End Game: Pros and Cons

Gelnika · 2012-03-09, 08:09 PM

There's been talk of a potential end-game in some other threads but it's all been pretty disparate so far. Let's do some definition of terms:

The 'end-game', as I see it, would be the end of recurrent 'cycles' of the game. The game would end at a specific time and the factions would be granted bonuses based on how much territory they control. A game could last for example a month or three months, the entirety of the efforts in the game's timeline is all leading up to the end of the game, and a rush to capture as many points as possible before the timer expires.

In my opinion, this would give players a greater sense of purpose, as there is a more concrete objective and a time in which to complete it by rather than a never-ending war.

Any takers?

Synapses · 2012-03-09, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Gelnika

There's been talk of a potential end-game in some other threads but it's all been pretty disparate so far. Let's do some definition of terms:

The 'end-game', as I see it, would be the end of recurrent 'cycles' of the game. The game would end at a specific time and the factions would be granted bonuses based on how much territory they control. A game could last for example a month or three months, the entirety of the efforts in the game's timeline is all leading up to the end of the game, and a rush to capture as many points as possible before the timer expires.

In my opinion, this would give players a greater sense of purpose, as there is a more concrete objective and a time in which to complete it by rather than a never-ending war.

Any takers?

There is a similar idea to what your talking about in WWII Online and it works great, but I still think it wouldnt really fit Planetside because this war never ends, ever... Its constantly on going and in lore there may be cease fires for one reason or another but its still a war, that never ends.

Also if it ended up playing anything like Planetside, at that last minute youd see all the stealthers of one empire start scattering to take all the bases with no fighting going on, and thus it would become kind of unfair. It would uneven the main battles as well because one soldier is going to go to X base to get it back from that stealther who is probably hidding down the way anyways and same with another soldier leaving the battle to go to Y base. Just dont think it would work out for Planetside.

Duddy · 2012-03-09, 08:26 PM

The problem with "End Game" and "Persistence" is that together they make, what I would consider to be, an oxymoron.

Your traditional MMORPG has an "End Game" because usually you are progressing through some sort of timeline that has a finite end point. In WoW this is when you hit 85 and you start doing what they quite rightly call "End Game Content". You do this content and then at some point it resets and you do it again. You keep doing this because there is no further progression to be had, and you've reached the limit of the game (so to speak).

To me, Persistence implies that there is an ever on-going and existing state. So having something that exists, is completed and then resets would not appear to constitute an on-going and existing state.

Furthermore the reason the end game exists, is that in order to be able to play with everyone else you had to reach the end of the "grind".

In Planetside, there is no clear end game. There is a limit to progression, by that of certs and battle rank, but the main focus of the game (capturing territory) is a never ending struggle. The closest PS1 reached was by Sanctuary locking the other empires, but that didn't induce a win state or a reset by extension. It just meant that you were currently dominating that never ending struggle.

I appreciate the desire for something that can be labelled "End Game", it implies reaching a plateau, the "promised land" of the game content.

But that's just the thing, in Planetside you don't need to reach a plateau to play. The game is constantly accessible to everyone, all the time.

And that is why I don't think we don't need an "End Game"

CutterJohn · 2012-03-10, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Synapses

There is a similar idea to what your talking about in WWII Online and it works great, but I still think it wouldnt really fit Planetside because this war never ends, ever... Its constantly on going and in lore there may be cease fires for one reason or another but its still a war, that never ends.

Change the lore a bit then? The PS1 war was only permanent because of the arbitrary rule of being unable to cap sancs. 2 empires would team up in an official or unofficial alliance, wipe out the third, then go at it themselves. Wars over in months.

Death2All · 2012-03-10, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Change the lore a bit then? The PS1 war was only permanent because of the arbitrary rule of being unable to cap sancs. 2 empires would team up in an official or unofficial alliance, wipe out the third, then go at it themselves. Wars over in months.

What does this add to the game though? If the point of the game is that it never ends, why would you add a winning condition? What do you get, other person satisfaction and an E-boner that you won? The whole game is about constant victories through the capture of bases and territories. You capture a base and then it's yours until someone takes it back. That's whole point of the god damn game. Why would you want to change that just so you can say you "won" even though the game will be reset and it doesn't matter anyways?

CutterJohn · 2012-03-10, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

What does this add to the game though? If the point of the game is that it never ends, why would you add a winning condition? What do you get, other person satisfaction and an E-boner that you won? The whole game is about constant victories through the capture of bases and territories. You capture a base and then it's yours until someone takes it back. That's whole point of the god damn game. Why would you want to change that just so you can say you "won" even though the game will be reset and it doesn't matter anyways?

It adds a goal for the entire empire, adds bragging rights, could be the excuse for some nifty special events and added chaos in the week or two leading up to the end of the cycle. It adds another layer of things to be capped on top of bases and territories, the entire planet.

What do you feel it takes away from the game? You say the point of PS1 was capping bases and territories. That will still exist, and will still matter to the same extent that it mattered in PS1. It doesn't change.

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I think it's strongly implied that the fight never ends. That it's a constant struggle for power and territory. That the fight never ceases because all the soldiers can respawn.

Yet its going to end next year, give or take.

But if the fact that the war is eternal must exist, then just as the soldiers respawn, so does the whole war, as the vanu reset everything and start over again when there is a victor. They can bend a planet apart, they could reset the factions back to the beginning of the war and see how it plays out again. Maybe its an experiment. Who knows.

Neverending was never, not once, actually important though. Just lore fluff.

Death2All · 2012-03-10, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It adds a goal for the entire empire, adds bragging rights, could be the excuse for some nifty special events and added chaos in the week or two leading up to the end of the cycle. It adds another layer of things to be capped on top of bases and territories, the entire planet.

What do you feel it takes away from the game? You say the point of PS1 was capping bases and territories. That will still exist, and will still matter to the same extent that it mattered in PS1. It doesn't change.

Yet its going to end next year, give or take.

But if the fact that the war is eternal must exist, then just as the soldiers respawn, so does the whole war, as the vanu reset everything and start over again when there is a victor. They can bend a planet apart, they could do that.

The goal for the game already exists. It's to capture territories and collect resources.That's the goal. People are going to do that regardless because you have to or else you can't buy shit. That's the incentive.

What does it take away from the game? It doesn't necessarily take anything away, but rather it undermines the entire purpose of the game. What's the point of saying your game is persistent and never ending....when it does

I'm all for adding events that temporarily change the pace of the game. It doesn't have to end or reset though, that's all I'm saying.

DayOne · 2012-03-09, 08:12 PM

SgtMAD · 2012-03-09, 08:16 PM

you are missing the point of the game,

IT NEVER ENDS

Bags · 2012-03-09, 08:15 PM

No, If I want rounds I will play BF3. TF2. MW, etc. IF I want a persistent game I play PS2.

Mastachief · 2012-06-12, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

No, If I want rounds I will play BF3. TF2. MW, etc. IF I want a persistent game I play PS2.

Persistence is PLANETSIDE with out it is becomes genericshootenumber42-XL

Short of them re-introducing continent lock and lattice linked conts i don't want any win conditions.

In the original game (werner)at proper pops (pre BFR's) only the NC and VS ever capped the whole planet(at prime time) and they did it once only. This in my book is a win.

FINALCUT · 2012-06-12, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mastachief

Persistence is PLANETSIDE with out it is becomes genericshootenumber42-XL

Short of them re-introducing continent lock and lattice linked conts i don't want any win conditions.

In the original game (werner)at proper pops (pre BFR's) only the NC and VS ever capped the whole planet(at prime time) and they did it once only. This in my book is a win.

VS got lucky. NC was all skill. Just for the record.

Mastachief · 2012-06-12, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by FINALCUT

VS got lucky. NC was all skill. Just for the record.

Of course

Flisher · 2012-06-12, 08:20 PM

For people unaware of the rabbit chase concept, you must keep the rabbit "token" the lognest time possible for your faction.

Rabbit Chase by GOTR, in Febuary 2011 Sample:

Crator · 2012-03-09, 08:16 PM

I'm going to hold my judgement until I see what the devs have come up with. There's a whole lot of great ideas already in other threads on this subject and everyone should keep them coming. I agree, PS1 did get stale after a while when I first started playing it. Of course, after playing it for so long it has grown on me and I love everything about it.

How I see it, PS1 was a game you fall in love with pretty quick (this, for me, was when there was massive populations). After a while it game play gets stale, but then if you keep at it and learn all the in-and-outs (especially strategy and how other players work inside the game) you get sucked in for good.