Why fight for territory?

[Cheetah]

I'm new to planetside, so I'll formulate this aspect as a range of questions, to hear what players think mostly from PS1 I guess, but of course also from PS2 and what we got so far...

I wonder, what keeps people interested and excited about one's faction having the territorial domain? Is it purely pride and getting high from one's colour on the map? Are there radically more rescourses and gameplay possibilities to dominate, when controlling more territory (rescourses)? Is it really not that important, the game itself is thrilling enough by only being about the actual combat? Are there a hidden dream in every player, about gaining as close to complete territory control as possible (has it ever happened in PS1)? Or are there any other elements, you think keep players hooked on gaining territory?

[USD]

You'll learn.

[BlueSkies]

I'm new to planetside, so I'll formulate this aspect as a range of questions, to hear what players think mostly from PS1 I guess, but of course also from PS2 and what we got so far...

I wonder, what keeps people interested and excited about one's faction having the territorial domain? Is it purely pride and getting high from one's colour on the map? Are there radically more rescourses and gameplay possibilities to dominate, when controlling more territory (rescourses)? Is it really not that important, the game itself is thrilling enough by only being about the actual combat? Are there a hidden dream in every player, about gaining as close to complete territory control as possible (has it ever happened in PS1)? Or are there any other elements, you think keep players hooked on gaining territory?

PS1: Yes, the map has been completely taken over several times on the different servers over the years.

PS2: Pride, Wargame, and NDA

[Flacracker]

To win.

[RoninOni]

PS1: Yes, the map has been completely taken over several times on the different servers over the years.

PS2: Pride, Wargame, and NDA

NDA? :lol:

oh FFS I'll tell him...


I wonder, what keeps people interested and excited about one's faction having the territorial domain? Is it purely pride and getting high from one's colour on the map? Are there radically more rescourses and gameplay possibilities to dominate, when controlling more territory (rescourses)? Is it really not that important, the game itself is thrilling enough by only being about the actual combat? Are there a hidden dream in every player, about gaining as close to complete territory control as possible (has it ever happened in PS1)? Or are there any other elements, you think keep players hooked on gaining territory?

Different territories provide different resources and or tactical advantages.

That's not NDA... any DETAILS would be NDA.

BTW: What are you fighting over in battlefield or CoD? Right... nothing...

:groovy:

[Boone]

I still believe there should be some sort of "win" factor once a month or something. It could just track points like Guild Wars 2 WvW does. I dunno, I feel it would give your faction a long term goal. I dunno.

[Otleaz]

BTW: What are you fighting over in battlefield or CoD? Right... nothing...

:groovy:
Actually, you are fighting over who wins and who loses.

[RoninOni]

I still believe there should be some sort of "win" factor once a month or something. It could just track points like Guild Wars 2 WvW does. I dunno, I feel it would give your faction a long term goal. I dunno.

It's a never ending war though.....:groovy:

You can 'win' a continent anyways

Actually, you are fighting over who wins and who loses.

in 1 small pointless battle that's meaningless :rolleyes:

[SFJake]

To win.

But the game never ends, not even for a second. Apparently continents can't even fully be captured (last I read?).

Whats to win? That incentive is seriously underestimated by the PS1 players. There isn't even a semblance of a true victory, which is a huge incentive this game refuses to add.

[Flacracker]

But the game never ends, not even for a second. Apparently continents can't even fully be captured (last I read?).

Whats to win? That incentive is seriously underestimated by the PS1 players. There isn't even a semblance of a true victory, which is a huge incentive this game refuses to add.

Im sure once you take over all the area you can you will see something on the website or in the game "Terran Republic took over the whole continent of Indar or whatever it is called, They win!" And then it resets.

[RoninOni]

Im sure once you take over all the area you can you will see something on the website or in the game "Terran Republic took over the whole continent of Indar or whatever it is called, They win!" And then it resets.

No....

There's 3 continents (at launch)

If you're faction takes a continent... well, all but the landing zone hexes... then your faction holds that continent.

You've still got 2 more continents to fight over. AND at ANY TIME OF DAY another faction can storm the landing zone and start trying to occupy territories... UP TO NEARLY 700 OF THEM... oh no... it's NEVER over.

I mean... is this next generation so spoon fed fake digital "rewards" that they need some superficial video game victory screen to feel good about their gaming session?

THE POINT OF THE GAME IS THE GAME ITSELF

To that end holding territory increases your Factions resource generation... allowing your faction to field MORE tanks, buy MORE weapons & Accessories, and run with Implant upgrades more often.

How is that not incentive to gain and hold territory? :huh:

bloody hell.

[FINALCUT]

Some of us just find pleasure in killing anyone wearing Red or Purple.
Thats why I fight,to bleed my enemies.
Is there really a better reason ?;)

[Mastachief]

Resources

Grudge matches

Stats

Individual bases and outposts

Take your pick

It never ends, for me the hook is playing with guys i've played along side for near on a decade, killing those enemies i've been killing for just as long.

In planetside 1 the world was capped a handful of times by different factions but the fight never ever stopped as even baseless the enemy would still be pushing back out of their home warpgates to take that initial base.

Can't comment on the current mechanics as.. All i'll say is that currently i feel ps2 will lack that hook that planetside had to have some people average 30 playing hours a week for 9 years.

Time will tell.

No use comparing a planetside game to round based fps games they don't even hold a candle to the planetside universe. In round based games you don't get the same community attachment and all you are doing it repeating the same fights every 5minutes where as in planetside you may not fight in the same area for months or you could be fighting over the same couple of bases for days.

To add: Join a good tight outfit (zergfits are bad mmmkay). Outfit events are some of the best fun i've had in a fps. From max unit only nights to ant demolition derby's on the roof of the sanctuary hart buildings. Outfit bring it all to a personal level (if you like that kinda thing) celebrating marriages, births. Supporting members through tragedy and upset. They take that leap from clan to community and a good ones last through everything.

** Anyone wanting to end this persistent universe should be shot and fed to the COD/BF Kiddies. Locking conts? Yes please. Cont resets? NO never and NO

[Otleaz]

in 1 small pointless battle that's meaningless :rolleyes:

More meaningful than PS2 at least.

[RoninOni]

Can't comment on the current mechanics as.. All i'll say is that currently i feel ps2 will lack that hook that planetside had to have some people average 30 playing hours a week for 9 years.

Time will tell.

I wouldn't worry too much....

There's a LOT on the drawing board yet to be added

[picchu]

It's a never ending war though.....:groovy:

You can 'win' a continent anyways



in 1 small pointless battle that's meaningless :rolleyes:

Ha
You seem to not understand that everything else has an ending. All games are pointless however they end or you see a "you win" / "victory". You see your accomplishments for that round, k/d, captures, team play, how you contributed to that goal, how your team/enemies did and so on. Then a new game begins.

P2 it just keeps going on this never ending cycle. Victory over wining a base is minimum seeing as they can be taken back so easily.

So you gain more tanks, weapons, stuff etc. It is so easy to obtain it is not a reward. I often have so much that I could spend hours none stop buying tanks,air etc.

It's like saying "hey in the Olympics we have no winners" we get to be on tv have sponsor and make money what else do you want?

The game should have something that makes it feel like you accomplished something (penalties, rounds?, human number limits?) or give you more of a reason. Unfortunately however I am sure the way it is now won't change.

Even wars end but not ps2

[RoninOni]

More meaningful than PS2 at least.

If you feel that way, then continue enjoying your meaningless battles over the same 8 1sqkm maps while we fight over a dynamic war containing 64sqkm of meaningful bases then
:groovy:

[Toppopia]

Well, many people had cool ideas about not really end games, but ideas that add more to the universe, like the space race, just to name one, where factions 'build' rockets and whoever completes theirs first gets a bonus to resources production or something, all we need is some mini games for these "COD/BF3" people that seem to only like a game if it ends with a victory screen.

[RoninOni]

Well, many people had cool ideas about not really end games, but ideas that add more to the universe, like the space race, just to name one, where factions 'build' rockets and whoever completes theirs first gets a bonus to resources production or something, all we need is some mini games for these "COD/BF3" people that seem to only like a game if it ends with a victory screen.

There are "victory screens" when you cap or defend bases...

and there are stats and everything else.

You will be able to look at how well you performed on the Battle for the Bridge on November the 5th (remember, remember.... :D ) even.

BUT... yeah... today's youth... ehhhhhh... short attention spans and regular praise and pat on the backs is all they know... can't blame em I guess.

Oh, and whoever compared VIDEO GAMES to the bloody Olypmics....... /doublefacepalm

Hate to break it to you but 'eSports' isn't a sport. :doh:

[picchu]

Well, many people had cool ideas about not really end games, but ideas that add more to the universe, like the space race, just to name one, where factions 'build' rockets and whoever completes theirs first gets a bonus to resources production or something, all we need is some mini games for these "COD/BF3" people that seem to only like a game if it ends with a victory screen.

?Cod/bf3 people? That a joke? Honestly practically every game has some type of ending.

Just like my idea above on olympics...(why would you want that?) really you can say its great to kill (which it is) but a win should feel like a win. Game has no victory really. However do not get me wrong it is still great but lacks a more main stream drive to push on.

[RoninOni]

?Cod/bf3 people? That a joke? Honestly practically every game has some type of ending.

Just like my idea above on olympics...(why would you want that?) really you can say its great to kill (which it is) but a win should feel like a win. Game has no victory really. However do not get me wrong it is still great but lacks a more main stream drive to push on.

But in BF3/CoD it's not like you achieved anything... in fact, the "victory screen" is there precisely because THAT'S IT.... that's the WHOLE game. now load the map over and do the same thing from scratch, but NOTHING you did in the last round makes ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER anymore.

How is that better in any way shape or form?

Because of an artificial victory screen?

Nothing will stop you from, after capturing, defending, or losing a base in PS2 and seeing it's "FACILITY CAPTURED!" popup with victory music, hop over to the web portal for some good indepth stats analysis of your last "round"

But see, that's the REAL difference here. The games you're comparing this to have short little rounds. then you go to the next round. Nothing links them together.

Here, it's persistence. The world never stops moving. You log off go to sleep, and come home from school and login and see that the battleline has moved, your faction has gained or lost some territories.

And, ultimately, the goal IS to conquer everything.

[picchu]

There are "victory screens" when you cap or defend bases...

and there are stats and everything else.

You will be able to look at how well you performed on the Battle for the Bridge on November the 5th (remember, remember.... :D ) even.

BUT... yeah... today's youth... ehhhhhh... short attention spans and regular praise and pat on the backs is all they know... can't blame em I guess.

Oh, and whoever compared VIDEO GAMES to the bloody Olypmics....... /doublefacepalm

Hate to break it to you but 'eSports' isn't a sport. :doh:

Ug calling people "todays youth" to justify your way is childish to begin with.

Olypmics.... ah I was not comparing to games I was comparing to statements. Like you get this gun but you don't win as in you get this commercial but no medal. How ps2 feels. You get this but you do not win.

Honestly this is not something to argue over anyways. It will most likley remain.

It would be nice however if something could be added that hurts or gives incentive/penalties. Say you capture just about everything.. eventually players numbers decline/people slip threw enemy lines and a few days later most is taken back. I do not know maybe make it more difficult when pushed perhaps.. How to go about it I have no idea.

[RoninOni]

Ug calling people "todays youth" to justify your way is childish to begin with.

Olypmics.... ah I was not comparing to games I was comparing to statements. Like you get this gun but you don't win as in you get this commercial but no medal. How ps2 feels. You get this but you do not win.

Honestly this is not something to argue over anyways. It will most likley remain.

It would be nice however if something could be added that hurts or gives incentive/penalties. Say you capture just about everything.. eventually players numbers decline/people slip threw enemy lines and a few days later most is taken back. I do not know maybe make it more difficult when pushed perhaps.. How to go about it I have no idea.

You'll have less territory to branch out from, and less resources at your disposal. Tactically and financially you're at a disadvantage by virtue of circumstance.

and also, lots of olympians will get commercials with no medal.... for whatever that's worth :D

Anyways, I just see no difference between winning a base, and winning a round in another game, except that in PS2, that win stays with you... until you lose it :D whereas in the other games, there is literally no consequence whatsoever... at all. You can lose matches ALL DAY LONG for days on end and actually still be ranking up from minor experience gain, whereas in PS2 if your faction loses base after base after base it's gonna hurt.

[picchu]

But in BF3/CoD it's not like you achieved anything... in fact, the "victory screen" is there precisely because THAT'S IT.... that's the WHOLE game. now load the map over and do the same thing from scratch, but NOTHING you did in the last round makes ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER anymore.

How is that better in any way shape or form?

Because of an artificial victory screen?

Nothing will stop you from, after capturing, defending, or losing a base in PS2 and seeing it's "FACILITY CAPTURED!" popup with victory music, hop over to the web portal for some good indepth stats analysis of your last "round"

But see, that's the REAL difference here. The games you're comparing this to have short little rounds. then you go to the next round. Nothing links them together.

Here, it's persistence. The world never stops moving. You log off go to sleep, and come home from school and login and see that the battleline has moved, your faction has gained or lost some territories.

And, ultimately, the goal IS to conquer everything.

You do not need or want a link in those games. A new game is like a new world. Battles can be a few minutes or hours not forever.

My guess and probably why others enjoy a game that ends is because for one you can say you win/ended and another is you do not have all day to play games.

Say your in a squad vs another squad you can win the game..however in ps2 you may when a battle but you never win the war. Who wins? Who is the better team? You fight over territories but in the end you never win. So a victory is never really decided.

I played ps1 a lot so this is not an issue but It would be nice if it was tweaked in some way.

[RoninOni]

Oh, and "War will not determine who's right... only... who's left"

;) :groovy:

[picchu]

You'll have less territory to branch out from, and less resources at your disposal. Tactically and financially you're at a disadvantage by virtue of circumstance.

and also, lots of olympians will get commercials with no medal.... for whatever that's worth :D

Anyways, I just see no difference between winning a base, and winning a round in another game, except that in PS2, that win stays with you... until you lose it :D whereas in the other games, there is literally no consequence whatsoever... at all. You can lose matches ALL DAY LONG for days on end and actually still be ranking up from minor experience gain, whereas in PS2 if your faction loses base after base after base it's gonna hurt.

Yes I understand I just wish it was more of a "hurt". It has always felt/been minor. Winning almost everything to have it taken away quickly and sometimes effortlessly feels like you are always losing/never gaining. I and probably most do not need a "victory" but need more of a penalty. That push, that feeling to keep those areas under control, to keep your team up top.. which ps1-2 is lacking.

[RoninOni]

You do not need or want a link in those games. A new game is like a new world. Battles can be a few minutes or hours not forever.

My guess and probably why others enjoy a game that ends is because for one you can say you win/ended and another is you do not have all day to play games.

Say your in a squad vs another squad you can win the game..however in ps2 you may when a battle but you never win the war. Who wins? Who is the better team? You fight over territories but in the end you never win. So a victory is never really decided.

I played ps1 a lot so this is not an issue but It would be nice if it was tweaked in some way.

You don't personally have to play all day... I work too... point is the war is being fought constantly.

I mean, if they link the continents with oceans, and add Naval combat, thus removing the necessity of "safe zones" so entire continents could be capturable and they'd need to pull off a DDay to get back on, then 1 faction could get wiped off a server, and later finally another faction win but I expect they'd be relatively rare.

Until they add connecting oceans, they could make it so if 1 faction controls every hex BUT the safe zones, then they win... but considering the speed of a warp gate attack vs sailing across the ocean where they'd likely spot any excessively large force advancing and be able to coordinate a nice welcoming party.

An option I don't think they'll go with is that the warp gates could become capturable if a faction held no other territories on a continent... and it should be 1 tuff nut to crack. That would allow factions to get pushed off a server and last one standing wins. Maybe even allow say the TR to take the VS warp gate back from the NC who are about to win the continent, and 'turn it back on' allowing VS to return to the continent. Why? Well... cause enemy fighting your enemies is a good thing :P

I think there will be stuff for people playing just an hour or so as well... things they can accomplish. Cause that's really the issue here right? When commanders can lay down missions, and casual players can just log in, select from a list of missions what they can and want to do, and go complete an objective and be rewarded for it. They've hinted at some very impressive meta game that's still a good ways off from implementation that should hopefully help both coordinate the massive size of the armies into more than a massive zerg, while also providing the less time invested player have goals that they can accomplish. Win win.

[Baneblade]

Don't be fooled, you are fighting over who is going to respawn or not.

[TheDAWinz]

:mad: This thread is redicoulous mods! :mad::mad:

[Salad Snake]

Considering this is a F2P with deep cosmetic customization, a continent-dominating faction would probably get some kind of badge or hat made for them by SOE. I personally don't much care but that's my prediction on what would happen.

[Arrius]

It's about the experience that no other game offers.

It's about being in an intense battle over a choke point where each side uses every tactic they can muster... you want to push back the battle line just 100 yards and it's over. Then you look up and it's been 3 hours and you realize you've been advancing and pulling back over the same 50 yards the entire time... and it was the most fun you've had in quite awhile.

You really have to play the game to fully understand it.

[cellinaire]

More meaningful than PS2 at least.

Right. And I know we should keep discussing in the future about how to improve MMOFPS as a viable genre and how to improve the 'meaningness' of it, however, if I only cared so much about the 'result' and 'meaningness', I'd have never played any mmofps. ;)

[Ashnal]

I'd say a base capture or defense is roughly equivalent to a round win in a round based shooter. Especially due to the way the ticket system works.

"But that base can be taken away from you!"

Roughly equivalent to losing a second round on the same map in a round based shooter.

Honestly, I think I and many others will get that win/lose feeling when a base you've been attacking/defending for a while pops up the big "Facility Captured!"/"Facility Lost" banner that the UI emphasizes.

The territory metagame is just a way to tie all the bases together and allow for larger scale battles around the bases, as well as some strategic target choices.

Would you be happy if each base was disconnected with a loading screen between each one? That'd make it much more similar to a round based shooter.

[Noon]

It's about the experience that no other game offers.

It's about being in an intense battle over a choke point where each side uses every tactic they can muster... you want to push back the battle line just 100 yards and it's over. Then you look up and it's been 3 hours and you realize you've been advancing and pulling back over the same 50 yards the entire time... and it was the most fun you've had in quite awhile.

You really have to play the game to fully understand it.

^ QFT

Instant gratification isn't why you will be playing this game, you will live for moments like these. Straight up warfare.:rock:

If they haven't already I wouldn't be surprised if there was an achievement system implemented eventually. Seems to be a standard thing with most games now.

[Gugabalog]

If anything I consider round based games to be meaningless. You won!

Bf3: What did you win? "Uhhhh...The game?"

PS2: I won! We got the base! Let's use it to mobilize on the next one! OMG WE CAN USE IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN EGO BOOSTING?!?


/rant done

Stated as a Non-PS1 vet.

[Otleaz]

Right. And I know we should keep discussing in the future about how to improve MMOFPS as a viable genre and how to improve the 'meaningness' of it, however, if I only cared so much about the 'result' and 'meaningness', I'd have never played any mmofps. ;)

I've played WW2 Online, that is an mmofps. Guess what? It has a winning team and a losing team.

If anything I consider round based games to be meaningless. You won!

Bf3: What did you win? "Uhhhh...The game?"

PS2: I won! We got the base! Let's use it to mobilize on the next one! OMG WE CAN USE IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN EGO BOOSTING?!?


What is the difference between capturing a point in BF3 and capturing a base in PS2(other than the fact that you get closer to victory in BF3 and get closer to nothing in PS2)?

If you want to cheer and celebrate after capturing objectives, you can do that in BF3 too.

In the end, no if you try saying collecting victories is meaningless, you might as well go all the way and say life itself is meaningless. Winning and losing has been central to games since pong.

[Ashnal]

You've even said it yourself.
In the end, no if you try saying collecting victories is meaningless, you might as well go all the way and say life itself is meaningless. Winning and losing has been central to games since pong.
What if I told you collecting bases in PS2 means more than a win in BF3? That winning a base is a victory?

It's really a question of perspective. If you shift your personal perspective to see a single base as a 'match' then the game makes much more sense. Really.

From that perspective you have all the victories you need to be satisfied, and an extra victory that encompasses all those victories. Besides, the war in BF3 never ends does it? Matches keep getting played.

It's like the age old half glass of water question, half full, or half empty?

[fvdham]

> Why fight for territory?

Your score is: number of territories held.

[Tzitzimitl]

That push, that feeling to keep those areas under control, to keep your team up top.. which ps1-2 is lacking.
In my opinion it is not lacking it is just player driven. This being because keeping your team at the top is not rewarded by the devs/game but by players. This reward appearing the form of being distinguished and feared/respected

[Otleaz]

You've even said it yourself.

What if I told you collecting bases in PS2 means more than a win in BF3? That winning a base is a victory?

It's really a question of perspective. If you shift your personal perspective to see a single base as a 'match' then the game makes much more sense. Really.

From that perspective you have all the victories you need to be satisfied, and an extra victory that encompasses all those victories. Besides, the war in BF3 never ends does it? Matches keep getting played.

It's like the age old half glass of water question, half full, or half empty?

Exactly, it is all perspective. Perspective is easily manipulated by the developers of a game, luckily. Luckily again, the majority want to be manipulated in this manner.

If they want to, they could bury this discussion by having a scoreboard pop up once a facility was taken or defended, listing out the the result of the battle in a way similar to other games.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

What if I told you collecting bases in PS2 means more than a win in BF3? That winning a base is a victory

If you watch the streams, you'll see they are actually the same thing, since taking a base in PS2 is the same as playing conquest mode in BF. Then you drive/fly to the next base instead of BF's loading the next map, so you just get an interactive loading screen!


If they want to, they could bury this discussion by having a scoreboard pop up once a facility was taken or defended, listing out the the result of the battle in a way similar to other games.

Have you not seen Higby bring that up during his streams?

[Graywolves]

There's been a clash between two mentalities here and there around here about "winning."

I've found it really comes down to your perspective. People go "in CoD/BF/genericFPS123 people keep playing for teh wins." Then lots of us go "But so what? You just play the same map over and over and over."


For me in Planetside it's like being pulled in to a war of endless conquest and I absolutely love that jawn(expletive substitute). I feel like I'm really fighting a war against the other empires, when I do fight over the same area there is context around it. How, why, who is defending/attacking, the people actually there and what they are using, who holds what in surrounding area.




If your question is "Why should I keep playing?" the answer is supposed to be "Because it's fun." What you find fun might vary depending on your perspective.

-edit-

I intend to make everything in the game red. Glory to the Terran Republic!

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

But if it truely is just about the fighting and not about winning, why does everyone hate the never moving/ending 3-way that is Cyssorside?

Why? Because people like to WIN! If the map isn't moving you still have your never ending war going on, but nobody likes it because nobody is winning.

Winning in PS1 was capping a cont, with the eventual goal of capping them all (knowing it would rarely happen). In PS2 with only 3 conts you can't even do that, it really is just a large never ending round of BF, and that to me sounds very boring.

[AJay]

Graywolves has it pretty much nailed down. You're comparing two different demographics when you compare arena shooters to planetside. Even though PS2 is a shooter, it's important to remember it's still an MMO and that appeals to a different kind of character.

For the sake of clarification, we can better compare PS to WoW and ask the same question; "whats the point?" Both games are designed to be seemingly endless and it is debatable whether any ultimate goal is worth achieving.

I submit to you that in games like this; where you are going is not as important as how you get there. And MMOs in particular draw in the kind of people who appreciate that specifically.

I imagine if you ask the PS1 vets here you'll learn they have more fond memories of the things they did working towards dominating a land mass as opposed to the victory itself; it's more about the outfits, exploration, being in a giant battle, making friends, and importantly; solidarity.

You'll learn that games like this aren't really about winning, they are about teamwork, social interaction, and immersing yourself in a believable world. You just gotta ask yourself if you are the kinda guy who enjoys mastery of game mechanics and domination over scoreboards and statistical pages, or a guy who enjoys co-operation, exploration, and experiences larger than your own personal gratification. Then you'll know if this game is worth your time.

[ArchangeI]

I can see achievements filling the incentive role and worst case we het hats as rewards for these achievements

[RoninOni]

I can see achievements filling the incentive role and worst case we het hats as rewards for these achievements

LOL

I think once they implement a player driven mission system it'll improve QOL for everyone.

[ringring]

Resources

Grudge matches

Stats

Individual bases and outposts

Take your pick

It never ends, for me the hook is playing with guys i've played along side for near on a decade, killing those enemies i've been killing for just as long.

In planetside 1 the world was capped a handful of times by different factions but the fight never ever stopped as even baseless the enemy would still be pushing back out of their home warpgates to take that initial base.

Can't comment on the current mechanics as.. All i'll say is that currently i feel ps2 will lack that hook that planetside had to have some people average 30 playing hours a week for 9 years.

Time will tell.

No use comparing a planetside game to round based fps games they don't even hold a candle to the planetside universe. In round based games you don't get the same community attachment and all you are doing it repeating the same fights every 5minutes where as in planetside you may not fight in the same area for months or you could be fighting over the same couple of bases for days.

To add: Join a good tight outfit (zergfits are bad mmmkay). Outfit events are some of the best fun i've had in a fps. From max unit only nights to ant demolition derby's on the roof of the sanctuary hart buildings. Outfit bring it all to a personal level (if you like that kinda thing) celebrating marriages, births. Supporting members through tragedy and upset. They take that leap from clan to community and a good ones last through everything.

** Anyone wanting to end this persistent universe should be shot and fed to the COD/BF Kiddies. Locking conts? Yes please. Cont resets? NO never and NO

+1

hopefully, when ps2 matures a little it will gain the same feeling...

[Salad Snake]

Graywolves has it pretty much nailed down. You're comparing two different demographics when you compare arena shooters to planetside. Even though PS2 is a shooter, it's important to remember it's still an MMO and that appeals to a different kind of character.

For the sake of clarification, we can better compare PS to WoW and ask the same question; "whats the point?" Both games are designed to be seemingly endless and it is debatable whether any ultimate goal is worth achieving.

I submit to you that in games like this; where you are going is not as important as how you get there. And MMOs in particular draw in the kind of people who appreciate that specifically.

I imagine if you ask the PS1 vets here you'll learn they have more fond memories of the things they did working towards dominating a land mass as opposed to the victory itself; it's more about the outfits, exploration, being in a giant battle, making friends, and importantly; solidarity.

You'll learn that games like this aren't really about winning, they are about teamwork, social interaction, and immersing yourself in a believable world. You just gotta ask yourself if you are the kinda guy who enjoys mastery of game mechanics and domination over scoreboards and statistical pages, or a guy who enjoys co-operation, exploration, and experiences larger than your own personal gratification. Then you'll know if this game is worth your time.


Exactly. Many games, especially MMO's, are more about the experience than the competition. It's just that this game has plenty of that too due to the FPS aspect.

[Cheetah]

Personally, even though I never played PS1, I know already what my game primarily will be about - simply painting the world red from a mosquito. My victories will lie in every frag, every takeover and every missile dodged.

This thread was not about me getting convinced of anything, I was just curious about this particular aspect, since I never played a MMOFPS before...

The player relations and outfit experiences along with the actual gameplay seems to me more than enough to keep me hooked for a long time.

[Satexios]

I do not fight for land or resources. I fight for the glory of the Terran Republic which is instant gratification ;)

[Satyxis]

One thing that might improve both the sense of accomplishment that people are talking about AND faction loyalty is if there was a page on the PS2 site (or graphic on the main page might be cooler) that kept track of how many resources each faction earned over a given time -like every month the counter was reset to zero, and the faction that had the highest resource total over the previous month would be displayed for "bragging rights" and pride.

"Man, the Vanu on X server keep winning the resource battle every month, they must be really good!"

"Man, those stinking Barneys on my server keep winning every month, I will have to redouble my efforts, or get my factured TR leadership together to coordinate an offensive to finally take them down!"

To be clear, I am NOT advocating that actual territory or Resources be reset every month. I am advocating that resources by earned (by faction, starting at "0") be tracked and totaled at the end of the month, with a display that shows the current leader for the current month and the leading faction as the "champion" or whatever for the previous month.

This would work best if the resource system was built such that a territory gives X resources total to a faction, and not a territory gives X resources to each PLAYER of a faction, as that would imbalance the score system proposed to unfairly benefit the faction with the greatest population.

I suppose the biggest drawback to this would be that certain servers (over time) might come to be dominated by certain factions, which might then draw more than it's fair share of extra players due to it's success, creating a "snowball effect" that does not help the balance of the game... Or maybe there would be enough "underdog" players to offset that idea? I guess a psychologist/sociologist might have an answer for that...

[SpottyGekko]

I guess it's just two different mindsets. One is tactical, the other strategic.

Some people prefer to measure their success (and show it off to others) by winning matches in BF3/CoD. They can easily point to their "map wins" to display their skill at "totally defeating the opposing team". It's like any sports match or boardgame, the objectives are clear and limited, and if you achieve all of them you defeat your opponent/s.

In PS/PS2 you very very rarely "totally defeat the opposing team". Your personal stats are the only thing you can show off. Your pleasure is derived from your own performance and that of your outfit. At the end of 2 hours of PS2 you can say "we did well tonight" or "we got pwned". But your personal contribution to any success or failure will most likely be small.


BF3/CoD matches are short and have very small player counts. So the players all feel important if their "side" wins a match. It's a strong ego boost.

In PS2 the "match" never ends. Your squad may do well, your platoon may be instrumental in capturing a base, but your faction performance is the ultimate determinant of "success" in the game. Teamwork is the important thing, your personal efforts less so.

[Boone]

It's a never ending war though.....:groovy:

You can 'win' a continent anyways



in 1 small pointless battle that's meaningless :rolleyes:

I'm sure the game is going to be a blast and I really don't need a "win" factor like most. The key word here though is most, and a tiny fear of mine is that if there really is no "goal" to strive for then most people (the ones that don't visit this forum likely) might just end up not caring and/or dicking around most of the time resulting in frustrating gameplay.

Believe it or not, just having fun anymore in a video game just doesn't do it for people anymore :lol:. There needs to be some way or another to get a feeling of accomplishment..as silly as that may sound. As fun as battles and everything are going to be, capping things, bsing with friends of yours. It would still be nice to have some kind of ultimate goal one way or another your faction is striving for. Silly to see all your hard work just go to waste after you go to sleep *shrug*.

Maybe the Certs and everything will be enough, then again they could even just track stats per faction, after every month whoever has most points (get points for killing ppl, more so for taking stuff) they get a buff or a shit ton of resources. I actually think there might be a way to incorporate how GW2 does it, but twist it around some and apply it to 3 factions instead of 3 servers.

It's just food for thought.

[SpottyGekko]

I'm sure the game is going to be a blast and I really don't need a "win" factor like most. The key word here though is most, and a tiny fear of mine is that if there really is no "goal" to strive for then most people (the ones that don't visit this forum likely) might just end up not caring and/or dicking around most of the time resulting in frustrating gameplay.

Believe it or not, just having fun anymore in a video game just doesn't do it for people anymore :lol:. There needs to be some way or another to get a feeling of accomplishment..as silly as that may sound. As fun as battles and everything are going to be, capping things, bsing with friends of yours. It would still be nice to have some kind of ultimate goal one way or another your faction is striving for. Silly to see all your hard work just go to waste after you go to sleep *shrug*.

Maybe the Certs and everything will be enough, then again they could even just track stats per faction, after every month whoever has most points (get points for killing ppl, more so for taking stuff) they get a buff or a shit ton of resources. I actually think there might be a way to incorporate how GW2 does it, but twist it around some and apply it to 3 factions instead of 3 servers.

It's just food for thought.

I fear that you may be right.

The "match play" systems used by FPS games (and the hugely popular games like League of Legends) has pretty much become hardwired in players' expectations. Quick wins and fast play with a clear victory condition.

I have no idea of SOE's player target for PS2, I'd assume they do have one. Someone must have run the numbers to justify a F2P model. That usually relies on a very large amount of players with a significant percentage of those players making small Cash Shop transactions.

The original peak subscriber number of PS would never have sustained a F2P model. And with PS2, there is no initial cash inflow from box sales. So ALL the revenue PS2 will generate comes from the Cash Shop.

So if PS2 is hoping for more than 500K regular players, it will have to pull people away from other FPS games. That means PS2 has to give players the things they enjoy in games like BF3/CoD, and something extra.

[Cheetah]

A weekly, fortnightly or monthly track system with a justifiable bonus to the dominating faction, or penalty to the two loosing factions, could definitely work.

Or how about an unpredictable and occasional hotspot, like a deadline for having control of a base, which then would grant a bonus for the victors (either the whole faction or just the involved players). That would create more of a "win" feel as well, without interfering too much with the persistent battle.

Then again, without any thoughts on the buisness aspect of the game, would we and the devs really want PS2 to go more mainstream, just to lure players in? If it's cruzial for the game to exist, then of course yes, but if that won't be the case, I'd personally appreciate the game to be more like the devs are visionizing it.

[Carnage]

every game ever made for fun, came down to one thing, personal gratification in attempting to complete something and the fun had in that. everything else you gain and spend your money on in these type of games is completely pointless.
We as games live for the storm between the calm.
Am I wrong?
Do we really care for the end game? do we really play to have it end? I play for the game, not for a finish, the finish is when the game gets boring. I don't want to play to achieve some life goal, I want to pretend I'm Ninja and blow some fking heads off and hope to make some1 on the other team hate me for doing it, when life gives me lemons, I don’t make lemonade. I make life take the lemons back! I get mad! I don’t want your damn lemons, what the hell am I supposed to do with these? I demand to see life’s manager! I make life rue the day it thought it could give Carnage lemons! Do you know who I am? I’m the man who’s gonna burn your house down! WITH THE LEMONS! I’m gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down!

[MaxDamage]

There are people trying to make excuses for weak development (idea wise).

Look at Warhammer Online for ideas.

Regular zones with regular bases, as you progress and lock zones you can work your way up to stronger much less penetrable fortresses outside of one factions home city/sanctuary - if you punish them and break these fortresses, you could lay siege to their home city itself, which was accessible only to the native faction/empire before - conquering it and leaving the natives essentially homeless, banished to an outpost.
Your team receives rewards and the conquered are punished with humiliation and lack of access to the sanc and certain facilities for precisely one hour, after which the home city/sanc (there will never be 'cities' in planetside, sadly) recovers based on time and the efforts of its empire recovering resources or accomplishing specific goals to speed it to 5 bars/stars.

The supposed lack of endgame to cont locking is not really excusable, it was a disappointment in planetside 1 when sancs were (officially if not technically) unbreachable.

It felt like something was missing, as if sanc invasions were planned and scrapped (see 'home continents').

There are solutions.
I'm not saying they've ever been perfected but for MMO with PVP-focus Warhammer Online is easily one of the best.

I certainly would have paid to play Planetside 1 for longer than the 30odd months I squeezed into 9 years if there was something more to it. Like most however, the unique gameplay, the scale and the variety was enough to keep me coming back.. why waste an opportunity?

I am very enthusiastic and optimistic about the devs commitment to the game longer term.

[sagolsun]

I share the OP's sentiment. There's little incentive to fight. It's an enless fragfest which cannot be won and cannot be lost, making it all pointless.

A lot of you will disagree with me here - that's okay. Read up on the Bartle Test - it defines 4 basic types of gamers and what drives them. Gamers have different motivations for playing a game - some play to experience the game and get lost in the graphics, atmosphere and playing your character. Some play it to get kills. Some play it to win.

http://frankcaron.com/Flogger/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/frankcaron_playerTypes_flat.png

Battlefield games has a goal, it's winning the round - just like Unreal, Chess, RISK, Civilization.

Multiplayer sandbox games tend to be different - there's no way to "win" the game. You level up, engage in PVP but ultimately there is no winning condition. The exception from this is EVE Online. It doesn't have a clear goal but caters to achievers and has medium and long term goals that result in incredible player engagement - the metagame in Eve Online is incredible.

What EVE has is long-term persistence and vulnerability. You expend effort to acquire things - build starbases or ships, pool resources to build bigger ships and starbases, fight over terrain, form alliances. All of this can be taken away - your ships and starbases destroyed, your alliance infiltrated, robbed and disbanded by a foreign agent. All of this has more weight than PS2's terrain - which sure, your faction holds, but you don't have any particular attachment to it, you won't cringe when it's lost.

There's nothing in PS2 that can be lost that you'll be unhappy about and there's nothing of substance to gain.

I have a few very general ideas on how to deepen the metagame but I need to know the game pretty damn well first, and I haven't played it yet.

------------------------

For those of you who are flat out denying that an endgoal has any meaning, you're wrong, read this article - it's about the bizarre situation where, for the first time due to a bug, it was possible to win. And lose.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/09/05/planetside-the-1/

Funny thing is, this situation the TR was in was only ever a dumb accident that resulted from a technical snafu, right? With Planetside the devs chose to create a war no one could ever lose, and in doing so they sacrificed the chance for anyone to win. But those of us that chose to stay on that day fought harder, cared more, and had more fun than we’d ever done before. For the first time it all meant something.

[Toppopia]

I agree with most people how they say it isn't the winning/losing. Its how you win/lose. I find its more fun to play games with friends and try to set a strategies and tactics. Sometimes when i am playing by myself, i get bored. Just because its me running around with no one to co-ordinate with. And i have learned to not care about win/lose ratios, they are a pointless stat because most of the time, i am on a team of randoms by myself and i can't control how well they fight or what happens. So if we are losing, i can't make my team do something different, but playing with friends, we can then change our strategy to adapt.

[VikingKong]

What other option is there? Leave it to the crazy cultists and the space nazis? I think not.

[Arrius]

When the big outfits start posting their massive battles on youtube there will be thousands of bf/cod players switching over.

Back in 2003 I was a selfish cod junkie in my prime who had to be #1 on the end of round stats and it all changed when I got PS. I joined a 80 man outfit and found out that just holding the line near an outpost felt better than getting a high deathmatch score.

One of the biggest underestimations is how meaningful the faction loyalty becomes. Add in loyalty to your outfit and if you have a few buddies in it then you won't be leaving the game anytime soon.

[Smed]

+1

hopefully, when ps2 matures a little it will gain the same feeling...

We had a press day at the office a month ago or so. One of the press guys asked me the question about the neverending fight and what's the sense of accomplishment.

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

To me the way we preach the gospel of Planetside 2 is free-to-play. I base most of my gaming habits on what my friends are playing. Sometimes I lead them to new games and a lot of the time it's the other way around. Some times I catch trends early and sometimes I'm the last guy to the party.

In this case if we make the game good enough (and we most certainly are) people will tell their friends and there will be no barrier to give it a try.

[AnamNantom]

We had a press day at the office a month ago or so. One of the press guys asked me the question about the neverending fight and what's the sense of accomplishment.

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

To me the way we preach the gospel of Planetside 2 is free-to-play. I base most of my gaming habits on what my friends are playing. Sometimes I lead them to new games and a lot of the time it's the other way around. Some times I catch trends early and sometimes I'm the last guy to the party.

In this case if we make the game good enough (and we most certainly are) people will tell their friends and there will be no barrier to give it a try.

That's ALREADY happening, sir. We vets are busy getting n00bs in. I know I am! I try to get new beta keys... I'm indoctrinating into the Vanu ;)

[RSphil]

We had a press day at the office a month ago or so. One of the press guys asked me the question about the neverending fight and what's the sense of accomplishment.

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

To me the way we preach the gospel of Planetside 2 is free-to-play. I base most of my gaming habits on what my friends are playing. Sometimes I lead them to new games and a lot of the time it's the other way around. Some times I catch trends early and sometimes I'm the last guy to the party.

In this case if we make the game good enough (and we most certainly are) people will tell their friends and there will be no barrier to give it a try.

Iv got all my friends signed up for ye beta and from what they have seen they are exited about the game. I'm hopeing they tell their friends and so on. Lookig forward to get into the beta and see how thing work then really exited for release.

[Smed]

That's ALREADY happening, sir. We vets are busy getting n00bs in. I know I am! I try to get new beta keys... I'm indoctrinating into the Vanu ;)

Thank You!

[Hamma]

Make it TR then I will thank you AnamNantom ;)

[RoninOni]

I'm trying to convince my friends it's worth buying a PC for.....

I did :lol:

[cellinaire]

I've played WW2 Online, that is an mmofps. Guess what? It has a winning team and a losing team.



Guess what? PS2 has these shiny things like 'XXX facility defended' and 'XXX base conquered'.

And I know WW2OL and also keeping my eyes on Heroes & Generals by ex-Hitman guys.

One last thing. Don't you think you're a bit overestimating the 'world reset' thing?

[AnamNantom]

You are welcome! One day I might be actually working with you guys ;)

Make it TR then I will thank you AnamNantom ;)
:) Funny thing is, the word of mouth snowball effect is bringing ppl in who are leaning that way too.

[Harasus]

Silly question: why fight? To stop the terrorist and wacko scientist scum from destroying what we have built here for hundreds of years!

:P

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

But from what we have seen, the bases are designed around the 10 minute round based FPS games. They are not set up for those epic 3 hour battles that we had in PS1.

[Harasus]

But from what we have seen, the bases are designed around the 10 minute round based FPS games. They are not set up for those epic 3 hour battles that we had in PS1.

I disagree, I think you are wrong, and I think you should watch a stream from Higby.


Yeah, I wrote up a lot of responses describing my experiences from watching Higby play around, about how it did not feel like that at all, and how it took time and determination to take a base. But screw it, it was easier to just do it like that.

[Figment]

We had a press day at the office a month ago or so. One of the press guys asked me the question about the neverending fight and what's the sense of accomplishment.

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

To me the way we preach the gospel of Planetside 2 is free-to-play. I base most of my gaming habits on what my friends are playing. Sometimes I lead them to new games and a lot of the time it's the other way around. Some times I catch trends early and sometimes I'm the last guy to the party.

In this case if we make the game good enough (and we most certainly are) people will tell their friends and there will be no barrier to give it a try.

There's however even more sense of accomplishment in closing down the last pockets of resistance and making this happen after a struggle of a day on a continent and of months if not years to make the entire world one colour.

There's a lot of pride involved in not losing all bases and a lot of bragging rights involved in taking "enemy home turf". It's these fights that make you fight hardest are the most intense and where you throw everything you have at the enemy. And I'm not talking kitchen sinks here, I'm talking all the plumbing you can find.

I'm afraid we'll never see that again in PS2 because you simply can't lock down territory. Continental conquest was like the end of a military campaign, allowing you to move on to the next. In PS2, I have no idea when I can "allow myself" to move on to other campaigns, other continents: "I'm not done here, can I ever be done here? Why am I even trying?".

We will need a global, interrelated map eventually with a sense of ownership, invasions of enemy territory and a goal of global domination. When four bases is what enemy territory consists of and even that is unattainable... It's a bit despair raising and with despair comes apathy. Apathy would be the bane to any RTS gamer that tries PS2 for conquest.

[Sunrock]

But the game never ends, not even for a second. Apparently continents can't even fully be captured (last I read?).

Whats to win? That incentive is seriously underestimated by the PS1 players. There isn't even a semblance of a true victory, which is a huge incentive this game refuses to add.

Lets take a look at the real world? Have any war been won in reality? Did WW1 really end? Did WW2 really end? Did the cold war really end?

The answer IMO is yes they where won and ended but they also opened up for new conflicts. An ending of something can also be the beginning of something else.

[Boone]

Lets take a look at the real world? Have any war been won in reality? Did WW1 really end? Did WW2 really end? Did the cold war really end?

The answer IMO is yes they where won and ended but they also opened up for new conflicts. An ending of something can also be the beginning of something else.

I agree. They could even create a "history" on your server. When you look back you can see TR "won" or "owned", however you want to go about it this month and the past few months, then VS really kicked it up in the months of Aug/Sept.

I dunno. Definetely think we need some kind of long term goal. A lot of people are content though with unlocking guns and stuff, but that only lasts til you max out (usually) not very long.

[igster]

There is objective based gameplay in there guys. It's quite well hidden with the crazy spawning mechanics at the moment but it is in there.

Try to capture and hold one of the smaller bases or a tower with a small squad. Capture and hold the control point that switches off the spawn in your favour first. Destroy/Use/Fix the spawn room generators.

Then see how long you can hold it.


The spawning mechanisms are really hurting this at the moment but some of the key gameplay elements are in there.

Whe stuff like shield generators and the max spam / instant action spam gets stomped on it will improve.

:)

[sagolsun]

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

Sure, other games love the use skinner box techniques. I agree, in the end victory in other games of this genre carries no more significance than PS2. In some ways less. And I get what you're implicitly saying here, that there's no actual difference between the separated round-based system of competing games and PS2, and that it's all a matter of viewing the problem from a different perspective.

In this case if we make the game good enough (and we most certainly are) people will tell their friends and there will be no barrier to give it a try.

And here's the point - PS2 is beyond round-based games like BF technically, why can't it have an industry-setting innovative metagame as well?

I'm no game designer, but here's the general idea: players get engaged in a game when they become attached to "stuff". That includes players - the community, weapons - the certs, and the world - and here PS2 is lacking. I can see no persistence in the world. There's no playing for keeps in PS2 because in the end you can't lose the fruits of your virtual effort - there's little attachment to the terrain control aspect, at least from my POV.

At the core, what I think is missing, is the ability to gain and lose things of value - on the level of an individual player it's potentially frustrating but on an outfit level it hits right home. Allow outfits to create valuable gameplay elements that can be destroyed. EVE online is a good example with it's non-respawnable ships and starbases. There's actual weight and significance there, even though the game itself has no end goal, like PS2. So much so the game has at the extreme end resulted an unseen before metagame of cloak&dagger activities transcending beyond the game world.

I have a few ideas and are fiddling to get some concept art done in 3ds but without getting an idea of the game, I can't tell if it's relevant.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I disagree, I think you are wrong, and I think you should watch a stream from Higby.


Yeah, I wrote up a lot of responses describing my experiences from watching Higby play around, about how it did not feel like that at all, and how it took time and determination to take a base. But screw it, it was easier to just do it like that.

In BF's conquest mode or CoD's Domination mode, they have you capture a few loacations on the map. For every X amount of time you hold those you gain ponits till you get to the goal. Base captures in PS2 are exactly that.

The bases are not set up like forts to hold in PS1, but instead are very open and layed out like a map in BF or CoD. They seem a lot like the caves from PS1, lots of small buildings, and we all know how much people loved those... So, you run around and capture points like BF to fill your ticker and it takes about 10-15 minutes, just like a round in BF. There is no seige, you do not have to break through the walls into the CY, then force your way into the base. Most bases don't even have walls and there is no base to get in, its just all open.

So yes, capturing a base is more like playing a round of BF and almost nothing like playing PS1.

[MaxDamage]

The more I read up on Planetside 2 in the forums, the weaker it sounds. Not only are they not expanding on territory capture, to conquer home bases but you can't even lock continents. There is no 'win', and as Higby explains that people just want to login and shoot, his sheep and the apologists wowed by prettier graphics are falling over themselves to agree. This had so much potential, instead of raising the game they're making it meaningless. When did America become Britain under Marxist-themed left wing Labour rule with their 'nobody loses, nobody wins' motto for schools? Surely the Olympics would remind people of the joy in fighting, rooting for your home team and winning. "it's taking part that counts" is what you say to people who tried their best, but who wouldn't if there wasn't something, some goal at the end of this.

There absolutely IS satisfaction in the teamwork it takes to break a continent, holding off both empires and locking it for your team.

There absolutely IS fun in being on the other side of that, the last stand scenario - punishing the masses of enemy insanely outnumbered but from the strength of a well fortified (and doored/gated) stronghold, fighting to the last man, to the last damned broken spawntube.

Hopefully a few people will stick around in the original game, some of us seem destined to return.

[Syphus]

I was gonna respond to your comment until I realized you just wanted to rant and talk about apologists and make fun of British people, as opposed to have a real discussion.

[Piper]

Because it's better than fighting for bent territory.

The Bending.

[MaxDamage]

I was gonna respond to your comment until I realized you just wanted to rant and talk about apologists and make fun of British people, as opposed to have a real discussion.

British people? The Labour party are not 'the British people'.
It's difficult to have a discussion with people who are sycophantic to devs and make excuses for poor choices.

A few choice pseudoquotes:
'I just want to go in game and blow shit up!'
Maybe you do, maybe many of us played the original Planetside which was an escape from mindless fragging; and like more incentive and strategy/goals in game; whilst allowing plenty of room for those who enjoyed the simple things in life (blowing shit up).

'Think about real wars, they don't end do they!'
I can't believe you said this. I am not suggesting we conquer enemies home continents and then spend 20 years debating whether it was morally right, sending in aid packages and financial support for the homeless and installing a puppet regime to suit our needs. Just a goal that should be achievable realistically within a couple of days or a week.

'People used to round based games just want their 'win' addiction satiated'
Really.
I like how this argument is supposed to suggest that random killing, and taking over individual bases for no reason other than taking them over is somehow superior to staging a more complex campaign where you can do all of that, to greater and more satisfying ends (as is possible to a limited but still satisfying degree in planetside 1).

Please think before you type.

You're damned right I want to win.
You're damned right I want glory!

The colour and size of the shoulderpads on your suit should not be the only thing that communicates a semblance of 'progress'.
I know SOE has feminist leanings (female only scholarship programmes) but the vast majority of people who play this game WILL be heterosexual males, we don't want a fashion show; we want bloodshed, glory, strategy, competition, honour (or dishonour if that's your calling) and the ability not only to win, but to stamp your jackboot and flag into the enemy's broken and lifeless forms.

We thrive on this, and it drives us.
Wargames are a healthy alternative to the real thing.

Grow some.

[sagolsun]

The more I read up on Planetside 2 in the forums, the weaker it sounds. Not only are they not expanding on territory capture, to conquer home bases but you can't even lock continents. There is no 'win', and as Higby explains that people just want to login and shoot, his sheep and the apologists wowed by prettier graphics are falling over themselves to agree. This had so much potential, instead of raising the game they're making it meaningless. When did America become Britain under Marxist-themed left wing Labour rule with their 'nobody loses, nobody wins' motto for schools? Surely the Olympics would remind people of the joy in fighting, rooting for your home team and winning. "it's taking part that counts" is what you say to people who tried their best, but who wouldn't if there wasn't something, some goal at the end of this.

There absolutely IS satisfaction in the teamwork it takes to break a continent, holding off both empires and locking it for your team.

There absolutely IS fun in being on the other side of that, the last stand scenario - punishing the masses of enemy insanely outnumbered but from the strength of a well fortified (and doored/gated) stronghold, fighting to the last man, to the last damned broken spawntube.

Hopefully a few people will stick around in the original game, some of us seem destined to return.


Edit your message, trim the unneccessary whining and remove the inaccurate metaphors please. Under all that emotional venting and offtopic there's an accurate opinion I agree with.

[Cheetah]

Yeah, I agree MD, you have a point. Locking an entire continent should be possible for sure. Then give the victors a week of control, extended by a week more if they conquer yet one, so potentially, but extremly rarely, a faction could win it all.

[Ruffdog]

Footholds have their work cut out to convince me. I have an open mind but like someone else said, once you've pushed an empire that far back, under what circumstances are you going to stay and warpgate watch, or find the next hotspot?
It seems to me there will be no particular call to respond to a cont under threat because all conts will be under threat all the time. Cont change will be a player/outfit choice. Will have to wait how it plays and with the resources.

[RoninOni]

I agree. They could even create a "history" on your server. When you look back you can see TR "won" or "owned", however you want to go about it this month and the past few months, then VS really kicked it up in the months of Aug/Sept.

I dunno. Definetely think we need some kind of long term goal. A lot of people are content though with unlocking guns and stuff, but that only lasts til you max out (usually) not very long.

If you're a F2P player, apparently it will take quite long indeed.

They say 3 years to unlock everything (that does include all 3 factions...)

Anyways, when they add seamless continents then whole continent takeovers will become possible.

Watch your surrounding Isles :cool:

[PhoenixDog]

Trust me, OP...You see a patch note in the beta that says they'll be testing a "Win Condition"....If you can even imagine what a forum riot would look like...It'd be worse with the kind of dedication this community has.

Hell, Higby's already tweeted that they'll be returning to 10-man squads, up from 6. Beta was what...2 days old? A win condition is much much worse than 6 man squads. They had planned from the beginning to have 6-man squads, and build a lot of mechanics around 6 people (Galaxies and Sunderers holding 12 for example).

[sagolsun]

Trust me, OP...You see a patch note in the beta that says they'll be testing a "Win Condition"....If you can even imagine what a forum riot would look like...It'd be worse with the kind of dedication this community has.

Hell, Higby's already tweeted that they'll be returning to 10-man squads, up from 6. Beta was what...2 days old? A win condition is much much worse than 6 man squads. They had planned from the beginning to have 6-man squads, and build a lot of mechanics around 6 people (Galaxies and Sunderers holding 12 for example).

Read this please:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/09/05/planetside-the-1/

It appears that other PS1 veterans are disagreeing with you there. They're claiming the locked sanctuary bug, essentially a win condition, turned out to be the most epic, unforgettable and momentous event of the game. It even led to a temporary NC/VS alliance.

[Bamelin]

No....

There's 3 continents (at launch)

If you're faction takes a continent... well, all but the landing zone hexes... then your faction holds that continent.

You've still got 2 more continents to fight over. AND at ANY TIME OF DAY another faction can storm the landing zone and start trying to occupy territories... UP TO NEARLY 700 OF THEM... oh no... it's NEVER over.

I mean... is this next generation so spoon fed fake digital "rewards" that they need some superficial video game victory screen to feel good about their gaming session?

THE POINT OF THE GAME IS THE GAME ITSELF

To that end holding territory increases your Factions resource generation... allowing your faction to field MORE tanks, buy MORE weapons & Accessories, and run with Implant upgrades more often.

How is that not incentive to gain and hold territory? :huh:

bloody hell.

Taking a major base in the game I think is also going to be a big deal requiring massive coordination between outfits ... with a real sense if having "won" at least that battle.

[XxAxMayxX]

for every territory there are new resources and since the game is going 24 7 its really impressive to see an entire continent taken by u.

[FuzzyandBlue]

Read this please:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/09/05/planetside-the-1/

It appears that other PS1 veterans are disagreeing with you there. They're claiming the locked sanctuary bug, essentially a win condition, turned out to be the most epic, unforgettable and momentous event of the game. It even led to a temporary NC/VS alliance.

If that chance to win was always there this story never would have happened. It was unforgettable and momentous because it was a once in a lifetime thing. The more common something is the less appreciated it will be.

I see a lot of people focusing on cont locking. From what I've read(not a PS1 vet) it gave a great sense of accomplishment. I can understand why. You take base after base and finally push the other empires of the continent entirely. You then get to look at the map and see you control the continent.

As the Meta game of PS2 develops you will see outfits organize to take a series of hexes as their campaign rather than trying to lock a continent. As far as I know the continents in PS2 will be far larger than those in PS1 with more points that would need to be held. This alone makes a cont lock more difficult, even if we don't factor in footholds.

[Sunrock]

Just like to throw in my 2 cent here...

The only way to make a meaningful PvP game is to fight over territory and resources. Any other reason and you will eventually stop care about the fight. And when you stop care about the fight you will get bored and when you get bored you quit playing.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

As far as I know the continents in PS2 will be far larger than those in PS1

They actually seem a little smaller. Maybe about the same size, but you can get from 1 side to the other a lot faster than you could in PS1.

with more points that would need to be held.

It's about the same. The outposts just take a little longer to cap than the towers in PS1, and do have more meaning to them though. The random tower in the middle of nowhere in PS1 could be left unhacked, but you will want every last outpost because of the influence/resources you get from owning hexes.

This alone makes a cont lock more difficult, even if we don't factor in footholds.

Not really. Bases flip quickly now, 10 minute BF match instead of a long siege with a 15 minute hack and hold. It also looked like most of the small outposts only had 1 or 2 points and flipped in under 2 minutes, were as a PS1 tower could be flipped instantly or could take a LONG time if it had a lot of people defending it.


What does look like it will make cont locking more difficult is the hex system with a lack of a lattice. People can go anywhere and hack anything at anytime. With the small outposts only taking under 2 minutes they can just keep back hacking those to annoy you.

[Kipper]

I'm assuming that while its in beta, everything is up for grabs in terms of game mechanics?

If large scale testing shows that bases are being flipped too quickly or too slowly, they can alter the global capture times until its right, or the design of any troublesome facilities if its just one area that has a problem.

If it shows that backhacking is so rampant that it makes the map completely random, they can (without removing the option to operate in enemy territory) simply make it more difficult to do - longer capture times for disconnected facilities, automatic alerts when enemies are in a base they aren't connected by at least one hex to, etc?

What I'm saying is - I got the impression so far that there is nothing about the gameplay they won't change if they think its nescessary to.

As for the argument about win/lose - I definitely don't see how PS2 can be less meaningful than any area shooter - in which winning and losing are things you don't really control anyway? Take a game of WoT for example - 15 people per side and no respawn, all random people - I've had games where I've been the first to die and the team went on to win. I've had games where I've personally and single handedly destroyed 5 (thats ONE THIRD) of the enemy and the team still went on to lose, and I've had games that fall anywhere between those two extremes. This isn't satisfying - you can play badly and end up with a good score because your team won and you got a multiplier. You can play awesomely and your score will be wrecked because your side went on to lose anyway (which is annoying, because you end up being punished for something that wasn't your fault, or rewarded for something you didn't really do).

Not only do I think arena shooters (as fun as they can be) have no real persistence other than your kill stats, but I really don't think that people have as much influence over winning or losing them as they think they do.

[DiabloTigerSix]

THE POINT OF THE GAME IS THE GAME ITSELF
This. It seems that the modern generation of "gamers" has hard time understanding the true essence of games. If you can't enjoy a game without it telling you how awesome you are and constantly rewarding you every 5 seconds with meaningless gimmicks, then you're not a gamer. You're just addicted to stupid fake mechanics, just like a gambler.

Thank easy-to-get-into dumbed down modern mainstream shooters full of gambling elements for luring in rivers people who would've never got into "gaming" otherwise.

[sagolsun]

This. It seems that the modern generation of "gamers" has hard time understanding the true essence of games. If you can't enjoy a game without it telling you how awesome you are and constantly rewarding you every 5 seconds with meaningless gimmicks, then you're not a gamer. You're just addicted to stupid fake mechanics, just like a gambler.

Thank easy-to-get-into dumb down modern mainstream shooters full of gambling elements for luring in rivers people who would've never got into "gaming" otherwise.

Well I'm not a gamer then. Even though I remember going to game conferences and gawking at a Hexen demo or scraping cash because my 386 couldn't run Doom. Even though I made a few games myself I'm apparently not a true gamer, just a gambler falling for cheap gimmicks.

Thanks for letting me know.

[Pancake]

Honestly, from what I have seen (Higby vids so no NDA) it is very easy to capture a base/point. However, it is extremely difficult to hold onto it unless you have a dedicated defensive force.

When beta goes open, I would hope to see outfits assign individual squads specific bases to defend. That would make attacking a base a real challenge and create a better gameplay atmosphere.

[Zeruel]

The answer to the Question is quite simple:

Fun.

Otherwise you could also argument with any other game what the case of playing it would be. Whats the use of playing WoW? Whats the use of playing Solitair? Whats the use of Breathing? Whats the use of Life?

[Piper]

This. It seems that the modern generation of "gamers" has hard time understanding the true essence of games. If you can't enjoy a game without it telling you how awesome you are and constantly rewarding you every 5 seconds with meaningless gimmicks, then you're not a gamer. You're just addicted to stupid fake mechanics, just like a gambler.

Thank easy-to-get-into dumb down modern mainstream shooters full of gambling elements for luring in rivers people who would've never got into "gaming" otherwise.

Indeed.

Gaming also got bitten by the inherent consumerism bug frankly. It's not really a new thing in online gaming of course, RE: "bank sitters" posing in UO way back when. However somewhere down the line gamers, that is I want to say, more modern gamers have started to equate "owning" virtual pixel crap with gameplay.

Developers, keen to sell people stuff to "own" on accounts that aren't actually theirs in the first place, (and because it's much easier to create a piece of pixel fluff with a slightly different texture to flog to said modern gamers rather than code something different to do in game) have only fueled this fire.

It is yet another reason why PS1 stood out at the time of launch, and did for quite sometime (up until the cruddy Achievement system patch which was an unmitigated waste of code/time/energy). We were there to play the game, to do stuff, to hope to do stuff better than our adversaries. Be it as an individual, a squad, an outfit or an empire. A close run hack 'n' hold in PS1 that went down the wire where you didn't even get the base in the end was still enjoyable and no one in sight was trying to sell me a gimmicky reskin.


In short, too much owning of virtual crap in games today, too little raw, no frills, competition wherein the enjoyment comes just from that.

It's all rather depressing. :(

Marvin song

[Kipper]

In short, too much owning of virtual crap in games today, too little raw, no frills, competition wherein the enjoyment comes just from that.

Its a perfect extension of the current system of real world consumer capitalism - we've been told that we're better and more successful if we have more, expensive stuff than other people. Games companies are just applying real world mechanics to their games.

Also a trend I've noticed in a few games - it used to be that you'd buy a game for £30 and play it till you were bored or finished it, and that was it. Only if you went to an amusement arcade did you have to keep paying to play something - which was fine because they used to be way better games than you could get at home.

Now I've noticed that with free to play, some (not all) games are trying to get you to pay constantly to play the game, either by making it so you simply can't play if you don't *keep* paying - or making it so that if you're playing for free, you will NEVER, EVER get anywhere.

I hope PS2 goes down the middle and gives you enough reward to mean that you can play for free and feel like you can get somewhere, but pay occasionally if you want to advance quicker. I don't mind F2P being slower to unlock things, but I do mind it if its completely gimped with stuff removed that makes you less competitive and feel like you have to pay to be able to do anything with it.

[Cheetah]

When I posted this thread, I hadn't really any specific notions myself other than flying around with a coordinated outfit. I was merely curious to see how other players felt about a never ending battle. Now from reading through the various perspectives and opinions, I've reached a personal conclusion on the matter:

In round-based FPS's you play to win that single round. In PS a base-capture and expanding territory are what mostly correspond to that 'win-condition'. So in that perspective PS is not lacking any general elements that round-based FPS's have. However, with the quite unique persistent battle that PS is the epitome of, game itself have the possibility to take it even further than that territory conquering feel, and create something of a VERY grand finale. This could simply be the potential annihalition of one or both other factions on a continent. It seems to be a thrilling experience for both the loosing and winning side, and it won't hinder any of the other 'focused-on-the-gameplay-itself' perspectives.

Granting the lock down possibility seems really to satisfy all perspectives. You have an ultimate win condition, but to get there you most likely have a never-ending battle to go through. Still, just having the possibility to kick out a faction from a continent, or the other way, to see one's faction get kicked out from a continent, can only add to the excitement of and motivation for the game as a whole. The only real job for the devs would be to figure out the details how a faction re-enter. And assuming it would happen extremly rarely, it's really not much of a job at all.

This seems to be my conclusion...

[Piper]

This seems to be my conclusion...

And it's a good one (quote snipped for quote brevity). From what I can see of PS2 that is in public domain* there might be a bit of a lack of a BIG thing for collectives of players from squads through outfits to "empires" (the " " because of fourth empiring) to aim at.

Zero basing, Sanc' locking, Warpgate camping were perhaps negative outcomes of a desire by collectives to achieve the positive goal of global domination in PS1. But having the a big, rare to see, goal to aim at would only help PS2 I would like to think.



*NDANDANDANDANDANDANDNANDANDAN