servers are going to be very busy for quiet a while after launch.


Bring up some good points, but keep in mind Planetside 2 plans on expanding the amount of continents. It won't always be just 3.

Your second point is certainly true...which is why I'd like them to push the 'footholds' back and not so close to every hex currently around them.

As for the servers, I have no facts to back this up, but I would imagine that the server limit will be smaller than than the limit of all conts combined. For example (random numbers), server limit is 4000 but limit on each cont is 2000. That'd lead to a cont capacity of 6000 (2000 x 3 conts) but only 4000 people on server, thus one cont at least wouldn't be pop-locked.

However, that last part I did no research into so I'm not really sure how they have it working lol.

[Dloan]

I'm not trying to be hostile but if you think otherwise perhaps you should begin seeking a new FPS because Planetside is clearly not the game for you.

And that's exactly what they did with PS1, you want the replay?

[DarkChiron]

This is going to be a free to play game that relies on getting as many people to play it as possible.

Forcing these people to make their own goals will not help the game in the slightest. You need to make them feel like they can win, and make them feel like they won when they meet the conditions.

The things I suggested are likely to already be a part of the in-game achievements system. I don't care about achievements, but for people who need goals to reach in a game it may help. I can see I need to expound on the things I've written thus far, as well.

If we NEED to look at this game as if it's a normal FPS you can 'win', then we can do so. Every fight for every base is like a match in a normal FPS. When you cap it, you get a little "Facility Captured!!!!" or in other words "You Won the Round!!!" message. You start getting extra resources to buy things, you see that your team has captured more of the map. Is this not BETTER than just winning a round of deathmatch on your standard FPS? Do you not get more out of your victory this way?

The very core of Planetside 2 is built around satisfaction in the victories and defeats of the ongoing war on Auraxis. A war that never ends and thus cannot be won. However, that doesn't mean you don't win/lose individual battles within the war.

Get off your fucking high horse.

At first I took this open hostility over nothing personally, but then noticed from your other posts that it's just how you treat everyone. I would urge you to consider refraining from personally attacking people over a difference of opinion in the future.

[Kaos]

You win battles... Every base captured is a victory!

Honestly what do you people want? To take and hold everything and claim victory? Okay for how long? Any longer than a few minutes and the playerbase will be pissed they cant keep playing. In the current iteration you can take everything then claim to be champions and everyone else can continue waging war. Or do you honestly want PS2 to just end at that point?

:lol:

[Anubisstargate]

Instead of fighting against the idea, why not do what quite a few have done and work around it?

The idea of having something off continent like a sea platform or peninsula. If a faction is off the island and would take maybe 10 seconds? Maybe 20 seconds to get a foot on the continent then a faction could knock at least one other off the whole continent. One of the biggest issues is having the safe zone right next to capture points, that makes it really pointless.

So instead of saying narrow minded opinions because you cannot simply see what others see, think outside the box and maybe come up with something instead of copying what another person has said over and over.

[Otleaz]

The things I suggested are likely to already be a part of the in-game achievements system. I don't care about achievements, but for people who need goals to reach in a game it may help. I can see I need to expound on the things I've written thus far, as well.

If we NEED to look at this game as if it's a normal FPS you can 'win', then we can do so. Every fight for every base is like a match in a normal FPS. When you cap it, you get a little "Facility Captured!!!!" or in other words "You Won the Round!!!" message. You start getting extra resources to buy things, you see that your team has captured more of the map. Is this not BETTER than just winning a round of deathmatch on your standard FPS? Do you not get more out of your victory this way?
Winning in this sense has no set definition... It is a feeling. Regardless of whether or not you can call something a win, if the player doesn't feel like they won it is pointless. They could probably stimulate that feeling for facility captures if they tried hard enough, but that is still pretty shallow compared to a larger goal.


At first I took this open hostility over nothing personally, but then noticed from your other posts that it's just how you treat everyone. I would urge you to consider refraining from personally attacking people over a difference of opinion in the future.

No, that is not how I treat everyone. That is how I treat people who piss me off. For example: Condescending elitists damaging their own game by telling people that the game isn't right for them. Believe it or not, people listen to bullshit like that and take it seriously.

Also, I rarely attack people on forums. I believe I have nearing 300 posts on these forums and I have only directly insulted someone once. I called them clueless.

[Graywolves]

Your factions emblem pops up when you capture/defend a base and music plays.

Congrats on your win.

[SUBARU]

I can

[Papscal]

Win in the traditional sense? No. But if ya bust out a credit card you can own some bitchin zebra skinned armor and suits. BLING BLING !!!

[Transport]

I would like to see them eventually make the "safe" zones a contestable area. Another idea would be to introduce "Home" continents, and only one faction would have a safe zone on the continent.

[TAA]

There is nothing wrong with holding out a carrot for players fight harder. Doesnt matter what classifies as a win condition. If there is an achievement or reward that is incredibly hard to attain, then players will try to obtain it. Eg. Holding all blue resource areas for 24 hrs, or holding a 4/5 majority control in all continents at the same time.

Put it up as a target, offer a reward for it (in-game badge, costume piece, etc), and people will try to achieve it obsessively.

[Ratstomper]

It's my opinion that if a player can't see base captures as "wins" that's their own personal problem. There are more than enough online FPSes you can "win". I would suggest players who need a time limit and match statistics go to those...OR you can do the sensible thing and give it a try before we go dumping on a game none of us have played yet.

While PS2 is a different game from PS1, the persistent war was something that was done beautifully. I don't see any need to change it in PS2.

[DarkChiron]

Winning in this sense has no set definition... It is a feeling. Regardless of whether or not you can call something a win, if the player doesn't feel like they won it is pointless. They could probably stimulate that feeling for facility captures if they tried hard enough, but that is still pretty shallow compared to a larger goal.

If this game isn't the game they want, they can ask for it to change. Fine, whatever. EXPECTING the game to radically change on fundamental levels is the actual elitism here. Not me saying "Dude if this game doesn't sound like something you want to play, maybe it's not something you'd like to play". This game cannot possibly cater to everyone, and if it doesn't, that's alright. Everyone doesn't have to like or want this game.

No, that is not how I treat everyone. That is how I treat people who piss me off. For example: Condescending elitists damaging their own game by telling people that the game isn't right for them. Believe it or not, people listen to bullshit like that and take it seriously.

Also, I rarely attack people on forums. I believe I have nearing 300 posts on these forums and I have only directly insulted someone once. I called them clueless.

'Rarely' is a loose term, but I'll give it to you here. I don't wish to start an argument, especially when all I did was suggest that people can either like the game or not like the game. They can suggest things all they want, or request features all they want outside of my approval because it's a free internet. But to tell me I can't reply with my own opinions because you don't like it? Who's elitist here?

[cellinaire]

Suggestions and ideas to maximize the sense of achievement in PS2 are greatly appreciated, but

If I really wanted to see the big & delicious "You and your faction won in this war! Impressive. Here's your reward!" message, I wouldn't have even considered playing Planetside in the first place.

;)

[Crator]

:rolleyes: Whateva'.... So what if they already have plans for some kind of overall win condition in the game but keeping it as a surprise or something to feed the players after they get used to the base game-play? Will those here saying "You can't cater to everyone." get upset? Cause I don't see why they can't do something like this in PS2. It would keep the players playing longer then normal if they know they are working towards a bigger goal. I understand doing map resets is out of the question and is silly because this is an MMO. Not asking for that at all.

If you say, "Just go play another game", then that a lose for the community of this game. Cause they aren't playing/supporting this game anymore. I'm sure the devs would never say something like that.

[LegioX]

They should have a prize for the team that wins. Maybe an extra 100 certs or something? But then sides would have to be locked. Give each faction an incentive to win.

[DarkChiron]

:rolleyes: Whateva'.... So what if they already have plans for some kind of overall win condition in the game but keeping it as a surprise or something to feed the players after they get used to the base game-play? Will those here saying "You can't cater to everyone." get upset?

Of course not. It's just not the way the game seems to be going from what we know. And I don't work my beliefs about things around unknown hypothetical situations. Especially when, if the devs were doing that, they'd be misleading people about their game and that's never good from a marketing standpoint. So if they WERE doing that, I'd say they weren't very smart in how they're going about informing people about their game.

If they tomorrow told me "We made X changes to the game recently" and it wasn't something I wanted to play, I would get upset, voice my complaints, and then go about my day. I would not expect them they had to change their game because it didn't appeal to me.

If you say, "Just go play another game", then that a lose for the community of this game. Cause they aren't playing/supporting this game anymore. I'm sure the devs would never say something like that.

Let's all make a camp fire and sing "Kubaya".

[Sephirex]

What if the radius of the Earth was 1/10th as big?

I'd have a much easier time getting some good Chinese food.

edit: No fair changing your post.

[Ratstomper]

Cause I don't see why they can't do something like this in PS2. It would keep the players playing longer then normal if they know they are working towards a bigger goal. I understand doing map resets is out of the question and is silly because this is an MMO. Not asking for that at all.

So, what exactly is it that you're asking for? I've seen a lot of "We need an end goal!!", but no real explanations of what an "end goal" should be. I currently don't think it fits well with the game, but I could be swayed if I saw a good idea for an end goal.

[Crator]

Especially when, if the devs were doing that, they'd be misleading people about their game and that's never good from a marketing standpoint. So if they WERE doing that, I'd say they weren't very smart in how they're going about informing people about their game.

So you don't think they have some things planned that they haven't told anyone yet about? Not that they wouldn't tell us before doing it (cause it seems they want to community involved) but I'm sure they have a list of things they want to do that makes sense to a game developer that we don't know about....

[Sledgecrushr]

Personally I am looking forward to unending warfare. I was reading some warhammer 40k lore the other day and I came across something that is kind of applicable here. You see in the warp there are creatures of unimaginable powers and sometimes those creatures will create entire worlds on a whim and only to amuse themselves. These are called demon worlds. On one of these demon worlds a powerful entity had captured a group of orks, those orks were to fight every day against hellish creatures until they died and then brought back from death the next day to fight again, for eternity. And the orks, they believed they had gone to heaven. Auraxis is my heaven, where I will be able to fight forever and when I die I will just come back to fight some more. Victory and defeat pale in the face of unending eternal warfare. Blood for the blood god.

[DarkChiron]

So you don't think they have some things planned that they haven't told anyone yet about? Not that they wouldn't tell us before doing it (cause it seems they want to community involved) but I'm sure they have a list of things they want to do that makes sense to a game developer that we don't know about....

There is information they haven't given us, of course. The fact that you would get massive bonuses from capping a whole continent would be something people NEED to know, and would get them excited about the game, by the admission of everyone in here claiming that players need an end-game goal to reach. If it's so important, why wouldn't they say it? They've told us what you 'win' by capping bases.

I guess at the end of the day I wonder what 'winning' is supposed to mean here, and what would happen to the game after someone 'won'. If the answer is "Nothing", then I question why there's a need at all. If the answer is "You get a prize", I don't get why that doesn't fit into the achievements system already in the game, and already mentioned by me as an existing form of goal-oriented motivation.

[Furber]

This thread again? Planetside 2 is all about persistence, anything that takes away from that essentially takes away from Planetside 2. If you've never played Planetside, I guarantee if you wait and see what it's like to be in the massive persistent battles, you'll see why we don't need win conditions.

[LexTalionis]

I wouldn't worry about this too much. capturing a hex is the win condition. Total domination will be a one time, maybe never, thing. It just doesnt happen. It's too much territory unless the factions become totally one-sided at some particular hour.

[Anubisstargate]

In a persistent world how is taking a hex a win? Its different to planetside, with that you took over a whole world, that's classed as a win. You won over that whole planet. With this the safe zone's are far too close to the hex's you take and a lot of people like seeing how well they did from the massive results.

If your team mates in your faction sucked and you lost all but 1/8 of the map and you captured one base you really call that a win? And stop comparing it to other FPS games, those games you play short matches and you do it for K/D ratio's and rank. This game now has those stats but the goal is taking over area's, its a territorial game.

Maybe if a base took a very long to capture and each and every battle was amazingly intense, that is classed as a win, having a one on one fight and defeating that person is classed as a win. But what did you achieve that win for? You kill a person to achieve your path, you take over a base to achieve resources. What's the difference? That base will be captured by the enemy as soon as you're not looking, then you capture it again? And it circles.

Ok so like all war, you fight and fight and fight, we're fighting for control and resources. Now how come there seems to be unlimited resources? Also what is there a war for? Area's that can never be fully controlled? War is always started from land, throughout all of history land is the primary fuel to start a war. This is land you can never truly earn, you can lose it as soon as you gained it. That ties in with war because that happens, although there will always be a victor. Whether that be via an actual winner or a mutual agreement.

[DarkChiron]

Ok so like all war, you fight and fight and fight, we're fighting for control and resources. Now how come there seems to be unlimited resources? Also what is there a war for? Area's that can never be fully controlled? War is always started from land, throughout all of history land is the primary fuel to start a war. This is land you can never truly earn, you can lose it as soon as you gained it. That ties in with war because that happens, although there will always be a victor. Whether that be via an actual winner or a mutual agreement.

You're right. The game goes on forever and in the end is completely pointless to even play. No base capture means anything. No fights mean anything. Even if you capped the whole world, so what? It's going to be reset anyway. And even if it isn't, you'll just lose territory eventually anyway.

Is that really the outlook you have towards games?

[Otleaz]

If this game isn't the game they want, they can ask for it to change. Fine, whatever. EXPECTING the game to radically change on fundamental levels is the actual elitism here. Not me saying "Dude if this game doesn't sound like something you want to play, maybe it's not something you'd like to play". This game cannot possibly cater to everyone, and if it doesn't, that's alright. Everyone doesn't have to like or want this game.

Fundamental levels? The thing being talked about here are the farthest thing from fundamental.

The things being talked about here would at the least only be integrated into the UI. Is the game going to all the sudden going to make a radical change in direction because they decided to add a "Congratulations!" and a +1 once a faction controls a continent?

Even if they do decide to start changing the direction of the game because of how unimaginably popular the feature is(hypothetically), the things they would change would be along the lines of capturable warp gates and off shore sanctuaries.

Is it really a bad thing? Do you really think it will be less fun to have a facility you absolutely must defend tooth and nail compared to having it impossible to attack?

[Anubisstargate]

I've played games from a very young age, I've done nothing but complete them. Throughout the later years of playing games I've enjoyed nothing but multiplayer games, kinda got the feel of never completing a game appealed to me. I'm not saying this game should be completed, I'm saying there should be a victor to what we are doing. You speak to others as if they've never played games before and I'm sure there are hundreds of years of experience within these players, so stop talking down on them.

The game as it looks (will be different in beta) is very different to its predecessor planetside 1. As I've stated and others have stated many times before. In planetside 1 you can capture a whole world. That was your victory. In this you can never take everything over. Maybe if the playerbase was smaller you can take another continent while people are running around on another. A whole continent dominated is a victory. Its that sensation of achieving something bigger than bases.

Although if you still want to debate this all I'm going to say is. Small things amuse small minds. And if you want to argue that then look at your own posts and see what you've said about being happy with just capturing bases, those are small things in comparison.

[DarkChiron]

The things being talked about here would at the least only be integrated into the UI. Is the game going to all the sudden going to make a radical change in direction because they decided to add a "Congratulations!" and a +1 once a faction controls a continent?

I kind of said they were doing this already and never said they shouldn't.

Why are we disagreeing again?

The game as it looks (will be different in beta) is very different to its predecessor planetside 1. As I've stated and others have stated many times before. In planetside 1 you can capture a whole world. That was your victory. In this you can never take everything over. Maybe if the playerbase was smaller you can take another continent while people are running around on another. A whole continent dominated is a victory. Its that sensation of achieving something bigger than bases.

It was my understanding too that in the original you didn't really gain anything from a global conquest. If that's wrong, then I had a misunderstanding from that point.

I didn't mean to be 'talking down to people', so if it came across that way apologies all around.

[Infektion]

http://www.mepreport.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/BIODOME-box_hires_cd.jpg

[Sledgecrushr]

.
If your team mates in your faction sucked and you lost all but 1/8 of the map and you captured one base you really call that a win?

Sorry this is a loss buddy. In PS2 I think on any continent you could have two "winners", one of the factions will most definitely be losing.

[Anubisstargate]

If you look deep down you don't gain anything from any game unless you play pro and earn money :p. We enjoy the games we play and find our own enjoyement out of these games delivered to us.

Also no you do not get anything from capturing a world in PS1, but to accomplish that is a big feat. Why be happy with catching small fish when there are bigger ones in the sea. People strive to be bigger and better at what they do and majority of games accomplish that feeling through a ranking system. If you're number one then you've accomplished being the best at the game. Though I do feel bad because what else has that person got to achieve after that? Lol!

Too many don't strive for something better anymore, most people are happy with what is given to them and would let life walk on by as they sit and watch it.

Also I didn't mean the 'small minded' comments towards you darkchiron since most of your comments if not all have been unbiast and fair towards the community.

[Otleaz]

Why are we disagreeing again?

I don't like your face.

[Sephirex]

I don't like your face.

Keeping it classy.

[ArcGuard]

And stop comparing it to other FPS games, those games you play short matches and you do it for K/D ratio's and rank.

Pretty much stopped taking you seriously there. I play games to have fun, not to "win" or "improve my k/d" or any other arbitrary carrot on a stick.

[DarkChiron]

Also no you do not get anything from capturing a world in PS1, but to accomplish that is a big feat. Why be happy with catching small fish when there are bigger ones in the sea. People strive to be bigger and better at what they do and majority of games accomplish that feeling through a ranking system. If you're number one then you've accomplished being the best at the game. Though I do feel bad because what else has that person got to achieve after that? Lol!

I think continent caps are a matter of time (as much as they can be done in the current layout). That should be something to strive for. I think I'd try for it even without the game dangling a carrot in front of me (because really it's a logical progression from individual base caps), but if people need a little Achievement and/or a medal to pin to their vest, then that's fine, I suppose. I worry though about those poor guys who couldn't log in on time. :D

Also I didn't mean the 'small minded' comments towards you darkchiron since most of your comments if not all have been unbiast and fair towards the community.

I'm glad I edited my post then. :D I can be careless with words sometimes and I'm trying not to be because it leads to misunderstandings and giving impressions I don't wish to give. This thread is a sign I obviously still need to work on it.

I don't like your face.

Yeah?! Well I don't like... uh.... that Z! YEAH! You're not Zorro, sir.

[Crator]

For me, it's not necessarily about a carrot. I just want a overall arching goal that can be spun into many objectives. Then some way to track the progression of that overall arching goal. Some way to display a rank system for an entire empire for a given amount of time. This will give the mission system in PS2 more of dynamic nature imo.

And yes, PS1 did give you something for sanc locking another empire. You got their ES weapons and vehicles for a period of time after.

[Anubisstargate]

Also what's with these pin the medal comments and rubbish? Has that got anything to do with winning? No it doesn't.

Also Arcguard, you stopped taking me seriously because you're the type of player to have fun. So is everyone like you? No they are not! A lot of people play games all types of games to have fun, to win, to achieve something. Everyone's opinions are as important as the next person's. Like I said, there is hundreds and thousands of years worth of gaming experience in the playerbase. Do you truly believe everyone single one has played a game for the sheer aspect of having fun? Having fun for most is a side line feeling to knowing that you're good at the game, that you can win at a game. Loads of people love the feeling they get that if they are on that team they have a high chance of winning because they are good. If you're one of those that say "This game isn't for you then" if you're out to have fun, play minecraft or something! And if you don't like that comment then stop saying to others. Don't give people medicine if you cannot take it yourself so to say.

[kaffis]

Every inch of ground gained is a victory. That doesn't mean the war's over. The war will never be over; the enemy cannot die.

[Vydofnir]

What I'm pointing out is planetside 2 should have a means of feeling like we've won, the scale this game is on is going to be awesome and there are going to be tons of people that are dying to be playing this game. I am sure many of you want to be able to 'win' even if its a form of repetitive win, its still that feeling that can be mounted for all time to be looked at.

So my suggestion would be to allow factions to capture all hex's like normal but let's say TR capture ALL and there are no others left, TR can then capture the bio-domes. If the bio-domes are captured then that continent would be reset, resources stay the same but the hex's are neutral again, TR won the first war. Have this on the statistics list so people can flash off their e-peen's later. This will enhance the competitiveness of the factions and the players. Maybe a reward for the winners? And a small buff for the two who lost so that the next war might bring about another winner, let's say NC win, small reward and TR/VS get a buff. It would just make the game so much more.

Capturing all of the hexes on a continent merits an achievement, and I can't imagine the developers not recognizing this accomplishment in-game. However, I'm not sold on the idea that capturing every hex with the exception of the safe zones is any less of a victory than capturing all of them including the safe zones, and I really don't like the idea of a continental reset unless it is absoloutly necessary.

I for one would be interested to see the two losing factions fighting back from their respective warp gates whilst the thinly spread winner scrambles to defend against coordinated assaults on two fronts. If it becomes clear that the two factions are not able to effectively fight back, a reset may be necessary, but I would hate to see any break in the persistent action at all. One of the selling points of this game is the idea that if you capture a base, it's yours until someone comes and takes it from you. I don't see why this logic shouldn't apply to continents as well. Being able to capture warp gates opens up the possibility for factions to be completely unable to fight back, and having a continental reset is essentially just a larger scale match win like in any other FPS. I don't feel like that fits particularly well with the developers' vision of PS2.

Ultimately the thing that turns me off of the idea of having a winner is the fact that it necessitates having losers. If players know that their faction can completely lose on a continent, what is to keep them fighting? I would think that if it became clear that loss was imminent for their faction, many players would be likely to concede, jump ship to another continent/server, and kill time until the inevitable reset levels the playing field. Having a refuge from which to mount a coordinated counter-offensive seems more likely to keep players in the fight, even if their faction isn't doing particularly well at the time.

[Anubisstargate]

Nice post :)

Due to typing this on my phone I'm not going to quote the third paragraph. But in reference to the third paragraph you raised a very good point about most people will concede. Because people will if they know a loss is just around the corner, most people do have no will to fight.

My only suggestion to that would be to reward the defending faction in a big way, extra resources for each base defended, which makes the other factions win so much harder to achieve. This also encourages really long battles because what most people are stragetically thinking with resources is to starve enemies so they have the vehicle advantage. I can tell already those are going to be the most intense battles and very well thought out ones.

With that in mind would you think winning is even possible with that thrown into agenda, it sure looks impossible to even win, which is good, if people know they can win they will seek that, thus encouraging people to keep trying harder and harder to be the best. A lot of new players to the game (due to F2P) will come from other games like CoD, BF and such, with this new playerbase people are coming from games that are based around small wins to come to a game that ... Doesn't win overall? Their ranks and K/D ratio's that they flash their e-peen's over don't exist anymore, so what's to keep them playing? Apart from the immerse battlefield, beautiful graphics and game engine. This game has a lot of variables to its gameplay to offer to people in terms of being being a good MMO and a great FPS. Though its not even so much about the game, its about the people when it comes to winning. MMO players either like PvE or PvP or both. PvE players normally like the storyline from that game and a lot of them like raiding, people like raiding and that comes to wanting to be good at the game. PvPers do that in order to win all the time and be the best. Same with FPS gamers, the vast majority of people play FPS games to be good at them, to win at them and be the best in them.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but do people still play other FPS games and other MMO's? I'm sure they do. Why? Because they have that bigger goal to achieve in the game. Planetside 1 as much as it did have a big playerbase, a lot of died out after 3 years, whether that be through real life problems or whatever. The fact still remains that even though you may or may not realise but you are doing something that you can never truly accomplish. What keeps 90% of people working in their current job? They may be bored and do the same thing over and over but they stay there because they get paid. People like the end result of whatever they do.

Those that don't like the concept of planetside 2 being a winnable game is it because people don't like change? And that's stopping a new playerbase from enjoying a sense of achievement?

[DarkChiron]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but do people still play other FPS games and other MMO's? I'm sure they do. Why? Because they have that bigger goal to achieve in the game. Planetside 1 as much as it did have a big playerbase, a lot of died out after 3 years, whether that be through real life problems or whatever. The fact still remains that even though you may or may not realise but you are doing something that you can never truly accomplish. What keeps 90% of people working in their current job? They may be bored and do the same thing over and over but they stay there because they get paid. People like the end result of whatever they do.

The MMO's I've never I've never really felt like I 'won'. In EverQuest and WoW, I raided and gathered loot, but I wouldn't say it was a win. I had a great experience and felt accomplished that I was in a raid with my fellows. Loot was the only real thing to come of it. If you think of resources and more controlled bases as 'loot' here it's almost the same thing. Then in a game like UO, you could 'win' by controlling the cities of the PvP realm (Felucia I think but I forget now), but that's practically the same thing as what Planetside 2 is talking about offering now.

Those that don't like the concept of planetside 2 being a winnable game is it because people don't like change? And that's stopping a new playerbase from enjoying a sense of achievement?

I just don't consider it necessary to make the game fun. I believe that outside of fighting the war, pushing and defending territory, and playing with squad mates the game will be meaningful enough for me. From the amount of people who play MMOs with even less meaningful objectives (WoW and the like where no achievement EVER has a meaningful effect on the game world), it would appear many people agree with that idea. But again as I said the modern idea of achievements provides a further goal for people to achieve (which is why most MMOs have them now).

I guess at the end of the day I don't want to see this game try so hard to please everyone that it ends up being this mish mash of half-done ideas that don't really end up satisfying anyone.

A very strong 'win' condition where one team wins and the other 2 loses seems to go against their idea of a persistent world in any way I can consider there being a 'win' that has any meaning. If a 'win' doesn't affect the persistence of the world, and in the end is just the game popping up on the screen "You are winner!", I don't see in what way the Achievements system wouldn't accomplish this.

[Crator]

I guess at the end of the day I don't want to see this game try so hard to please everyone that it ends up being this mish mash of half-done ideas that don't really end up satisfying anyone.

No one wants that.

[Dloan]

From the amount of people who play MMOs with even less meaningful objectives (WoW and the like where no achievement EVER has a meaningful effect on the game world), it would appear many people agree with that idea.

I would say MMO objectives are even more meaningful. They're all about obtaining *individual* wealth and power. The process even inspired its own term "grinding", which just goes to show you can make people pay to do boring stuff over and over again if they feel the reward at the end is large enough.

MMO's have proven time after time that, even in a simulated world, obtaining wealth and power is a strong reward and motivating factor. To maintain interest MMO makers simply move the goalposts, adding more levels and more uber loot etc.

To keep people playing PS2 after the initial wow factor wears off, you're going to need equally strong motivating factors. PS1 lacked these.

[infected]

true for some, also false for others. wow's downfall was the xpacs. wow did change its design with the xpacs it put out. at vanilla you could hold onto your gear for a year and you were progressing based on skill. then the xpacs came and skill was replaced by overpowered gear constantly being introduced. you can't beat it now? just wait a bit til you get more gear and you the content will be a joke. they "moved the goal posts" every 3 months, making your gear and accomplishments feel irrelevant faster than you can attain them. this also came with dumbed down content and a horrible community focused on player's gear score rather than knowledge of the game. what? you don't have this new gear yet? its so easy to get. just farm a bunch of boring easy content and the better gear will be handed to you. player skill was removed from the equation. it was all about being a time sink for that monthly resubscription.

[Crator]

This is a pure PvP game which does not have a pay-to-win model. Gear & loot doesn't pertain to PS2 at all....

[Vydofnir]

Nice post :)

Thank you.

With that in mind would you think winning is even possible with that thrown into agenda, it sure looks impossible to even win, which is good, if people know they can win they will seek that, thus encouraging people to keep trying harder and harder to be the best. A lot of new players to the game (due to F2P) will come from other games like CoD, BF and such, with this new playerbase people are coming from games that are based around small wins to come to a game that ... Doesn't win overall? Their ranks and K/D ratio's that they flash their e-peen's over don't exist anymore, so what's to keep them playing? Apart from the immerse battlefield, beautiful graphics and game engine. This game has a lot of variables to its gameplay to offer to people in terms of being being a good MMO and a great FPS. Though its not even so much about the game, its about the people when it comes to winning. MMO players either like PvE or PvP or both. PvE players normally like the storyline from that game and a lot of them like raiding, people like raiding and that comes to wanting to be good at the game. PvPers do that in order to win all the time and be the best. Same with FPS gamers, the vast majority of people play FPS games to be good at them, to win at them and be the best in them.

I see your point, but PS2 is not going to fail or succeed by providing the same MMO or FPS experience that people have come to expect from other games, its success will hinge on what it brings to the table to make itself stand out. When an FPS player wins a match, he gets a message saying he's won and a win on his stats page, but not much else. You still get a "Facility Captured" message in PS2 and that will be a permanent addition to your stats page; the same could be said for point captures and K/D ratios. The thing that sets PS2 apart from other games is the fact that the map doesn't get reset after your victory, you have to mop up the stragglers, fortify your position, and prepare for a potential counterattack.

If you were to capture a whole continent with the exception of the enemies' warp gates, I have no doubt that you will get a "Continent Captured" message, and a nice addition to your stats page. This does not necessitate capturing the enemy footholds and forcing a continental reset, nor does it require providing a bonus to the other factions. In the event that the VS were to push back both the NC and the TR to their respective footholds, the VS would be forced to defend against a concentrated assault on two separate fronts. With that in mind it doesn't seem unlikely to me that the NC and TR would be able to successfully push the VS back without the need for a reset.

The fact that the world is persistent despite your wins and losses is what makes PS2 stand out from the rest of the crowd. Imagine how great it would feel to be a part of a coordinated offensive that pushes both enemy factions all the way to their warp gates. Now imagine how much greater that feeling would be if it was you who had been beaten back to your foothold when you started that offensive. That is not a feeling that can be provided by any MMO or FPS that I know of, and that is what makes PS2 special. It's clear to me that the developers are trying to make PS2 about more than just how many times you win or lose, they are making it about what those wins and losses mean in the context of a persistent world.

Those that don't like the concept of planetside 2 being a winnable game is it because people don't like change? And that's stopping a new playerbase from enjoying a sense of achievement?

Again I see where you're coming from, but I am very much against the idea of a hard win (more accurately the hard losses that it would entail), and I have never played PS1. In fact I have a deep-rooted disdain for the MMO genre, and I haven't really played an FPS online in more than half a decade. PS2 has done the unthinkable: It has turned me from someone with an entirely cynical outlook on online gaming into someone who is drooling over an MMOFPS! They were able to do this because they are commited to making their game a truly unique experience unlike any MMO or FPS on the market today. The persistence that comes with a lack of instancing and a lack of map resets is a big part of what makes PS2 appealing to many.

A very strong 'win' condition where one team wins and the other 2 loses seems to go against their idea of a persistent world in any way I can consider there being a 'win' that has any meaning. If a 'win' doesn't affect the persistence of the world, and in the end is just the game popping up on the screen "You are winner!", I don't see in what way the Achievements system wouldn't accomplish this.

I couldn't agree more. An achievement system allows for winners without necessitating that there be losers in any sense beyond the fact that they were not the winner. Allowing the capture of warp gates seems like it does more to punish the losers than it does to reward the victors. Losing access to an entire continent because my faction lost its foothold, and having to wait for the other two factions to wrap it up so the continent can reset sounds like an awful lot of punishment just for not being on the winning team. It would be like being temporarily banned for losing. Give the winners their achievement, but don't deny me access to game content because my faction didn't win.

[Dloan]

Gear & loot doesn't pertain to PS2 at all....

Not in the traditional MMO sense, but consider how SOE plan to make money on this game. Haven't they said that levelled players are likely to be 20% more powerful than those who aren't? Won't they be more flexible? A different type of power. Aren't resources from capturing territory just another form of loot?

[Crator]

^^^ Hard to tell about that right now. I, unfortunately, have not played the game yet. Beta, soon.... :D

But yes, you're right in a way. It really all depends how the resources flow and what they actually give you I guess... I don't see how you will feel irrelevant when new stuff comes out. Well, not in the same sense as you would in WoW at least....

[Otleaz]

Not in the traditional MMO sense, but consider how SOE plan to make money on this game. Haven't they said that levelled players are likely to be 20% more powerful than those who aren't? Won't they be more flexible? A different type of power. Aren't resources from capturing territory just another form of loot?

No. Loot is a psychological thing. You can't just say it is loot and make people happy. If you want to capture the feeling other MMOs give you, you need to design it in a certain way.

[Zidane]

Short answer... technically no

[Antivide]

If there is no tangible victory condition there's nothing that separates this game from a glorified TDM match.

The issue is the endgame, there is none. There's no sense of accomplishment other than "Oh look.. we took bio-lab #5".

That's an issue SOE will have to figure out.

[Furber]

It's not an issue at all, it's one of the core aspects of Planetside that makes it the incredible game it is/will be. One really has to experience the persistence to understand the beauty of it. Let's try to wait for beta before we try to change one of the most important mechanics of this game.

[Klockan]

How is the world persistent if there are world resets? Isn't it better to not take away all the territory people earned and instead let the opposition try to take it back through hard work?

[Anubisstargate]

Yeah I do agree the continent reset should never happen to keep the persistent world.

Having off-shore platforms with bridge would be awesome though. To be able to hold the shore off against enemy respawn (especially at night) would be amazing to see. Also it gives factions that chance to lose their footing on the continent. This applies to all factions of course and gives everyone an equal footing on the continent. Also because of the distance there should be a discount on vehicles spawned from there to balance out the fact you've lost resource points on the continent.