Taking prisoners

[Trolltaxi]

In a world where death doesn't mean any loss in manpower it is completly unwise to kill them. They will just respawn and come again with fresh equipment and a vague (or even detailed) knowledge of the actual situation.

So lore-wise it is completly insane that empires still try to kill each other's soldiers.

Using non-lethal methods or taking prisoners seems way more effective to me. And actually we have all used this tactic an a way or other in PS1. Creating an interfarm and holding the base against double the pop (it was possible to hold at 33% vs 66%) technically meant that every defender bound 2 attackers into a pointless fight.

I completly understand that POW gameplay elements would be hard to implement and balance. It is damn hard to maintain intrest for the prisoners to keep playing while they are acting this completly unrewarding role of the underdog.

But it would still be fun if you could force enemies to drop their weapons and raise their hands in situations. You should have to deal with your prisoners, guard them etc. But what gameplay element would promote this?

How about motivating with resources? The captors would gain increased resource flow (both empire and personal) after every prisoners. The prisoners would have an option to make a prison break (say like 1 in every 10 minutes?), meaning that if they can flee (with knives but large numbers against some well armed guards), they take away a good portion of the accumulated resources. Maybe all, or robbing even more? And while fleeing they would cause harm to the base (no shield, or faster hacktime for a shot amount of time...)

The POW camp would be somewhere behind the frontline (not the closest base), so the captors should have to assign some manpower to guard them. The possibility of the prison break would add more tactical options.

They could add skills to the prisoner/guard roles, like faster resource gain, or decreased prison break timer, cyanide capsule to be able to die and respawn

This way there will be an intention both to take prisoners and choose to be prisoners instead of certain death.

Or SOE could make it as an event at least.

[Bazilx]

Yeah..... No.

As much as I'd enjoy it, not enough people would and it takes way too much work and effort.

[Purple]

ya cause you know everyone want to sit around in a POW camp and not be out killing people....

[Trolltaxi]

Well 'sitting around' for 10 minutes waiting for the next break is nowhere near as fun as guarding an uncontested CC for 15 mins...

But you're right guys, the 15 min timer was a bad design and POW would resemble that too much. Anyways, I still don't understand why all the empires work so hard to reproduce their enemies insted of denying their ability to fight!

[NewSith]

I think it would be a good idea for "Second Life: War" game. "Second War: War" game itself would be a good idea.

[sylphaen]

Lorewise, wouldn't prisoners just suicide to escape/respawn ?

Respawn for respawn, it's much more satisfactory to fight than waste efforts taking prisoners. Hence why there are no prisons on Auraxis !

[Trolltaxi]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Lorewise, wouldn't prisoners just suicide to escape/respawn ?

Respawn for respawn, it's much more satisfactory to fight than waste efforts taking prisoners. Hence why there are no prisons on Auraxis !

Lorewise, there is, it is mentioned in one of the first backstories. But that is a long time before PS2 ingame battles.

[DviddLeff]

Can you imagine how boring it would be?

Wait 10 minutes, then the guard can shoot you as you charge him with your knife and you have to wait another 10 minutes, indefinitely?

[Hypevosa]

I think it could work - but the key is to make it so the player can still enjoy themselves and contribute to the war effort. Depending on how it works, you could simply lock the captured character/class for 30 minutes, so you'd play another class while you waited for your favorite to free up. If someone got one of every single character class locked... well that's clearly their fault in my opinion.

[moosepoop]

how about we just add a surrender emote?

[NivexQ]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

But it would still be fun if you could force enemies to drop their weapons and raise their hands in situations.

If you just come back to life in 30 seconds, why would anyone ever feel a need to do this? Also, it would be boring for both sides.

[Tcakes]

ya, never going to happen. I do love the "I surrender" emote. that would just be too damn funny

[EVILPIG]

You are absolutely right and I've made the same point before. I even talked about makeing a game where each empire was just a ever growing or shrinking clan. You kill and capture each player and they become a part of your nation until they are killed or captured by another. Would be interesting seeing how they would always flux. As for Planetside 2, yes it makes sense, but would not be a fun thing to have in the game.

[Hypevosa]

It can be fun and tactical if done right - as I said, it just needs to be something where you can still play even after being captured, and, just barring someone from a class for X time after it's been captured would work since they can play other classes.

[GuyShep]

The biggest issue with this idea is that it's unfun to be on the victim's side. While being put in losing situations such as taking part of a hopeless base defense or a suicide mission to give other members of your outfit a chance to attack or escape can give players enjoyment, there simply isn't any possibility for fun to be forced into a passive role in which you and other players, including those that put you into such a position, would wait for some amount of amount of time, with gain that would appear of very little worth for everybody involved.

At this rate it might be simpler to just create a freeze ray that takes 15 minutes to kill a player, and permanently increase the spawn time by 10 seconds every time a player is killed by said freeze ray.