A Winnable PS? Dev Discussion read inside.

[MrVicchio]

(*(**( REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION HERE THOUGHT YOU GUYS MIGHT LIKE IT )**)*)
Author Topic: will inability to actually WIN cause frustration?
Glaed
Station Member
Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-27-2002 09:54 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the thing - in most games you have the possibility of ultimate victory - you reach a certain number of flag captures (CTF), or you kill all of the enemy (last man standing), or whatever. It seems that in Planetside there is ultimately no victory condition. The faction "sanctuary" or home base cannot be taken over. Plus, I imagine that as an empire gets progressively more taken over, the concentration of players at the remaining locations will increase (because they will be forced to spawn in ever fewer locations), thus at some point it will be impossible to take certain facilities, because there will be far too many enemies spawning there.
So, with it's emphasis on constant war, won't you start wondering what the point is? After all, if you can never really win, what IS the point? You can never claim victory...and the idea that you actually make a difference in this persistent world is kind of false, don't you think? No matter what you do, at some point your enemy will recover and put you on the defensive, and so on...

Seems to me like it might make more sense if they allowed victory to take place, and then the server was reset. They could allow you to retain certs, experience, stats and so on, but you would know that for, say, the month of March, your empire WON!!! You'd have bragging rights. What kind of bragging rights will you have with the current setup - we own more continents than you, for a little while?

********** DEV REPLY *************
****************** DEV REPLY *******************
SmokeJumperPS
Station Admin
Registered: Sep 2001 posted 11-27-2002 10:08 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glaed,
Just discussing here:

a) What do you "win" in Counterstrike or Tribes 2 that is not transient? The games reset every 20-30 minutes erasing all record of the game that you just played.

b) Do CS or T2 keep permanent statistics on your character, clan, or games? No...but Planetside does...and we'll make ya famous if you (or your Outfit) is doing well. (Something you have to do manually outside of those other games and which hasn't been very effective to-date.)

c) Yes, you may lose the Technology Plant you just captured, but the fight was good, and the folks you were with will remember the fight...just like in other games. And I think that eventually you will work with a very large group of people to do coordinated strikes against bases and continents in some seriously raging battles. It's a whole different level of challenge.

Okay...those things being said, the intangible thing I *think* you're talking about is that moment of winning at the end of a 20-minute game of T2 (or whatever). I agree...that's a good thrill. But I believe that the first time you work with several Outfits to do coordinated strikes on multiple continents to achieve continental locks (or other things we haven't unveiled yet), by surprise in prime time, then you'll be VERY happy with the game.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. You'll decide later if I'm right or wrong here.

***** FORUM HOUNDS REPSONSE TO DEV **********

Glaed
Station Member
Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-27-2002 12:09 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by smokejumper:
a) What do you "win" in Counterstrike or Tribes 2 that is not transient? The games reset every 20-30 minutes erasing all record of the game that you just played.
b) Do CS or T2 keep permanent statistics on your character, clan, or games? No...but Planetside does...and we'll make ya famous if you (or your Outfit) is doing well. (Something you have to do manually outside of those other games and which hasn't been very effective to-date.)

c) Yes, you may lose the Technology Plant you just captured, but the fight was good, and the folks you were with will remember the fight...just like in other games. And I think that eventually you will work with a very large group of people to do coordinated strikes against bases and continents in some seriously raging battles. It's a whole different level of challenge.

Okay...those things being said, the intangible thing I *think* you're talking about is that moment of winning at the end of a 20-minute game of T2 (or whatever). I agree...that's a good thrill. But I believe that the first time you work with several Outfits to do coordinated strikes on multiple continents to achieve continental locks (or other things we haven't unveiled yet), by surprise in prime time, then you'll be VERY happy with the game.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. You'll decide later if I'm right or wrong here


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

I'll address each of these points in order:

a) I'm not talking about casual pick-up games, I'm talking about competetive ladder play, the kind that clans/tribes (i.e. those forming outfits) live to play for. A victory in this context means a lot more than one in a pick-up.

b) Well, T2 does sort of, but that aside, you're right. This is a good point.

c) I'm not saying the battle won't be good, or the feeling of victory in that case won't be satisfying. What I'm talking about is a feeling of frustration that may come from the fact that yes, you won that Technology Plant, but so what? It's not going to advance your cause against the enemy, because you CAN'T WIN. You can never rid the world completely of your enemies.

Overall, I think the game will be a blast, and I'm looking forward to it more than I've looked forward to any game before. But imagine something along these lines:

As months of furious fighting pass, the Vanu and the NC decide that it would be in their best interest to tackle the TR together. So they coordinate their offensive and bring it to the TR as hard as they can. This offensive is highly effective. After several weeks of hard fighting and careful planning and strategizing, the TR is down to one continent.

The fight continues. Hard work is waged by each side, but the TR just can't keep defending. Finally, they are down to their final sanctuary. They are trapped inside the building, which is ringed by thousands of Vanu and NC troops. Defeat is certain. Except that defeat is impossible, because of game design...wouldn't this be frustrating?

This is obviously a fictitious scenario, and perhaps parts of it are impossible, maybe the Vanu and the NC can't work together or whatever. But I'm talking more about the concept. A war waged ceaselessly across continents is all fun and good when it comes to participating in battles, but a big focus of this game is the idea that we are fighting for domination of an entire planet. But that goal is always out of reach.

[CONT'D]


Glaed
Station Member
Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-27-2002 12:10 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[CONT'D - post was too large]
I almost think it would make more sense to have a set up where winning is possible, but due to game balancing it is very difficult and thus may take months. I think the game would still qualify as persistent if it was around for months, instead of just 20-30 minutes like most FPSs. And what happens if it becomes very clear that one of the empires HAS lost, even though that is technically impossible? i.e. whenever you spawn at the sanctuary, as soon as you leave you are dead, because the enemy just controls everything. Would game reset be considered in that situation, or would the devs take matters into their own hands and help the defeated empire in some way, either through forced or rewarded recruitment, or through gifts of technology or weapons that will allow them to come back?

Once again, I am very excited about this, I will play and a lot of people from my tribe will as well, we are already working on forming an outfit and so on. But I can see some of the more impatient and winning-focused members of our outfit getting frustrated if it becomes clear that they will never win the war, especially if the way things turn out is a kind of ebb-and-flow war: you take over a bunch of enemy continents, until they are rather concentrated in small areas - then because of this concentration, your attacking efforts are no longer successful, they turn the tide, retake their land and push you into a fairly small area - but now YOU are concentrated, so you push them back - wash, rinse, repeat.

Then again, this is all hypothetical. You're right, the proof is in the pudding. I'm going to play, period. And from what I've seen so far, the devs have done a lot of thinking about this (a lot more than me), I'm going to have faith and hope that if things turn out like this, the devs will take appropriate steps to ensure that play is "meaningful" - at least, as meaningful as a game can be.

[MrVicchio]

*** DEVS REPLY ****** DEVS REPLY ***** DEVS REPLY *****

SmokeJumperPS
Station Admin
Registered: Sep 2001 posted 11-27-2002 12:51 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glaed,
Thanks for the well-thought out post. I think you're right...for some people...and the topic you've brought up is something we've discussed at length.

We've bantered about the idea of setting up servers that have time length victory conditions, or some spectacularly difficult victory conditions that would cause a reset of servers after announcing a winner.

Those things may happen. We'll be watching the game in beta very, very carefully and listening hard. Lots of things can happen. But we're going to try and swing the 24/7 concept first...simply because it's the hardest challenge. The other stuff is easy in comparison. The other ideas may still exist side-by-side with the more persistent servers. We'll see.

http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/planetside/Forum2/HTML/000362.html

[Hamma]

Interesting thread :eek:

[MrVicchio]

It was more then the usual info in the Dev posts, thought you might like it :)


Your friendly Forum Hound :)

[Zumthor]

I agree with Glaed. I think the servers should reset every 6 months or so. Characters and Certs and everything should carry over, but all the bases and stuff should be reset and a winner should be announced. I would rather loose than never have anyone win.

[Zarparchior]

Just to give thanks where credit is due:

Thanks MrVicchio! Hounding this so us lazy opinionated people can just post on this forum is exceedingly noble of you. You get 3 thumbs up!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

As for this: HOGWASH. What people fail to realize is that all games are like this. For example, in CS, TFC, the godly Natural Selection, or T2 you *do* fight the same fights over again with no change. You won a game of NS? Congrats! It has no effect on your future games whatsoever. You will play that same map again, even, so all you worked for previously was for null. Look familar?

As for bragging rights, the same thing occurs: "We took your base more than you took ours. Neener neener!" As opposed to: "We won more games than you. Neener neener!"

Is it me or do I see direct similarities? ;)

[Zumthor]

Good point

[Tobias]

All your Base Are Belong To Vanu!

[sYn pHrEAk]

A winnable PlanetSide would be totally unacceptable. I agree the unwinnable way would be bizarre if two sides just happened to both start hammering on the third side and not each other and that third side just never died. This is the only real problem I see with there not ever being a winner. I hope they figure out some way to prevent this.

However, the winnable PS senario brings about a couple of problems. First of all one of the ways that this could be implemented mentioned was to have a timelimit.....

A timelimit....... GH3Y!!
When was the last time you saw countries at war go, "Well, it was great fighting with you guys for these six months but that was the time limit so we have to set everything back the same and start over!" Bah. Besides it would be upsetting if one side had just started doing a good job controlling a large majority of the bases and then OOPS reboot start over. The unwinnable game will reset itself over time by the groups fighting back to regain their lost territory.

Another yet unmentioned problem is this: VS manages to take over NC's last base while defending themselves against the TR. But the TR starts attacking harder and all the NC bases VS has gained are spread out evenly between VS and TR. The battle between these two lasts a long time. What about the hippies... er I mean NC? They just can't play their characters on that server until TR and VS finish it up? Or are they forced to join one of the two remaining sides and learn all the new equipment just because they got beat? I don't think anyone would think of this as acceptable (but please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

So it all depends on how you view the game. If you see the game as a quest to take over the planet and totally annihilate the other 2 groups, then you will never get a total sense of victory or defeat. I could see where this would get frustrating.

However, if you look at each battle for a base as a game of Quake or Tribes, then PS won't be much different than the two for you. PS shouldn't frustrate you at all. Your outfit attacks a base and if you take it over, you won. If you don't you lost. Or you're defending a base and get attacked. If you lose it, you lost. If you defend it successfully, you won! Just like a regular FPS (with either a lot of walking, driving, riding, or sitting around in between each game.) Everyone will just have to look at the game like this or be frustrated at never winning.

Just a last thought, do people in EQ ever complain about not winning? there is no ultimate end for them. But thats another point to argue another day. :D

[�io]

Well as i said in the thread i think a time limit would be cool. A HUGE time limit but still a timelimit none the less. I mean after a year of constant battle with no winner you start getting bored.

[Hamma]

I would not mind seperate servers for such a gametype.

But the idea is for it to be a persistant world, its what originally got me hooked on the idea of this game. I've played enough 30 minute rounds of various games for it to get old after a while ;)

Doesent matter if the timelimit is 5 minutes or 5 months. It's the same 'ol

[Zarparchior]

Originally posted by sYn pHrEAk
Another yet unmentioned problem is this: VS manages to take over NC's last base while defending themselves against the TR. But the TR starts attacking harder and all the NC bases VS has gained are spread out evenly between VS and TR. The battle between these two lasts a long time. What about the hippies... er I mean NC? They just can't play their characters on that server until TR and VS finish it up? Or are they forced to join one of the two remaining sides and learn all the new equipment just because they got beat? I don't think anyone would think of this as acceptable (but please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

So it all depends on how you view the game. If you see the game as a quest to take over the planet and totally annihilate the other 2 groups, then you will never get a total sense of victory or defeat. I could see where this would get frustrating.

Just a last thought, do people in EQ ever complain about not winning? there is no ultimate end for them. But thats another point to argue another day. :D

Holy cripes... You bring up some good unmentioned points! The example of the eliminated team is one I never really thought about until now... Kudos to you. :D

While the EQ one is also a good example, people would say, "well, i want to shoot people with my snipr rifle JOIN VANU WE ROCK and eq sux0rs." I, for one, have no comeback for that. :p

[sYn pHrEAk]

I mean after a year of constant battle with no winner you start getting bored.

So they declare Vanu winner and it starts over the constant fighting again. Theres maybe 5 minutes of no fighting because they're resetting the servers, then its back to constant fighting just with base control reset to how it was day one. I don't see where it would make that big of a difference other than nullifying any recent hard work that had been done.

Another example: Say there was a Quake Capture the Flag server without any time limits or capture limits. People come and play and play and play and play and play and play and play. At any point (hours to years) you can decide who is winning in two ways. You could take the total captures and see which team is winning. Or you could take like a log and split up the captures into 30 minute sections and get a total Win/Loss count. In most cases both methods would reveal the same team as the winning team at that point. So whats the point of splitting it up into Wins and Losses? :confused: You tell me....

[�io]

The difference is you have a defined winner not just a winner of the moment.

[Tobias]

While the EQ one is also a good example, people would say, "well, i want to shoot people with my snipr rifle JOIN VANU WE ROCK and eq sux0rs." I, for one, have no comeback for that. Im Vanu and i play Eq.... of course it never ends. But the High end game is boaring as snot mosta the time. And us druids have little place in it.

[sYn pHrEAk]

hrm... ok...

i just don't like the start over thing... i want extreme persistence....

would declaring winner as whoever controlled the most stuff at 11:59PM on the last day of the month the winner for that month be defined enough? and then they not reset anything it just keeps going....

[�io]

Oh yeah btw EQ is not a good example. That is a MMORPG.

It's not simply killing the enemy, there is leveling, many different classes, spells, weapons, enemies,mazes,etc.

[Tobias]

but in the end game each class has its roles, and they nerfed mod rods so now mages just summon people who get there late....and druids (thats me) just get people there. Oh and i back up heal if its needed and not just CH rotation. That 2250 or what ever partal CH for loads of manna was a slap in the face...am i ranting about eq again?


and there are not really mazes, us die hard players have maps to every zone in the game that we could ever visit. I even know doga and nurga by heart from when i farmed them in my low 50's. *snif* those were the days. I guess some lowbies still go into befallen and get lost now and again though.

[sYn pHrEAk]

Originally posted by Dio
EQ is not a good example.

yah i know thats why i didn't go too far into it :D

[Tobias]

*twitch* *twitch*

[Ginzue]

What server do u play on as you druid?

[m0rphiu5]

i would have to say that someone must win, a time limit would be shite, but possibly some near impossible vitory condition, the only problem i foresee is what to do with the eliminated players......

posssibly, once the a team is eliminated the players become 'ghosts', unseen or seen it makes little difference..... they could go to places and basically whatch the action. Also i propose that once a team is eliminated a time limit should be put on the fight between the remaining two empires (a week or so), that way once it hs ended the server is reset and everyone gets back to fighting normally...

as i see it this situation is extremely unlikely, but it would be if nothing else an attainable goal to destroy an empire

[Sytadel]

How about this?

As we all know there is ten continents. Essentially for it to be over for any player or team, ALL ten contienents must be taken. Why reset the entire server when we can just reset one continent? Say Vanu is sorrounded, they're basically dead. New Conglomerate has 6 bases, and Terran have the other 4. In order to balance the game, suddenly, a continent with the best NC:Terran unit ratio (6:4 in this case) is 'wiped'. All players on it are ordered to go to the nearest warp gate and evacuate the country - or possibly a dialog pops up that allows them to warp to any of the other continents. Afterwards, the whole continent is given to the near-dead Vanu. While they're weak and have suffered considerably, they're in a position where with decent tactics they'll be able to try and reclaim some more bases on other continents.

This would be a good compromise - the game would still be endless, but there would be a sense of 'victory' by forcing the players to get a free-continent. You could even count how often this happens.

Anyway... yeah, that's my idea. I certainly think that a time limit (whether it be 5 minutes, 5 months, or 5 years) would be a bad idea.

[Incompetent]

The fight continues. Hard work is waged by each side, but the TR just can't keep defending. Finally, they are down to their final sanctuary. They are trapped inside the building, which is ringed by thousands of Vanu and NC troops. Defeat is certain. Except that defeat is impossible, because of game design...wouldn't this be frustrating?

I just want to comment on this arguement, even if it were possible to get into this situation, SOMEONE would clip an ally, and then it would escalate and give the TR a MASSIVE advantage. Also, i think we need to take drop pods into account. If everyone on the server is assualting a home base, the defenders are going to be dropping all over their undefenced bases. Not to mention more then a few would probably try to use there pods as bombs, bombarding the immediate area outside there base.

Anyways i don't want there to be the possibility for total victory, all the motivation i need is the person shooting at me, and i would hate to be the odd man out for a month while the Vanu and NC finish the fight.

[Meckon]

Originally posted by Incompetent

I Also, i think we need to take drop pods into account. If everyone on the server is assualting a home base, the defenders are going to be dropping all over their undefenced bases. Not to mention more then a few would probably try to use there pods as bombs, bombarding the immediate area outside there base.


You can't drop in to someones "Area of Control" I think its called... so you'd have to drop at least a km away and assualt from there...

As for the game persistency... It wasn't looking to good for the Allies in the second world war there for a bit... but they came back (yay), to have the war end at a specific time regardless of conditions is stupid, as it doesn't give a side to mount an epic comeback. Also, I would think it really horrible to have one empire finally start to gain the upper hand and then have the server reset...

As for players whose empire get eliminated, well, you'll probably hate one empire more then another, so join the one that will give you a chance to extract some vengence! Don't like being on a team you weren't on to begin with,? well fight harder next time.

I'll play no matter what, but this will be the biggest Vietnam "what are we fighting for" game ever if it has a time limit or other mode other then apsolute conquest...

I would be in favour of differnent servers having different gametypes...that would seem to be the best most obvious solution

[Incompetent]

Someone elses base, nothing says you can't drop in your own

[Mtx]

Just like in CS, I'll play PlanetSide for the stats.

IMO when you know there can never be an absolute victory you tend to relax and have a bit more fun.

If I want to play some hardcore competition I'll play CS. If I want to go into battle with hundreds of other people and take part in WW3.. I'll play PS. :D

[MrVicchio]

Wow, contentiosu issue!
A winnable PS should be implimented, if they can find the right formulea. But, time limits is the worst option IMHO, I wouldn't buy the game if they did that.

[Tobias]

a winnable one will get real old real fast with the Vanu winning all the time.

[SandTrout]

Lets just not have elimination of one empire at a time.

Say the VS and NC have the TR pushed back to one base that cannot be taken.

Then the NC breaks the triety with VS and atacks them, forceing them back to their 1, untakeable base.

Durring this offencive, the TR has a chance to atack from their one untakeable base.

For this sceneario, lets just say they cant break the NC blockade of their base.

Once the NC controls all the outposts on all the Continents except the untakeable bases of the other 2 empires, victory is declared, and the server resets.

Certs/implants are carried over, but the war begins anew. This kind of victory would be extreamly hard to accomplish, because you have to keep an entire empire inside of one base, while tying to beat down the other.

This kind of victory would also most likely only occur on a server with horable population imbalances. It would be pretty much imposslible for an empire to win, but it gives a goal to work towards.

[sYn pHrEAk]

Sandtrout:

sure as long as its extremely extremely unlikely i'll go with that... the whole work the other two down to one base thing...

won't happen though even on population imbalances... empires with less people get more HP and possibly other upgrades to even it out...

And yeah Tobias is right... us Vanu would win everytime and the everyone else would get tired of it...

[m0rphiu5]

lol u crazy scientists are all the same...... clone this, research that.....

see how it holds up in battle when u face the brute force and ignorance of NC.....

[sYn pHrEAk]

Bah... you hippies will be so stoned in battle all we'll have to do is sit back and watch you blast each other...

"duuuude... the colors are swirlin, maaan... wooooahhh..... you're yellow and blue and purple and red and.... oooh maaaan you must be some vanu experiment..." says billy just before he wastes his buddy jimmy....

[m0rphiu5]

we shall see syn phreak, we shall see

right i had nuf of this hatred thats formin wetween empires, each has advantages and disadvantages,

*to the undecided player* "go with the empire that best suits you, not what others are forcing you to think"

oh n btw NC are not a bunch of hippies, we are no more hippies than vanu are mad scientists.

to those that want to continue the pointless insult war, go right ahead.aa *thinks to self, fools*

[Tobias]

but we win all the computer geeks and twitchy gamers, because
1) we are what everyone computer geek wants: a Tecroarchy (sp?).
2) we have hot Vanu chicks, aka computer chicks who are hot! (Hot computer chicks are not a myth! I've seen them!)

With them we will win. Until the computer geeks find a new game and the twitchy gammers overdose of coke. Or ther diet of diritos and Jolt/sobe kills them.

[Jinxmasta]

Now that I think of it, I bet a lot of the computer geeks and "twitchy" gamers will be playing as Vanu. Good to see that we have some experienced players with us. I hope they don't try and get too advanced with tactics and all though or else I will be very confused...

[Tobias]

alot of twitch gammers just go lone wolf or have 3-5 other twitch gammers they play with, they will be very leet, but try things like killing with onjly a pistol or *going knife*, at withc point they will be baged by the newbi packing an amp.

[Jinxmasta]

Yea that's what I do in Halo. Now my friends are all running around with pistols just because I started doing it. First it was shotguns, then it was rocket launchers, then it was snipers, and then it was pistols. Now I'm beginning with the snipers again just to be different but now they are copying me again. So I'll probably just stick with my pistol.

[Tobias]

when newbi pricks go with AWP on public servers in CS i either scout them or pistol them. I dont go knife cause thats a great way to die. The deagle or the pistol CT's spawn with for me.

[SandTrout]

Vanu may get the l337 gamers, but the NC is likely to get the devoted players that get into character and play to win.

Not sure what the TR is geting, possibly skinnheads?

[Hamma]

:mad:

[Ravon Dark]

Well this is one vampiric, twitchy, techno geek that Vanu or TR isn't getting. ;) As for the skin heads.... Dunno, I like my hair the way it is. :)

[Lazare]

Ok, lets get back to the point of this thread.

How is this:
There IS a possibility to win. Very hard near-impossible victory conditions.
Maybe TR wins after 9 Month, the planet will be theirs. But during this time Sony starts to develope a Expansion that adds massive Space Warfare.
So TR is about to win after this 9 month. l33t Vanu technologie is discovered and allows Vanu to leave the planet. NC finds the remainings of Vanu Research and some ex-Vanu Traitors start building space craft from Vanu Blueprints. After TRs victory they start to search the planet to get rid of the last scattered forces of the enemies. Bla Bla. All discover some new tech to travel space. of course not l33t enough to reach earth! The three empires settle down in huge craftworlds (like the eldar in wh40k) or divided into fleets of star destroyers or something for a period of time to reach other near planets. From this point sony can add a whole bunch new features. Dogfights in space, spacecraft capturing, indoor fights(like space hulk), zero gravity fights ahh this list can be endless...
Maybe this doesn�t make sense but my english sUxx0rs

[Hamma]

Interesting :eek:

[Incompetent]

If your in space, your not really Planetside, so, that wouldn't really work. But for a whole nother game, set after Planetside that would definantly pwn.

[Nohimn]

I like the idea of there being a timelimit set at several months, but I think it would be better if:

A. There are no continent limitations
B. The game is reset when one empire is obviously crushing the other two.

And about the arguement over the empires. Please calm down, the game hasn't started. And I doubt a hippie would pick up a gun and start killing people, I doubt mad scientists can't spell, and I doubt old people would be able to take recoil from a rocket launcher. Let's all calm down.

[SandTrout]

A)A hippie wouldn't touch a gun, but an anarchist(observe Punk culture) might.

B)Many scientists can't spell very well, why do you think they abbrievieate everything. Note: This isn't me tying to insult scientist or the Vanu

C)Rocket Launchers don't have recoil, they have open backs that let the gas go out the back. A rocket launcher like a Bazooka is often reffered to as a recoilless rifle.

While on the subject of recoilless rifle, I dont think the Dev team understands the term, because the machine-gun on the Harrasser and Marauder most definately have recoil and do not have ope back ends.

[Doobz]

^
observe Punk culture

:rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock: :rock:



excuse my spam, but i have to do it once a month, and this month the burden of my spam fell on this forum.

thank you, and excuse me.

Nofx, Ramones, Misfits, Zero Down, Bad Religion

[m0rphiu5]

the machine-gun on the Harrasser and Marauder most definately have recoil and do not have ope back ends.

good point, although i don't like dissing the Devs, they are makin the best game on the planet, they deserve respect for that accomplishment atleast...... but they are obviously not military weapons experts as such, they r game designers/graphic designers/programmers etc.

[sYn pHrEAk]

I doubt a hippie would pick up a gun and start killing people, I doubt mad scientists can't spell, and I doubt old people would be able to take recoil from a rocket launcher
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Zarparchior]

I've got two words for you dreamers about "winning" PS:

It'll never work. :rolleyes:

[Jinxmasta]

:stupid:

[Sytadel]

Yeah he kinda makes a point. The odds of anyone 'winning' are second to none. And hey, if it doesn't work, I'm sure the devs will whip up something to fix it all.

[m0rphiu5]

i think it should be possible to win,it may never happen, thats beside the point, atleast you know that you CAN actually do it..... it gives alll the players something to fight for, it gives a goal to work towards, the fact that it might never happen makes little difference.

i think a time limit would kill the game, 2days, 2 years, doesnt matter..... it would be just as bad, all your work down the toilet.

[Zarparchior]

Please everyone. Enlighten me in the ways of winning PS. Obviously, I must be missing some great cosmic truth in the world because frankly - that kind of game looks sux0rific to me.

Any kind of "winnable" situation in PS would no longer make this game constant. As soon as you've won (or lost), then all you worked for is SHIT. Bases captured, certs recieved, kills made: all gone. Do I want to pay for this? Of course not. If I wanted a game that involves teamwork, is "winnable," and does not have constant character progression then I would play Natural Selection. It is free* after all. :p

But let's put that aside. Assume you can win. You wouldn't be able to. There are THREE empires! If the TR dominated the VS until they were pressed against their last base, the TR would not have the power to take it. Why, you ask? One reason would be because the VS would have EVERY ENTIRE SOLDIER defending it. They wouldn't be able to spawn anywhere else anyway, so why fight somewhere else? And the TR would be insanely stupid to use the bulk of their forces to kill the VS because it would be leaving them very open to attacks from the NC. Why? Because every team is fighting TWO fronts: One for the VS and one for the NC in the example of the TR. Sure, dedicate all the forces to the destruction of the VS. You end up getting second place because why you're off a killin' the VS's base the NC come and rox0r your own. GG guys, right? Of course not. After a few trials of the above, no one would ever use enough force to capture a main base because of the fear of a counterattack. So the game would end up as unwinnable anyway.

Either way, I win. :D

[Lazare]

but when you really get to the point where one empire is about to "win" Sony must control the situation until they got a expansion that gives the ppl the possibility to leave the Planet and go on to another. Imagine what can be implemented from this point on? OMG space warfare, massive indoor fights in spacecrafts like stardestroyers and craftworlds. More Pilots. "Real" orbital drops from a space fleet onto a planet that is held by an enemy empire.
Ok it would be hard having whole planets designed. but you can also use small astroids where bases are build upon. but thats future-music like we say in germany

[Zarparchior]

That idea is EXCELLENT! :thumbsup:

But unrealistic. Not because no one would play it, not because it would be too hard for the devs, not because I hate snipers. The sole, lone reason would be: not enough people.

If this thing spanned an entire solarsystem, it would have much too much empty space. I've seen huge and ornate zones in EQ go to waste because of everything that comes out with each expansion. Why go to place A when you can go to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc.? There are only so many places a person can be at any given moment and at the time of this documentation, the numerical figure for place is 1.

So let us say the assume 3k of people per server. PlanetSide within itself is huge, but GalaxySide? You'd be lucky to run into some evil and tyranical TR soldier every other day! This would only make the game less fun. Infrequent battles in itself isn't so bad as long as you can get to them... but if you combined that with the new travel time for this gigantic solarsystem it would simply be Nott Gud.

**edit: Grammar and spelling additions, as opposed to corrections. :D

[Jinxmasta]

Oh and I doubt any empire would be strong enough to take over if it was possible because once they take all the bases with one left for the each of the other empires, the people of those empires will be so packed together that it should be easy to fight back and take more bases.

[Serbitar]

Suggestion:

Victory conditions are:

A Faction must hold say 60% of all the bases for say 10 hours.

If victory conditions are met, then everybody is warped back to sanctuary, bases belong to nobody. (STATS; BEP and EVERYTHING else remains the same). So some kind of base reset.
And the winning faction gets a WIN.

The conditions have to be set in a way that the WIN condition istn easily reached. About 1 time in a month would be ok.

To all the people who think that all their WORK will be resetted: No way. Without this win capturing bases is senseless, except for the fun of it. So there is NO work that could be destroyed.

PROs:
The Faction generals have something to PLAN for. They have motivation and folks know that they are working for some WIN and not for nothing.

CONs: Some people dont like the idea of this.


DONT underestimate the fact that people want to WIN in some way and tell the others that they are better.
This is NOT an MMORPG where the fun is just sitting there and talking. Fighting must allways have a goal.

[�io]

I, like you, think there should be a win condition (even if it is near impossible) but a lot of people don't like the idea seeing as it is a persitent world and stuff. Myself i think no win in a MMORPG is fine, the goal there is to kill monsters and level up not kill other players but in a MMOFPS i would like to see a victory condition, something like you said capping a big amount of % and holding them for a good while. I don't see it happening soon though.