A way to give people a grand purpose

[War Barney]

Its been mentioned before that PS2 lacks purpose a lot of the time, people fight for exp and thats it except during alerts (and even then people fight for the big exp reward).

A good way to solve this issue would be to

A. A short intro explaining your factions history and goals, that way players know what they are fighting for and why instead of *I kill blue and red people cos I'm purple!*. I honestly know NOTHING about the NC, I've played them for almost a year and honestly the only thing I know is they like blue, I have no idea why they care about this planet, I have no idea what this planet is or where, if this is meant to be in our future or a alternate universe NOTHING.

B. A bonus for locking all 3 conts! something big! something fancy! something everybody would constantly strive for!!. Now I'm not saying it would be easy to do or happen often.. but right now cont locking seems to just be for pride, if there is a bonus for it I've never noticed it. Imagine if locking all 3 conts let you chose a free gun? Finally people would have a reason to constantly be fighting to lock them all at once instead of just avoiding the enemy and zerging for exp which is the current style of play.

[Belhade]

Yours is not to reason why;
yours is but to do or die.



Well, maybe do and die, then do again.

[Dougnifico]

You know... a free unlock of some sort would be a great incentive, Maybe you get 1,000 SC if you are on within 24 hours of a total world conquest? At least once there are more continents (so like... 5 years. lol)

[HereticusXZ]

A Grand Purpose is indeed the big question that would solve a great deal of pain surrounding the absence of meta-game.

Where I do think that educating players about Lore is a good thing.... No... that's just not incentive at all, in any way, shape, or form.





Incentive to "me" anyways is tactical relevance of a Facility, if I conquer this base I want it to bring something physically relevant to my Empire like a new vehicle or base defense turret, NOT just a marginally "I probably will never notice" upgrade to whatever I currently have...

If I take this facility away from the enemy I want them to loose any and all production, even Warpgate production of X vehicle or base defense turret.

The same applies to capturing a continent.... If I get a Continent I want to be able to produce some awesome vehicle or dispensable weapon that's available on ALL continents to my Empire.


If the meta-game hinders the new-player experience then so be it. You can't spawn a specific vehicle? Join a Squad or Platoon or Outfit that's organizing to go reclaim the territory needed so you CAN push. NS vehicles that are available everywhere are still just as important as ES.

The ES flavor should be a goal not a given.

[Gimpylung]

I have played VS almost exclusively for years. The reason being, I was shown the ropes by a very nice bunch of guys in LFS many years ago.

Belonging, loyalty and purpose starts in good outfits and that then spills over to empire loyalty.

I see so many 'no outfit' types running about these days, no real affiliations, no real bond with the game. Not even the slightest reason to care how their faction is faring coz they are motivated by unlocks and jumping from empire to empire to try 'stuff'

Hopefully the Outfit Update will get more people in outfits and give them a more ingrained sense of belonging and purpose.

My points may seem off topic, but a well lead and structured outfit is a far greater motivator than some transient reward. The game is too unlock and reward orientated as it is, it leads to a sense of entitlement that the game must continue to sate.

There should be more perks and incentive to join outfits, better gameplay will follow.

[ringring]

I have played VS almost exclusively for years. The reason being, I was shown the ropes by a very nice bunch of guys in LFS many years ago.

Belonging, loyalty and purpose starts in good outfits and that then spills over to empire loyalty.

.
I don't know. The joy of being in an outfit comes from achieving something in-game together, work together, use tactics and so on.

There were many times in ps1 when I said something along the lines of 'you know what, I think we actually made a big difference in capturing this continent'.

I can't imagine saying the same in ps2, not because it can't be done but because you have to ask yourself why should you bother?

I think I've only set out to capture a continent once in ps2, that was I think Nov/Dec 2012, it took ourselves+ruffnex+bmc working together but we did it. There was a sense of achievement but I haven't tried since, there's no reason to.

[Crator]

There were many times in ps1 when I said something along the lines of 'you know what, I think we actually made a big difference in capturing this continent'.

I can't imagine saying the same in ps2, not because it can't be done but because you have to ask yourself why should you bother?

This is because PS1 had empire home continents with continent locking and the intercontinental lattice existed. That was the overarching meta-game in PS1 and IMO is what makes Planetside unique from other FPS games. It gives the feeling of war across an entire planet instead of just on individual maps that have no connection to each other.

[mrmrmrj]

I think asking the developers to provide reasons for you to play their game is unnecessary. It is fun or it isn't.

What is great about PS2 is that if you get bored as infantry, pull a tank. If you get bored of that, go cloaker. All the various vehicles and classes require different tactics and awareness. That is what makes fighting at the same bases over and over doable.

[HereticusXZ]

I think asking the developers to provide reasons for you to play their game is unnecessary. It is fun or it isn't.

What is great about PS2 is that if you get bored as infantry, pull a tank. If you get bored of that, go cloaker. All the various vehicles and classes require different tactics and awareness. That is what makes fighting at the same bases over and over doable.


To a degree that's COD logic "Be content that you have a arena to shoot in with targets and nothing more." Why?

This is PC gaming, This is MMO, This -IS- Planetside 2 where bigger is better not just in armys and battlefields but the grand experience of war and all that it encompasses. We need attrition values, a facility/continent should be worth more to a army then just a glorified paintball arena. Otherwise why the frak are you playing PS2 and not COD, Battlefield, or Titanfall? Army size alone? HAH!

Stagnation is death and PS2 needs meta-game or it will die. We need a grand purpose to the war beyond the warm and fuzzy feeling of shooting or Red v Blue v Purple.

[Mightymouser]

To your first point: if what you're looking for is just lore, such a thing exsists (in ****** <- I can't say a suit of cards? Really? With all the crap that's said on these forums that's rather incongruent.):

http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/Lore
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB9yHmQZmAM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EYvzwB28wI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuTbOODUUWc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJEx7OAdRSE


On the other hand, if you are looking for in game objectives and a reason to fight beyond the battle right in front of you, then there's a name for that too; it's called meta-game, and vets have been begging for it since beta. Hopefully we'll see it somewhat increased once Hossin is in, and there a semi-functional contential lattice... but really we need several continents and the ability to lock them before we'll see meaningful meta-game develop.

[KesTro]

"Without a sign, his sword the brave man draws, and asks no omen, but his country's cause."

[Ruffdog]

The game needs home continents.
In PS1 on logging in, before doing anything else I'd check Ceryshen and Forseral (then later Hossin and Solsar after the warping) to see if anyone had dared invade our land ( oh and Oshur - that was ours too :cool: ) and to go kick them in the balls if they had.
There was grand purpose in the persistent old Auraxis. No effing around with warpgate rotations. There was ownership and that gave meaning IMO.

[Rivenshield]

The game needs home continents.
There was grand purpose in the persistent old Auraxis. No effing around with warpgate rotations. There was ownership and that gave meaning IMO.

This.

Of course the concept of home continents implies sanctuaries. I'll just hang that out there in the feeble hope that the devs still peruse this place.

[bpostal]

This is because PS1 had empire home continents with continent locking and the intercontinental lattice existed. That was the overarching meta-game in PS1 and IMO is what makes Planetside unique from other FPS games. It gives the feeling of war across an entire planet instead of just on individual maps that have no connection to each other.

While those mechanics were what allowed for metagame, for me it was what those mechanics enabled. The strategic shift of population and the application of same. You could put a squad in a gen in the one enemy tech plant on the cont and they would not only be a useful asset (rather than that squad in PS2 who's capping outpost XXX for no discernible strategic reason) but they could be vital to the CR5's plan on a totally different continent.
A poor example: You hold the gen down on the base a link back because you can't directly assault the NC's interfarm while they still have superboosted pain fields. Some of the NC shift back to deal with that while CR5's call for more support on Esamir. This draws enemy reinforcements away from your real objective (assaulting a tech plant to open Amerish) and captures the attention of the leaders.

Fights not only had meaning, but there was a subtle interplay between the continents that I can't really explain.

Also, like Ruff said; Solsar and Hossin were always in danger of getting drained or hacked. Since Solsar and Hossin were 'ours' (in that I only started playing TR after the home cont switch), a lot of us were rather offended when say, PG or LMS, decided to give it a go.

Gimpy's partly right. A good outfit can carry you through some really boring times. God knows I would have quit this game a year ago if I wasn't rolling with BRTD but even that starts to wear thin as burnout sets in and the realization that we'll be waiting much longer than we had hoped for what most of us consider 'core gameplay' to get established. I'm fairly confident that, as an outfit, we've lost well over 50% of all of the Planetside veterans over this last year.

[Edfishy]

I for one am for the ability to "Win" Planetside 2.

Make it difficult to accomplish (a one in three/four months kind of thing, possibly only opened up by the devs), and have it just show a static screen saying: "And thus the Vanu won..., etc."

[Taramafor]

I for one am for the ability to "Win" Planetside 2.

Make it difficult to accomplish (a one in three/four months kind of thing, possibly only opened up by the devs), and have it just show a static screen saying: "And thus the Vanu won..., etc."

It's not that there's no "major" long term goal. It's more of the fact that the short terms goals seem rather meaningless. I mean, what's the point in holding a base, big or small, other then quicker access to vehicles and a bit of territory expansion?

[Edfishy]

It's not that there's no "major" long term goal. It's more of the fact that the short terms goals seem rather meaningless. I mean, what's the point in holding a base, big or small, other then quicker access to vehicles and a bit of territory expansion?

Definitely territory should have better meaning, and I think they're headed that way with the Resources, Continental Lattice, etc. I just think it'd get PlanetSide 2 some popular attention if every 4-5 months folks are Twittering something like: "TR are about to win Planetside 2! O.O".

It'd make me want to join in and change the situation. :evil:

[BlaxicanX]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

[Taramafor]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

Exactly. Ergo, bases need to have more meaning. Say an orbital strike ability with a cooldown. Or some vehicles ONLY being produced form that type of building. Things like that. Then people will WANT to hold on to them because they won't want to lose them. I'm starting to think that the devs are afraid of people leaving due to "losing" (pop inbalance could be a major factor here but that does tend to vary). But PS1 had things of this nature and look how great that was (and hopefully will soon be again with it turing free2play).

[ringring]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.
It is but by extending it beyond a descrete continents the nature changes completely.

It can only be described by referencing PS1.

In game version there were more continents and because of the nature of the fight at any one time some continents would be quiet and others would be a front line.

The empires attempted to push the front-line and with coordination and strategy would be able to do this.

We would attempt to first force our opposing empire back to their own home continents and then even kick them from their home continents.

As well as attempting to 'zero base' another empire other empires would attempt to zero base you. Avoiding this was a big incentive.

Essentially that drove PS1 for years, simple but involving.

On logging in everyone would look at the map, decide whether we were doing well and either complement the efforts of your empire colleagues or verbally abuse them as Planetside incompetents.

Now in PS2 the incentive to play is getting a new camo, or a different colour gun or something digital and ultimately worthless and unsatisfying compared to having a real game.

I don't know if it's related but I find that in PS2 there isn't the intensity of PS1, there isn't the sharp differentiation between empires and little empire loyalty. Some people even have friends on the other empire, apparently *shock*.

[KesTro]

Personally I don't want there to be situations where you can 'win' planetside 2. People will flock over it for the first time and maybe even the second time. But once one player has been a part of it they probably won't care about it ever again which would lead to the faster inevitable decline of the PS2 playerbase as every F2P game suffers once players have beat its 'end game'.

That to me is one of the most beatiful parts about PS2. You could argue that there is no end game. Unfortunately that's also PS2's curse.

[Edfishy]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

Continents essentially become cigarette breaks:

"Kicked the Vanu and TR off of Indar! Back in 10 guys, gotta smoke". =P

[Mightymouser]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

The scale changes everything. The lattice gives a sense of progression that doesn't currently exist in PS2, and having the ability to lock conts gives that progression meaning and shape. (Incidentally, I dislike the term 'cont locking'; I think it's ambiguous and I think many misunderstand it to mean that when an empire fully owns a continent all others are kicked off it and locked out. That is not what it means. Cont locking means that it is possible to take full control of a continent and push the enemy fully off it, leaving them no where to spawn (i.e. removing the three empire warpgates))


With a global lattice and fully capturable continents, empires fight each other from cont to cont and then rush to protect their newly won territory by capturing the links that would allow someone else to threaten it. Of course, the more territory you have, the more flanks you leave vulnerable, and the harder it is to maintain control (meaning the 'end game' is nearly unachievable... as it should be)

Apart from the meta game implications this brings, wherein choosing good targets becomes very important to an empire's nightly success, this has a very real and very important impact on every player (regardless of their interest in strategy); that is, players can see there contribution towards a common goal and that contribution has lasting meaning...

As it is, the fights move so fast in PS2, and over such little territory that a hex won or lost right now will have little impact at all in an hour (much less 2 days later). The battle lines move back and forth too fast, and there is simply no way to reasonably protect your advancement. And that's before one considers alerts which instantly change the dynamic of fights and renders meaningless anything that happened a mere moment before.

With more room (i.e., more continents) and the ability to push an enemy fully off a hard won territory, suddenly that base you just won/lost has a real meaning in your effort to capture a continent, and in a wider sense it has a real contribution to the wider 'war effort' of your empire. Suddenly the fight you were fighting in to secure Indar when you got home from work at 5:30 has direct bearing on your empire's situation when you log in after dinner at 9:30. If you won Indar and your empire's been able to capitalize on that success you may be in a good position indeed. If you lost the Indar fight, your empire may still be reeling from the defeat and trying desperately to regain momentum. Similarly, as with real life military campaigns, during large scale expeditions the leadership and cooperation of an empire is often what makes or breaks the venture. It's not only about having the most numbers, it's also about how those numbers are directed and deployed. Inter-outfit cooperation takes on a heightened meaning, and global leaders are what propel empires to success.

A global lattice, and 'cont locking' give the fights deeper meaning within the context of the game's endless war. Yes, players are still fighting at bases to turn things from one color to another, and yes, the fight is still 'meaningless' in relation to real life... But PlanetSide is supposed to be a game of conquest, (For Land. For Power. Forever.) as it stands, there can be no conquest in PS2 because there can be no real lasting concerted campaign by any empire. What we have instead is a series of high-player count Team Death Matches carried out at a series of towers and sometimes bases, with little real relation from one fight to the next...

[Calista]

It is but by extending it beyond a descrete continents the nature changes completely.

It can only be described by referencing PS1.

In game version there were more continents and because of the nature of the fight at any one time some continents would be quiet and others would be a front line.

The empires attempted to push the front-line and with coordination and strategy would be able to do this.

We would attempt to first force our opposing empire back to their own home continents and then even kick them from their home continents.

As well as attempting to 'zero base' another empire other empires would attempt to zero base you. Avoiding this was a big incentive.

Essentially that drove PS1 for years, simple but involving.

On logging in everyone would look at the map, decide whether we were doing well and either complement the efforts of your empire colleagues or verbally abuse them as Planetside incompetents.

Now in PS2 the incentive to play is getting a new camo, or a different colour gun or something digital and ultimately worthless and unsatisfying compared to having a real game.

I don't know if it's related but I find that in PS2 there isn't the intensity of PS1, there isn't the sharp differentiation between empires and little empire loyalty. Some people even have friends on the other empire, apparently *shock*.

Very well stated.

[Ruffdog]

The scale changes everything. The lattice gives a sense of progression that doesn't currently exist in PS2, and having the ability to lock conts gives that progression meaning and shape. (Incidentally, I dislike the term 'cont locking'; I think it's ambiguous and I think many misunderstand it to mean that when an empire fully owns a continent all others are kicked off it and locked out. That is not what it means. Cont locking means that it is possible to take full control of a continent and push the enemy fully off it, leaving them no where to spawn (i.e. removing the three empire warpgates))


With a global lattice and fully capturable continents, empires fight each other from cont to cont and then rush to protect their newly won territory by capturing the links that would allow someone else to threaten it. Of course, the more territory you have, the more flanks you leave vulnerable, and the harder it is to maintain control (meaning the 'end game' is nearly unachievable... as it should be)

Apart from the meta game implications this brings, wherein choosing good targets becomes very important to an empire's nightly success, this has a very real and very important impact on every player (regardless of their interest in strategy); that is, players can see there contribution towards a common goal and that contribution has lasting meaning...

As it is, the fights move so fast in PS2, and over such little territory that a hex won or lost right now will have little impact at all in an hour (much less 2 days later). The battle lines move back and forth too fast, and there is simply no way to reasonably protect your advancement. And that's before one considers alerts which instantly change the dynamic of fights and renders meaningless anything that happened a mere moment before.

With more room (i.e., more continents) and the ability to push an enemy fully off a hard won territory, suddenly that base you just won/lost has a real meaning in your effort to capture a continent, and in a wider sense it has a real contribution to the wider 'war effort' of your empire. Suddenly the fight you were fighting in to secure Indar when you got home from work at 5:30 has direct bearing on your empire's situation when you log in after dinner at 9:30. If you won Indar and your empire's been able to capitalize on that success you may be in a good position indeed. If you lost the Indar fight, your empire may still be reeling from the defeat and trying desperately to regain momentum. Similarly, as with real life military campaigns, during large scale expeditions the leadership and cooperation of an empire is often what makes or breaks the venture. It's not only about having the most numbers, it's also about how those numbers are directed and deployed. Inter-outfit cooperation takes on a heightened meaning, and global leaders are what propel empires to success.

A global lattice, and 'cont locking' give the fights deeper meaning within the context of the game's endless war. Yes, players are still fighting at bases to turn things from one color to another, and yes, the fight is still 'meaningless' in relation to real life... But PlanetSide is supposed to be a game of conquest, (For Land. For Power. Forever.) as it stands, there can be no conquest in PS2 because there can be no real lasting concerted campaign by any empire. What we have instead is a series of high-player count Team Death Matches carried out at a series of towers and sometimes bases, with little real relation from one fight to the next...



Summed up really nice man

[Vashyo]

amazing post mouser, you nailed exactly what I am longing for this game from PS1. ^^

Just amazing winning a hard fight then logout and come back the next day to see that your victory caused the battlefield to shift elsewhere.

[Canaris]

The scale changes everything. The lattice gives a sense of progression that doesn't currently exist in PS2, and having the ability to lock conts gives that progression meaning and shape. (Incidentally, I dislike the term 'cont locking'; I think it's ambiguous and I think many misunderstand it to mean that when an empire fully owns a continent all others are kicked off it and locked out. That is not what it means. Cont locking means that it is possible to take full control of a continent and push the enemy fully off it, leaving them no where to spawn (i.e. removing the three empire warpgates))


With a global lattice and fully capturable continents, empires fight each other from cont to cont and then rush to protect their newly won territory by capturing the links that would allow someone else to threaten it. Of course, the more territory you have, the more flanks you leave vulnerable, and the harder it is to maintain control (meaning the 'end game' is nearly unachievable... as it should be)

Apart from the meta game implications this brings, wherein choosing good targets becomes very important to an empire's nightly success, this has a very real and very important impact on every player (regardless of their interest in strategy); that is, players can see there contribution towards a common goal and that contribution has lasting meaning...

As it is, the fights move so fast in PS2, and over such little territory that a hex won or lost right now will have little impact at all in an hour (much less 2 days later). The battle lines move back and forth too fast, and there is simply no way to reasonably protect your advancement. And that's before one considers alerts which instantly change the dynamic of fights and renders meaningless anything that happened a mere moment before.

With more room (i.e., more continents) and the ability to push an enemy fully off a hard won territory, suddenly that base you just won/lost has a real meaning in your effort to capture a continent, and in a wider sense it has a real contribution to the wider 'war effort' of your empire. Suddenly the fight you were fighting in to secure Indar when you got home from work at 5:30 has direct bearing on your empire's situation when you log in after dinner at 9:30. If you won Indar and your empire's been able to capitalize on that success you may be in a good position indeed. If you lost the Indar fight, your empire may still be reeling from the defeat and trying desperately to regain momentum. Similarly, as with real life military campaigns, during large scale expeditions the leadership and cooperation of an empire is often what makes or breaks the venture. It's not only about having the most numbers, it's also about how those numbers are directed and deployed. Inter-outfit cooperation takes on a heightened meaning, and global leaders are what propel empires to success.

A global lattice, and 'cont locking' give the fights deeper meaning within the context of the game's endless war. Yes, players are still fighting at bases to turn things from one color to another, and yes, the fight is still 'meaningless' in relation to real life... But PlanetSide is supposed to be a game of conquest, (For Land. For Power. Forever.) as it stands, there can be no conquest in PS2 because there can be no real lasting concerted campaign by any empire. What we have instead is a series of high-player count Team Death Matches carried out at a series of towers and sometimes bases, with little real relation from one fight to the next...

I'm not coming back to PS2 until it's in, that's for sure. Without it it's just not planetside as it should be.

also OP here's another thing they could have linked to the faction intros when you're making a selection. Kinda like Dune 2 or 2000 did.

PlanetSide 2: Choose Freedom, Choose the New Conglomerate - YouTube

PlanetSide2: Choose Duty, Choose the Terran Republic. - YouTube

PlanetSide 2: Choose Vanu Sovereignty, Choose Enlightenment - YouTube