Never ending campeign vs Final Objectives

[Filsinger]

I am a complete and utter newb to planetside and only started reading about the game until last night. I have been VERY loosely following the game, but there has something that has come to my attention that I would like to see debated here and see what your guyz thoughts are about it. I'm sure this has been brought here before but i didnt see a thread so i thought i would start one.

The two sides are a never ending battle and a game that can be "won".

The background from what I understand it is as follows:

Currently Planetside is set in a persistant world in which there are small objectives of capturing buildings/land but in the end there is no "winner" as it is set to go back and forth litterally forever.

My problem with this is having no end objective this kind of makes any victory you get no matter how big kind of futile cause you are probably bound to loose it sometime. In my opinion this will somewhat kill replayability for me and many others.

To help gameplay i think there should be final objectives. Maybe each month put up a Goal for all 3 factions like "control all objects on island x" then to whoever accomplishes this gets more experience points or some other bonus.

I feel that without defined objectives this game will turn into just one big never ending CS map... for some that might not be a problem, but for me getting a sense of accomplishment is kind of what is all about, ie. winning a map of CS or T2.

[Vis Armata]

Well, T2 and CS depend on real small-scale victory conditions (cap the flag 3 times; plant the bomb over and over again - rinse, repeat). I think that taking and keeping bases, locking down continents and attempting to open up other locked down areas will prove to be a larger scale than CS and Tribes offers. Anything larger scale than that might very be unattainable with the current game model.

I don't know if that helps, but it's my two cents.

[mikkyT]

I am a complete and utter newb to planetside and only started reading about the game until last night.

Welcome n00b :)

I have been VERY loosely following the game, but there has something that has come to my attention that I would like to see debated here and see what your guyz thoughts are about it. I'm sure this has been brought here before but i didnt see a thread so i thought i would start one.

Yeah its been touched upon before but no reason why we cant go over it in more detail...

The two sides are a never ending battle and a game that can be "won".

Cant be won I think you mean. ANd there are 3 sides :)


Currently Planetside is set in a persistant world in which there are small objectives of capturing buildings/land but in the end there is no "winner" as it is set to go back and forth litterally forever.


Correct. Youre only as good as your previous campaign. You might win, but then you have to defend what you have won, and you may lose it again.

My problem with this is having no end objective this kind of makes any victory you get no matter how big kind of futile cause you are probably bound to loose it sometime. In my opinion this will somewhat kill replayability for me and many others.

On the contray I think it will add to the playability. Remember there are 9 continents so you wont be fighting for the same land over and over again.

If you ever saw DAOC you will know they had many stats which could be accessed via the website and can be added to your own page via php.

Well, Planetside will have the same stats only much much more enhanced. I think this will add to the replay aspect no end, as people will want to have the best statisitcs (such as knife kills, peeps killed, etc) they will be very detailed.

Also your character development will play an important part. Your not just another player here, you have your own level with XP etc and this will add to the playability as people will want to develop their chosen career path.


To help gameplay i think there should be final objectives.

Like achieving a continental lock?

Maybe each month put up a Goal for all 3 factions like "control all objects on island x" then to whoever accomplishes this gets more experience points or some other bonus.
/quote]

Thats a continental lockdown :)

[quote]I feel that without defined objectives this game will turn into just one big never ending CS map... for some that might not be a problem, but for me getting a sense of accomplishment is kind of what is all about, ie. winning a map of CS or T2.


Its a hurdle for those with a fixed FPS mindset to overcome but its achieveable.

[Shryn]

Maybe outfits (empires? players?) should be awarded points of some sort for the amount of time they actually hold the facility. In Canal Zone, Scrummage, etc (TFC) you get your points not from capping a flag but holding the capture points. Would be interesting if there was some duration based (incremental) point system based on the period of time you can hold a given base. :)

Not high on my wish list, but an interesting thought. :)

[Filsinger]

i guess i'm coming at this game with a RISK mindset. Both games have multiple sides gaining world domination.

In RISK you can gain extra bonuses for achieving continental lock (more men per turn). I think that planetside should perhaps include bonuses for such achievements as well (other then controlling extra bases, exp gained from such a victory etc).

In the end someone usually does win in a game of RISK (unless you kill your friends in the process) and i guess having that ability not there in the game is disapointing to me.

[Seer]

I'll have to agree with the others here--the 'game should end' mindset is almost alien to me as a 4 year veteran of MMORPGs.

Persistence is a new dynamic for FPS gamers, and I imagine they'll either like it or not. Either way, enough will like it to make it a successful business model.

[Vis Armata]

Originally posted by Shryn
Maybe outfits (empires? players?) should be awarded points of some sort for the amount of time they actually hold the facility. In Canal Zone, Scrummage, etc (TFC) you get your points not from capping a flag but holding the capture points. Would be interesting if there was some duration based (incremental) point system based on the period of time you can hold a given base. :)

Not high on my wish list, but an interesting thought. :)

But the incentive to attack becomes less, because you'll get points for holding the base rather than capturing new bases. Not a bad idea, though.

[Filsinger]

im not saying that the game *MUST* end... im saying that an end objective whether it be small or large should be instituted.

[Airlift]

There are a million little end objectives

[Manitou]

Depends on how you define "end".

Lets say for instance that the Outfit I am in decides tonight's ops are going to include taking an Amp Station, a Biotech Lab, and a Technology plant on Hossin. (By tonight, I mean that loosely, because you probably won't accomplish that in one night :eek: ) Your team sets out bent on dominating the enemy that have already assumed control of those objectives. The battle is met, small and large skirmishes erupt, and the objectives you have set for your Outfit at the begining are either accomplished or not. Either way, by defeat or victory, an end is met when the battle for that objective is done.

The good thing is, the "end" that you ask about may be achieved over and over again in endless variations on different continents over separate bases against two different enemies wielding a myriad of weapons.

omg let me at it! :D

[simba]

yes thats one thing I hate about PS, no ending, like mikky says- archieving continent lock. But then the other empires can take it back so its not final.
Final objectives like going undercover at the sancuary of the other empires and like blowing up something so every1 at that empire dies or somethin like that, then u have a final objective. That would make it more fun 2 ME, not 2 u maybe.

[Filsinger]

i dont know... i would like to see something like capture as much land possible in x amount of time and then reset the map (but keep character levels the same).

I think it would be cool if they maybe even changed it up every once and a while.

Like have the object oriented games for a month or two, then switch to all out war for a couple months... etc.

[turqy]

OMG FILSINGER OF TRIBALWAR FAME?!?!??!

[Filsinger]

;)

[Ruthless]

a final end would always mean good things to the winners and bad things to the losers, and could cause the losers to quit the game if its irrevocable

[simba]

quit the game? why would they quit the game?

[Ghryphen]

Originally posted by mikkyT

The two sides are a never ending battle and a game that can be "won".
Cant be won I think you mean. ANd there are 3 sides :)


Two sides, one game that is never ending (side 1), and a game that "can" be won (side 2).

[NeoTassadar]

You can't win, but small (single kill/squad/Galaxy) or large (Base/continent lock), victories are far from pointless, because every kill is fuel away from the enemy base (and some BEP) and every base is closer to continent lock (and CEP), and every continent lock is an invasion the enemy has to make completely without vehicles. You can't win, but you can make it VERY hard for the enemy to make progress.

[Kilgs]

In admitting I'm a complete console gamer before several months I, am in now way, inviting flames.

In console (and most PC) FPS games the whole game consists of short "missions". Its not a war per se. Each scenario and map is a different mission. Achieving a victory on these gives you a sense of accomplishment and bragging rights (for about 5 seconds).

For me, the real draw is the overal War going on. Its "never-ending" and in the greatest of ways.

Each time I log on, check in with my outfit and get that night's mission or activity. I then pursue that objective utilizing a large array of assets. The mission victory conditions are set.

In addition to achieving that condition, there is the overall picture to keep in mind. Should your oufit expend resources on Hossin to capture a base or two or will a cry for help from a nearby continent that is being overrun be considered more important.

Your recon mission on Forseral could be key to determining whether a large scale attack will be placed on that continent. You might not even be there for the attack... but you achieved your mission which was integral to the "big Picture". Snipers detached from main bodies to cover caravan routes, aerial strikes to serve as diversions... all of this comes together.

Not to mention the 24 hour thing. I mean how cool is it to check in each day and see what land has been gained or lost. Each day the terrain where the fight is changes, forget the "Sniper in the sweet spot by the tower" stuff. These aren't small maps that can be exploited and memorized as teh addition of mines, turrets, snipers and roaming sporks all change teh face of the game.

PS is a WARstory. Its not the smaller scenarios. Its made up of them but connects them all into the bigger picture of the actual WAR. Try and look at it that way.

Sorry a bit long... I got carried away.

[Filsinger]

yeah i completely understand that point of view... and that aspect of the game wont be lost in my suggestions.

All i'm proposing is for there to be monthly objectives added in, or total domination game play, then land gets reset.

These "winning" conditions wont change the aspects of battle you speak of. im not looking for a 30 minute map of capture the flag... if i did i'd go play tribes.

[NeoDrgnMech]

Only problem with the land reseting, is the fact that people would feel that the things they did for their empire didn't mean anything. "So what that your outfit managed to lock a continent, it's just gonna reset and go back to normal in a week..."

I think it's good just the way it is. Every victory and every defeat will have some importance, whether it be winning a minor skirmish or losing a key base.

[Hamma]

There may very well be some kind of objective, or GM event. Hard to say at this point. :D

[NeoTassadar]

Originally posted by NeoDrgnMech
Only problem with the land reseting, is the fact that people would feel that the things they did for their empire didn't mean anything. "So what that your outfit managed to lock a continent, it's just gonna reset and go back to normal in a week..."
Every WEEK? I hope not. Maybe 2 months or when one empire locks all continents. But probably not even then, because their forces would be stretched pretty damn thin.

[Filsinger]

yeah land wouldnt reset often... im saying if they set up a goal to control x % of the land, first faction to do it wins a free month or something then it resets. And do this once every 4 or 5 months i think it would be a very cool insentive to try harder. and also give a more overal sense of achievement to the game.

[Frozen-Monkey]

just incase one empire does manage to lock all continents( besides enemy sancuarys) there would prbably be a map reset

[TheGreatCarbini]

Well theres always that "incredible but possible" goal that you strive for but can never achive, yet you still try. In this game, that objective would be for an empire to lock down every continent. I'm no beta player but form what I have seen I don't think that is going to be remotley possible unless 2 empires decide to go to Vegas for a week, yet all 3 empires are oging to try and ultimatley do it.:) See how it goes? there IS that goal, but it's logicly impossible, thats where the endless war deal slides in.:)

Oh and Vanu/TR, you plane tickets are waiting for vegas anytime, we NC got to spray for termites on all the islands...

...

WHAT?

[Matuse]

I can see an empire locking 1 or 2 continents close to their sanctuary (and thus far from enemy sanctuaries, and hard for them to get there via warpgates with any speed), but locking even a majority is hardly going to be possible. The further you get from your sanctuary, the harder it will be. Your enemies will have shortened supply lines, less to defend, higher concentration of available forces, and most significantly, it will start to get 2v1 to prevent the more dominant empire from "winning" by achieving a planetwide lockdown. One empire may really kick ass and take names on a given server, but not even the best tactics and the most skilled players are going to overcome a 20:1 numerical disadvantage.

[TheGreatCarbini]

Exactly, but who's not going to try?;)

[TheRegurgitator]

it would be impossible to capture ALL the bases

[Intruder]

Originally posted by Pattywick
it would be impossible to capture ALL the bases


Not impossible, but Improbable.

[Sp3ctre]

It ain't impossible, if you could ask everyone on a server to start 'the plan' then it would be possible.

'The Plan'
Ask 2 factions (TR and VS :D ) to just stop fighting for 1 day, then one faction (NC) can just take all the bases. Just to see what happens...