A bet for GU09

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Gimpylung

That doesn't really enlighten me Figgy tbh. Is it freedom to ignore the TR tank column thats about to steamroll through the nice game of hopscotch I'm having with Predator4.

I'm not being facetious, I don't know what level of freedom is meant within the confines of a persistent PvP wargame.

It's a pretty vague and arbitrary amount of freedom, but the bigger the sandbox, the more options become available to the player to do whatever.

[ringring]

So are we saying that Planetside as was wasn't a sandbox game?

After all there is no game mandated direction nor win condition and it's not time-bound.

There are very simple rules governing how bases are captured and how you navigate from one continent to another - but that's about it.

The player goals are to zero-base another empire (or both) and to avoid being zero based yourself. How each empire goes about this, or not, is completely up to the empire. The strategies are determined by players negotiating with each other (over command chat) and also individual tactics are player determined.

If I've understood 'sandbox' correctly I don't understand how much more sandbox you can get.


If however the definition of sandbox mandates player constructed bases or facilities then ok, but it sounds more gimmicky than anything else. The only game I've played that could do that was Age of Conan where the PVP over other bases was a complete and utter failure and although AoC is still going the 'Siege' gameplay has stopped.

[Assist]

Originally Posted by ringring

So are we saying that Planetside as was wasn't a sandbox game?

After all there is no game mandated direction nor win condition and it's not time-bound.

There are very simple rules governing how bases are captured and how you navigate from one continent to another - but that's about it.

The player goals are to zero-base another empire (or both) and to avoid being zero based yourself. How each empire goes about this, or not, is completely up to the empire. The strategies are determined by players negotiating with each other (over command chat) and also individual tactics are player determined.

If I've understood 'sandbox' correctly I don't understand how much more sandbox you can get.


If however the definition of sandbox mandates player constructed bases or facilities then ok, but it sounds more gimmicky than anything else. The only game I've played that could do that was Age of Conan where the PVP over other bases was a complete and utter failure and although AoC is still going the 'Siege' gameplay has stopped.

The idea in most pvp sandbox games is that it takes time/effort/etc to create things. Creating them gave you a benefit. These 'things' therefore are worth defending because you don't want to have to re-create them and you really don't want someone to simply take what you created away(afterall, you did put in the effort).

There's nothing like that in PS2. If you're playing as TR and you're losing Dahaka badly, the zerg doesn't rush in to save Dahaka(most of the time), they simply go take Saurva instead. There's no sense of 'oh shit, we're losing something important', mostly because no individual players/clans have any time invested in that base. Once a faction takes a base, they spend a minute to repair everything and viola, it's back to running 100%. So by adding in options for players to create their own defensive structures, systems, and customize the features of a base they are therefore putting in time/effort to do so, which creates a sense of ownership.. basically adds additional meta-game that is completely player driven.

There's other things that PVP sandbox's have done as well, such as adding the option to alter-terrain. Similar to Minecraft or Xyson, basically adding the ability to dig, or shape terrain for whatever reason.

I think the best way for people to get a grasp of what a PvP sandbox is like is to simply think of it as a kid playing in a sandbox. If the kid is creative enough there's not much they cannot make. It's simply making the tools available for a player. It's similar to what you had described, but what you're referring to is more the strategic side of the metagame and less with actual physical creations in the game.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Chaff

It's a two-edged sword. I miss a lot of features & elements from PS1, but I don't miss the entirety of PS1. I remember how monotonous the gamplay became. The first year-and-half I was prety much in gaming Heaven, then the monotony slowly eroded the huge impression the early stages of the game imprinted in my brain. I think year 1.5 to year 3.-0 was when my rose-colored glasses unfogged. I was in denial. I kept hoping it would "feel the same" (as the early days). It never did. BFRs came in when a lot of guys were going thru their own form of burnout. BFRs took much of the blame. BFRs were nothing more than an unpopular attempt to spice-things-up. The game was dying with or without the introduction of BFRs.

Indeed, while I've fallen in love with the Original in the short time I've played it, I can see which features of both work well and which features don't.

For example, take Character Advancement in PS1...
In the Original, in order to keep players paying for subscription, Planetside used RPG mechanics where Characters got better after earning exponentially increasing amounts of Experience Points.
That's because, before the advent of Micro-transaction acquired downloadable content, FPS games could only made money up-front on the initial purchase and possibly an expansion pack or two, since FPS games could easily be hosted on players' own equipment without any need to pay for connection and use of a Company's Multiplayer Servers.
MMORPGs on the other hand could excuse these fees, as they had persistent worlds full of Player Characters and thus HUGE amounts of Data that require massive high-end Server Systems to host.

Unfortunately for the Original Planetside, RPG mechanics create Player Fatigue through the necessity of Grinding, and the inability to implement new Endgame Content due to it's pure PVP nature left high level players with nothing else to do but compete with one another for bragging rights.

Ultimately the reason Sony's first MMOFPS wasn't successful was because there wasn't enough Shooter gameplay in it to keep players interest but there couldn't be because was no other way at the time to make money off of them.
Probably why BFRs were so over-powered when they were introduced was because they were intended as end-game content for long time players, but to be a worthwhile reward they ended up being too strong and/or versatile for balanced Strategy Shooter Gameplay.

So, while PS1's RPG-style character advancement and inventory systems were a novel and somewhat entertaining twist on the Shooter Genre, I am perfectly comfortable with the switch to standard classes with equipment options.

On the other hand, the Original required players to actively interact with Control Points in order to switch control.
While I'd rather not require every player need a REK to do this, I still think needing to hold down the 'Interact' key while capturing is a good idea because it not only creates an extra sense of tension, but also give a tactical incentive to actually play cooperatively instead of concurrently.
Right now you just need one person from your faction somewhere around the point, so you just need to throw masses of bodies at one instead of needing to defend and cover one another.

Originally Posted by Chaff

I'd like to see Sony advertise PS2 more. I think they could bring a LOT more players in to check it out. I think they're being penny-wise, but dollar foolish in this regard.

The potential of this game is still almost too much to grasp. Hopefully there's enough money to keep enough devs employed to keep the game evolving.

Honestly I want them to wait until they can give us more then three maps with static footholds on them...
...The whole point of Planetside is how persistent territory access can drastically shift depending on a Faction's collective efforts in PVP, something that only a few MMO in general can claim to do let.

Originally Posted by Chaff

Purists want 100% PvP, but I think an open mind is good in this area. Perhaps some random AI attacks (from who/what is left for another day) would help prevent the game from being too predictable or becoming boring. It'd be interesting how they could bring in "outside" forces that would completely stop continental tactics between the Empire factions.

Originally Posted by Figment

More empires would confound things with all the camos.

PvE... is a very tricky thing. Player placed turrets is one thing, AI player replacement units... doesn't sit right with me.

Indeed, more teams would just complicate asymmetrical balance even more, while also expediting the problems of population imbalance with further divisions of the playerbase.

AI Enemy Players would also be bad, as there wouldn't be any real means of scaling their ability to match the various skill levels, so you'd either have people feel cheated by being unable to compete with the Computer or bored because it isn't challenging enough for them.


...Now if there was say, a Developer Selected few who could play as an "Elite Boss Faction the other three need to team up against to stand a chance," with enhanced stats or other special abilities in order to even the odds...

Originally Posted by Figment

I'd personally be okay with wildlife though. It would make the environment more emersive and that's not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by RykerStruvian

I thought wildlife was one of the things they were working on? Along with weather?

I hope so, certainly would be entertaining to park in the middle of nowhere to repair when OH SHIT IT'S A LION, GET IN THE HARASSER!

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Indeed, while I've fallen in love with the Original in the short time I've played it, I can see which features of both work well and which features don't.

For example, take Character Advancement in PS1...
In the Original, in order to keep players paying for subscription, Planetside used RPG mechanics where Characters got better after earning exponentially increasing amounts of Experience Points.
That's because, before the advent of Micro-transaction acquired downloadable content, FPS games could only made money up-front on the initial purchase and possibly an expansion pack or two, since FPS games could easily be hosted on players' own equipment without any need to pay for connection and use of a Company's Multiplayer Servers.
MMORPGs on the other hand could excuse these fees, as they had persistent worlds full of Player Characters and thus HUGE amounts of Data that require massive high-end Server Systems to host.

Unfortunately for the Original Planetside, RPG mechanics create Player Fatigue through the necessity of Grinding, and the inability to implement new Endgame Content due to it's pure PVP nature left high level players with nothing else to do but compete with one another for bragging rights.

Ultimately the reason Sony's first MMOFPS wasn't successful was because there wasn't enough Shooter gameplay in it to keep players interest but there couldn't be because was no other way at the time to make money off of them.

Apologies but I think you're wrong here.

When PS first came out BR20 was the max level. That was relatively easy to manage. It only took me around 6 months and several people have done it in a few weeks.

And yet those people kept on playing.

And when the limit was raised to BR25, that wasn't that much of an effort to get there either.

I also think that there is an end game in ps. The end game isn't a rpg big boss for a group to kill, ps isn't that type of game. The end game was the strategy game.

I've wondered occasionally what keeps ps2 BR100's playing? I know most people max out at ps1 continued the game.