WDS awareness?

[Babyfark McGeez]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Lattice is the worst. Since Lattice has been developed, I'd like to see the Lattice disappear at times. Perhaps a condition that players could affect can turn Lattice off.

The problem with the lattice in planetside 2 is that, to stay in Ps1 terms, they basically linked all towers together with the major bases which naturally results in way too linear and predictable network.
When i first saw that it was one of those "D'oh!" moments.

/sorryforofftopic

[Natir]

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

Lattice is the worst. Since Lattice has been developed, I'd like to see the Lattice disappear at times. Perhaps a condition that players could affect can turn Lattice off.

Lattice is a great idea for this kind of a game and it needs it. However, the maps, bases, etc, are far from even being ready to accept that lattice system. The lattice system on the Nexus island crap is how it should be, not like how it is right now. They needed to make the continents with lattice in mind. Until they completely redo the continents to flow with the lattice, it will never work.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Natir

Lattice is a great idea for this kind of a game and it needs it. However, the maps, bases, etc, are far from even being ready to accept that lattice system. The lattice system on the Nexus island crap is how it should be, not like how it is right now. They needed to make the continents with lattice in mind. Until they completely redo the continents to flow with the lattice, it will never work.

The lattice introduction into PS2 was the only way to make the fight go places. The hex system is far superior and more flexible. Think about the "influence" factor in having surrounding territories "assisting" with the defense of a base. The supply lines that would logically be there, not forced by a lattice line. The hex system allows for a much more dynamic land control system so you can actually cut supply lines by taking all the hexes surrounding a base or hex with a high value resource. But without more continents and intercontinental connectivity it simply doesn't work.

Consider this on a single continent you simply had 3 "frontlines" (TR/NC, TR/VS, NC/VS) and a couple spots in the center that were a free for all. The bases close to the warpgates were not fought at. The only contested land was in the center. The lattice forced you to go from one place and they tried to structure it so that you could fight more places before you worked yourself in a circle, but it's boring on a single continent. PS1 has what 12 conts with 3 connections each? And cont locking and base bonuses, etc. The PS2 lattice system reduces complexity and strategy as it's still limited to a single continent.

To be on topic, the problems with the game aren't addressed or repaired by the WDS, they're actually exposed more. Why would you want to advertize your shortcomings?

[Malorn]

What I've distilled out of this is:
1) rewards aren't motivating enough
2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful
3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish


The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

[GeoGnome]

Quick Answer if you are looking for something that can be implemented in the near future that people will like: Group XP boosts. That way if we win an award, we get a boost for the whole team who won.

Originally Posted by Malorn

What I've distilled out of this is:
1) rewards aren't motivating enough
2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful
3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

It's not as much that the rewards you are offering aren't motivating, there are a million rewards for killing or taking bases, it's just that there is no meaning to the capture itself, thus the rewards have no meaning. It's like everyone in your town winning the lottery, it's nice when it happens, and now you are all millionaires, but the meaning of it is diminished somewhat because Everyone you know, now has the same reward.

Originally Posted by Malorn

The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

But as of right now, there is no possibility for strategy to be done. It is all tactics. So this is a system (Scoring system) being implemented prior to the system it is meant to compliment (Strategic game of PS2) being implemented. It's fitting a submarine with some kind of silent running technology, but leaving out the oxygen system... so it's nearly impossible for us to tell you what we want. We can say a Ton of things that people will want for some hypothetical strategic game... none of which could be applicable to the final plan of the strategy game of PS2... because we don't know what that is yet.

Will we be able to cut lattice links? If so, then maybe More of what is needed to do that.

Will there be artillery? Maybe enhanced range on that.

Will there be LLUs? Maybe a few more possibilities for those.

All people can comment on now, is what they see IG right this moment, and there is nothing IG right now that they can't already get through easier means, which could be rewarded through the WDS... that will benefit outfits more than the play time that is used to accumulate that score that won them the reward.

So things that I would like to be rewarded, but I have no idea as to if they will be part of the final product that is PS2:

-Something that will add Temporary Lattice links
-Extra use of an LLU, or a closer LLU...
-Ability to disable shields over a wider area
-Tanks available at more bases
-Orbital strike usage

Edit: As a scoring system the WDS scoring system is good. The 50% bonus to groups that are lead might be a step too far... just because it is so much of a boost, maybe a 10% boost in score when it comes to the winning faction. Other than that though, it is a solid premise. Understand that, because I know I just spent a whole post trashing it, it's not that I don't like the WDS, it's just that it's not going to work until the thing it compliments is put in. When the strategic game of PS2 is better implemented I think the WDS will do a great job.

[Ragnafrak]

I'm looking forward to outfits getting credit for base captures.

One thing that might make it more meaningful for outfits to take over territory would be if the outfit's logo got to be displayed on the continental map. For people who didn't want to see it, they could turn it off with the filters just like base names and resource types can be turned off. For people who are interested in outfit v. outfit stuff or props, it could be a way to earn braggin' rights.

Seeing that an outfit recently took a territory on the map would also give other outfits an idea of whether or not they would want to make the strategic choice of going head to head against that particular outfit as well.

Once we have the outfit revamp, with outfit specializations and such, the WDS could be used as an additional layer toward benefiting players who join outfits. Outfits who earn more WDS objective points could receive outfit-wide bonuses that would hopefully further encourage them to continue participating actively in the WDS.

[typhaon]

I think you need to separate the scoring system from the actual conditions for a map victory.

You can tune the scoring system to identify outfit/individual participation and use that as a measure for the rewards at the end of a 'war.'

Map Victory:

* Each continent should have 3 Citadels.

* Each Citadel would function similar to an A, B, or C point in a typical base battle. Control enough of them, for a long enough time and you capture the continent.

* A Citadel is typically unassailable. The control center (singular capture point) is surrounded by an impenetrable shield, powered by a special reactor.

* This reactor is kept stable through 2 methods:
1) Connections to adjacent territories with power stations.
2) Manual delivery (ANT mechanic) of "power."

* Once a reactor has been destabilized - a meltdown will begin.

* A meltdown cannot be stopped and when complete, the reactor will be destroyed and the Citadel will be assailble.

* Details about the meltdown:
1) Length of time before the meltdown is complete will be no less than 12 hours, no more than 36.
2) Meltdowns will always complete during a designated (6-hour?) window of prime time hours for that particular server.
3) Once the reactor has been destroyed, it will remain so for a minimum of 2 hours.
4) After 2 hours, defenders can repair and re-energize the reactor <--- a not insignificant effort should be necessary to complete this process.


* Details surrounding the speed at which meltdowns could be triggered/prevented... the number of reactors that can meltdown in any one day... would all need to be tweaked, but the idea is to provide a "real" way of conquering the world AND keep those major conquest moments happening during the hours when most are playing.

* I'd also design the Citadels such that they were organized in a series of layers that attackers must battle through - BUT, that can only be repaired by the defenders when the reactor is re-activated. This would create a better flow to what should be intense battles. Defenders would have multiple chances to make stands, falling back when overrun, without having the fights devolve into the gen-tag matches we see in typical Amp, Tech Plant, Bio Lab fights... especially when there are even numbers.

[Crator]

^ Really like that idea typhaon! Also, Ragnafrak's ideas about the outfit owner display indicators is nice too!

[Babyfark McGeez]

Originally Posted by Malorn

What I've distilled out of this is:
1) rewards aren't motivating enough
2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful
3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish


The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

The problem with these mechanics is that they distract from the immersion and feel just out of place. Imagine playing "World of Warcraft" and having a excel sheet window inform you that the horde is leading in the war because of some intangible numbers. It just doesn't fit.

I read from your post that it is planned to keep the "wds" even after an intercontinental lattice is being put in the game. I honestly don't think that's a very good idea.
If you want to have some kind of "winning scenario thing" for gratification, do it with the game itself, not accumulated scoring spreadsheets. Take "typhaon"s idea for example, try to go along that lines. Let the players do something to achieve "victory", don't caclulate it. The game is bland enough as it is when it comes to gameplay and mechanics.

[DirtyBird]

There are more important things concerning players right now.
The WDS is just a distraction because nothing else is happening within the game.
Once you finally complete the PS4 release and can then focus on the real concerns of the player base then after that they might show an interest in the WDS.
Although I guess all this WDS testing is also for the PS4, maybe more so.
As it is now, how you manipulate a territory scoreboard to give the impression of a balanced game is the least of my concerns.


The game needs to be balanced, not the scoreboard, you would have included K/D data as part of the scores if it was balanced.


If you think rewards are a major factor to the acceptance of this why don't you tell us what rewards you are able to offer.
How important is this WDS to you, what's the best you have at your disposal to buy our interest?

[Natir]

Originally Posted by Malorn

What I've distilled out of this is:
1) rewards aren't motivating enough
2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful
3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish


The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

1) The WDS rewards, while are part of the problem, the whole point of the event is territory control and holding. You get almost no rewards in-game for this though compared to things like randomly getting kills. If I can earn more EXP in a couple of kills than I can waiting for a base to capture, what would I rather be doing? It doesn't matter if you are attacking or defending, if it is a good farm, then it is a good farm and no one really cares about the overall objective.

2) Well, yeah... Been like that for a while and WDS is not going to change that.

3)Outfit leaderboards...

Here is the thing, Malorn. In order for the WDS to actually work, you need a fully polished lattice, a working resource system (or removal) that matters, a reason to take territory, continental conquest, and the list can go on. WDS is mainly icing on top of the cake at the very least. It is a global reward for what you do in-game but the mechanics in-game are just flat out missing.

The game needs to be reworked from the ground up and an overhaul of the EXP system to favor what the game is supposed to be about, teamwork, continental conquest, etc. Right now it just favors your COD, BF4 mindset.

[Carbon Copied]

I apologize in advance for the long winded nature of this post.

1) rewards aren't motivating enough

Correct - stop throwing xp and boosts at the player base there's more than enough ways to get xp in this already. Why should I be motivated to fight for a 3 day boost when I should be being motivated to get some tangible in game empire benefit? The thought of "oh I must log in today and fight for my empire because I really want that 3 day boost / decal at the end of the week" is not something that I've ever encountered or cared about; have you? These need to be things that are a part of the game, not some war score on an excel spreadsheet - means fuck all to me if I'm playing or not.

2) world is not persistent enough for holdings to be meaningful

Creeps into the above and what you've expanded below: every player knows that full domination of a global lattice / cont lock is chasing the highly improbable in a 3 way, but you chase it anyway regardless. It's weird but I think even then it's motivation to chase it - currently there's nothing that gives a glimpse of this.

3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

The outfit revamp should cover the majority of this as more prominent outfits get their names on the banner board - but you can't forget the smaller ones that take part either this should have some sort of recognition roster in the installation of "Oufit x / y / z last took this base" base it around a minimum player threshold to be "recognized" where their decal displays on the board or something. The recognition, community and rivalries will grow from that naturally; supply the tools, nuture it if it needs it in infancy, just don't try and control it too much all in one go.

The goal of WDS long-term is a victory condition in a world that is always changing, and where any one victory is short lived. We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

The victories are short lived now yes, but come continental lattice they will be more persistent - you say that yourself. I may be missing the point but I don't see how adding points to an excel spreadsheet per outfit gives them recognition in game? See above reply #3.

Intercontinental lattice adds to persistence and player agency but the obvious goal (capture every territory in the game) is not realistically achievable, nor can contribution towards it be measured. That's where WDS comes in. Its a strategic scoring system in its infancy. In the future I expect it will have points for continent locking, cracking, and sealing, with a possible instant victory if the unattainable is attained. I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

I think WDS has a bright future and place post continental lattice as it will give indication of how things are going per faction, per server etc. Once the other more important areas are sorted out then you can think about sprinkling WDS on the top - the framework is good I think you're using it to try and fix or solve the wrong thing; trying to use a spreadsheet and points to justify an outfit's contribution and think it'll magically inspire to do that.... I just don't get any sense behind that.

WDS doesn't have to be complicated by any means if you limited it on it's final incarnation of locking continents, breaking them, taking major facilities (like typhaon's citadel continent captures) and any other planned "hallmark moments/actions" then you're giving goals... within the overall goal. Territory between is the stepping stones to these overall points added it doesn't mean you need to be handed them like they're sweets every time you walk out of spawn. Could potentially turn out that this abated scoring would also stop one faction accumulating to a point of the other 2 not being able to catch them on the score boards as well so you haven't got to really come up with any magic formulas to constantly appease.. sometimes Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).. is best.

[Shidhe]

Originally Posted by Malorn

words...We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition...words

words...I'm trying to sort out how best to score contribution of an outfit and identify good rewards. What would you like to see?

Screw outfits, show players. That's what modern FPS players dig, their name in the sky. It's the whole entitled "Generation me" thing. Just like the SOE players site is centered around individual players, that's the mindset of CoD and BF players.

I'd prefer there was less of them around, but the game ain't going to make money without them.

[kubacheski]

Originally Posted by Malorn

We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.

Woah, slow down there. So that moonshine you've distilled tells you to develop a system by which there is intra-faction competition? When there isn't even a fully developed system by which the factions compete against each other?!?!?!?

The very nature of Planetside is that there is no endgame, there is no victory condition, or at the very least, the victory condition is near impossible to meet. I only recall one story that a faction was pushed back to their home cont. That's part of what makes it fun. When you "finish" a game, what do you do? You move to the next game. Is this what you want?

Originally Posted by Malorn

What would you like to see?

We'd like to see PS1 implemented on ForgeLight.

Higby and crew stated way back that this is what they tried when ForgeLight came out. They said they had lattice (but wanted to try hex) they had vehicle hacking (but didn't have cross faction models for rides - btw, wouldn't a color swap have sufficed?), they had deployables (but it strains the Server processing). Look at PS1, even when it came out, the graphics were poor even by 2003 standards. This was by design so the server can handle the code to manage that many people, vehicles, and deployables. The graphics didn't make the game fun, the core mechanics did. Don't get me wrong, ForgeLight makes for some beautiful eyecandy. But when the processing that goes on to track the statistics that you're tracking is bogging down the game, maybe you don't need it all. Just a thought, but downgrade the graphics to make processing space on the servers.

Think back, whats your favorite game of all time. Did you play for the graphics alone or because it was a fun game?

You really have only 2 problems with PS2. Problem one is the size, we've discussed that, you're aware of it, and eventually, there will be more continents and interconnectivity to allow for the ebb and flow of global conflict. "Size matters" Remember that slogan? You couldn't have been more right and then fail to deliver. Sorry, but facts are facts.

Now the second is the polarization of play styles. There are those that want to play PS2 like PS1, well I guess those that expected to be able to play like it was PS1 on methamphetamines, like Higby and told us it would be. and there are those that have accepted PS2 for what it is and play the way the game has them play, blindly following the stated rules of engagement.

I blame this partly on the F2P model and partly on the infancy of the game mechanics. F2P allows anyone to join and stay. You don't have to invest anything but time if you so choose. This keeps players in the game who don't, necessarially have server or outfit loyalty. Nor should they really be expected to - they've invested nothing so there's nothing to lose, no attachment to what goes on. The ones that have invested cash or a portion of their life into grinding for certs, etc are limited by the basic game mechanics. There's not much to do but grind. They get to where they max out the certs they want and go "that's it? all this and now what?".

People say there's no "meta-game". I see it slightly different - there's not enough people interested in playing the limited meta game that the current mechanics provide.

Odd huh? That although I'm a huge critic of PS2 I understand that the problem is not the mechanics we lack in the game, but the inability of most current players to leverage what they do have. But I also remember the first few months after PS1 was released. noone was CR5. Noone had command structures built, everyone was just a toon running around trying to make a name for yourself. But guess what? people still had the organization to take base after base after base in an organized effort to take over the world. People simply shouted what we should be doing. They were leveraging the basic chat to organize between squads.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. We want a Big Huge Giant world where we can fight all over the place. We want to be able to break continent locks and ghost hack a controlled territory to pull forces away from the main lines. We really do want to drive through 3 warpgates and across 2 continents to get the immersive feel of the vast expanse of Auraxis. The meta game will follow and actually be developed by the interaction of the players, not by the devs. The devs simply make it easier for the players to implement metagame. But when there isn't much to do but grind exp, you really can't have a meta-game.

And that is why you're trying to implement a mechanic like WDS to create that level of abstraction by which you can direct the playerbase to conceptualize a metagame. As I said before, you can't force the metagame. The metagame comes from the playerbase's use of the inherent game mechanics. Make the game big and people will stay, make the game fun and people will pay, do both and the metagame will rise on it's own as people become invested in a large expansive world full of conflict. Each faction trying to gain the upperhand through strategy and, occasionally, downright brute force (zerg has it's place). But until taking and controlling the bases and continents is relevant and has a tangible effect on the global struggle, noone will do anything but grind exp.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Malorn

3) nothing to help outfits stand out in what they accomplish

This is the key point.

But not for the WDS alone, but for the entire game.


Take a look Malorn, you played PS1 longer than I did, also with a tactical outfit that did the things that mattered, so you should know:

What can outfits actually do in PS2? Yes, we can all hop along in the big fight, taking out generators or pushing certain objectives, as part of the greater zerg.
Or we could gather up with other outfits and hold our own position against the enemy zerg.


But one way or another, the Zerg is always present, always there, constantly around us.

And this is what bothers me. Outfits cant go elsewere, they cant do the stuff that matter, because numbers are also a large factor.

So I say: Give us back Generator holds of the old days. Let us take out Benefits and ressource gain under the new ressource system. I got some ideas for how to fix the problems PS2s has with such things (Endless Repair, Revive, Ammo), but i need to finish preparing first.
Give us back Combat Ant drops. The new resource system already returns the ANT mechanic to us, but give us back our actual Ant. Let us load them up into Galaxys once more, and let Power rain down from the skies of Auraxis.
Give us back The Global Lattice, and lots of continents with it. let us open up new fronts on our own once more, or stop attempts of enemy outfits to open up our continents.


If outfits can differ from the zerg oriented outfit that is always in the middle, to the tactical outfit that takes stuff out behind enemy lines or helps where it helps most, then Outfits have a proper role in the game, and with this in the WDS.

Trying to shug on some points for outfits if they have plenty of people at a base capture, and calling it quits after that, would only make people angry.