News: Firing Line PlanetSide 2 Concerns

[Trolltaxi]

I'm fine if they add an animation like you entered the AT turrets in the gaves. No instant firing, no intstant exit, but a short sequence of radiating your body into the gun.

And about long term goals. I used to play football or basketball at around the age of 14, just for the fun. We have always played with the same guys, often the same teams - and enjoyed it. No championship, no tournament, just matches till sunset. Why do you need any kind of long term goal?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

I'm fine if they add an animation like you entered the AT turrets in the gaves. No instant firing, no intstant exit, but a short sequence of radiating your body into the gun.

And about long term goals. I used to play football or basketball at around the age of 14, just for the fun. We have always played with the same guys, often the same teams - and enjoyed it. No championship, no tournament, just matches till sunset. Why do you need any kind of long term goal?

Without a long term goal, why shouldn't people just play Battlefield?

However, Planetside DOES have long term goals already...pushing from one continent to another is something BAttlefield doesn't have. For me, the goal would be to drive one of the enemy empires so far back into their own territory that whatever protections from the "rich getting richer" debate are invoked to let them come back. My goal, were I someone in command rank for my empire, would be to make that happen as often as possible.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

And about long term goals. I used to play football or basketball at around the age of 14, just for the fun. We have always played with the same guys, often the same teams - and enjoyed it. No championship, no tournament, just matches till sunset. Why do you need any kind of long term goal?

I'm not sure physical sports work around the same reward systems and psychology as gaming, biologically I mean.

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

And about long term goals. I used to play football or basketball at around the age of 14, just for the fun. We have always played with the same guys, often the same teams - and enjoyed it. No championship, no tournament, just matches till sunset. Why do you need any kind of long term goal?

Here's a more appropriate analogy: Imagine if every football or basketball game didn't have anyone keeping score. You simply get touchdowns or whatever and the game goes on. Nobody ever wins, nobody ever loses. How much less fun would football be if you simply ran around the field with the ball for two hours and then went home? Would the total absence of even friendly competition have been a benefit, or a detriment, to you enjoying the game? How many games do you enjoy playing where nobody ever beats the other team? Do you think the sports entertainment industry would exist if no team ever won and everyone just played because it's fun to run and throw balls or shoot pucks or whatever?

Winning and losing are the entire point behind competitive games involving more than one person. You can't have a thrilling competition without the prospect of victory to spur you onward. Without a purpose of winning, the game loses its starch. Nobody cares. It becomes routine. It isn't an accident we try harder during a playoff game than during practice. By forgoing any win scenarios in Planetside 2, they put a fairly low ceiling on how invested players would ever be liable to get in the game.

[Bazilx]

Thank you Warborn, a gold star for you.

[Purple]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

That's because their beta is a crunch time bugfix and demo before release. PS2 beta won't be 1 week of poorly organised nonsense.

If it doesn't last at least a few months I'll be surprised.

i agree. BETA will at lease be active for 6 months.

[Graywolves]

You win/lose when you successfully hold a base and drive the enemy off. If you give the argument that it just gets taken back then that's just part of it being a persistent world, it's not like you're going into matchmaking and getting the same map 3 times in a row. When you're fighting over the same base again, there is context as to why.

I like how he put in that enter/exit animations was something that Planetside's peers didn't have. Hopefully they come in later.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Graywolves

You win/lose when you successfully hold a base and drive the enemy off. If you give the argument that it just gets taken back then that's just part of it being a persistent world, it's not like you're going into matchmaking and getting the same map 3 times in a row. When you're fighting over the same base again, there is context as to why.

I like how he put in that enter/exit animations was something that Planetside's peers didn't have. Hopefully they come in later.

I think people are trying to hold the game to letter of the word "persistent" when they use "persistent world" as a justification for no victory condition. That's not really an argument either way, people should come up with better reasons for no victory than that. You don't want to see one empire constantly raped in 1 week, but as long as that's not possible I don't see the harm in victory.

[Hoodlum]

I can't wait till beta starts and we can see all the work and ideas that have put into the game, and then be able to talk about it and changes that need to be made. Instead of just guessing how this or that will work, also I agree beta will last for at least a few months.

(a little off topic)
Do you guys think they will open beta up when they have all the models and textures done or open it sooner and add them like for example the VS and NC maxes and use the TR until there done ?

[Vancha]

Aye, there's no point in having persistence if all it does it replace a loading screen. The whole point of having persistence is to avoid the repetitiveness of rounds.

There should never be a "win condition" that resets the map, but the war (not a battle, not a war, but the war) needs progression. Progression instead of repetition.

Now whether that progression comes in the form of statistics (personal to empire-wide), the storyline or something else, I don't know. Personally I prefer the storyline angle, but that'd require a lot of upkeep on the part of SOE.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Aye, there's no point in having persistence if all it does it replace a loading screen. The whole point of having persistence is to avoid the repetitiveness of rounds.

There should never be a "win condition" that resets the map, but the war (not a battle, not a war, but the war) needs progression. Progression instead of repetition.

Now whether that progression comes in the form of statistics (personal to empire-wide), the storyline or something else, I don't know. Personally I prefer the storyline angle, but that'd require a lot of upkeep on the part of SOE.

Sorry for posting this in multiple threads but we're talking about this in multiple threads and I don't know if you are reading the other:
Victory could be as simple as driving an enemy empire back so far that it triggers the things talked about in Malorn's rich getting richer thread. I mean, you could declare "victory" at the point you have driven an empire so far back that the game detects it and starts giving them help such as free or reduced cost vehicles.

The map wouldn't reset, but it's still a "victory". And it would be a testament to the commander skill if the victorious empire is able to keep the enemy empire pinned down for a while. Unlikely, of course.

And since the map does not reset, the "losing" team would have the fun and challenge of breaking out of a bad situation to perhaps going all the way to doing it in revenge to the other empire. The third empire could of course be asked for help.

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I think people are trying to hold the game to letter of the word "persistent" when they use "persistent world" as a justification for no victory condition. That's not really an argument either way, people should come up with better reasons for no victory than that. You don't want to see one empire constantly raped in 1 week, but as long as that's not possible I don't see the harm in victory.

The problem isn't lack of "victory"

It's the lack of the game telling you that you were victorious.

I think if they track how many base captures you were part in and make a medal pop up in the top of your screen going "BASE CAPTURE!" people aren't going to go "I feel like I never win."

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Sorry for posting this in multiple threads but we're talking about this in multiple threads and I don't know if you are reading the other:
Victory could be as simple as driving an enemy empire back so far that it triggers the things talked about in Malorn's rich getting richer thread. I mean, you could declare "victory" at the point you have driven an empire so far back that the game detects it and starts giving them help such as free or reduced cost vehicles.

The map wouldn't reset, but it's still a "victory". And it would be a testament to the commander skill if the victorious empire is able to keep the enemy empire pinned down for a while. Unlikely, of course.

And since the map does not reset, the "losing" team would have the fun and challenge of breaking out of a bad situation to perhaps going all the way to doing it in revenge to the other empire. The third empire could of course be asked for help.

Okay, you're missing the point. The victories you're talking about are short-term. They're the same sort of "victory" as winning a round of battlefield.

The advantage Planetside has in being persistent is that it's not just a bunch of battles, it's a war. There's an overarching timeline that can be utilized to add something that other FPS' simply don't have. If that overarching timeline isn't utilized, then Planetside's persistence has no benefit over the rounds of other games.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Okay, you're missing the point. The victories you're talking about are short-term. They're the same sort of "victory" as winning a round of battlefield.

The advantage Planetside has in being persistent is that it's not just a bunch of battles, it's a war. There's an overarching timeline that can be utilized to add something that other FPS' simply don't have. If that overarching timeline isn't utilized, then Planetside's persistence has no benefit over the rounds of other games.

I don't agree; a round of Battlefield takes 30 minutes.

But because I don't have the benefit of your experience with PS1, I have to ask: How long does it typically take to drive an empire deep into its own territory? If it's a matter of 12 hours, then I am forced to agree that it's no better than Battlefield. But if the game world was designed such that it takes weeks to happen, that's different.

This is why I love my idea about having a sufficiently large game world and limiting the number of people and vehicles who can spawn at any individual base(ie, spawn 50 people at one base, so if you want a 200 man raid, you need to pull people from 4 bases). You can't steamroll the enemy that quickly because of those factors. But if the game world is going to be relatively small, then you can't have that kind of limit. I know the devs want to keep the number of inactive areas behind the lines minimized but maybe that's just not going to be possible for a proper campaign.

[Trolltaxi]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Here's a more appropriate analogy: Imagine if every football or basketball game didn't have anyone keeping score. You simply get touchdowns or whatever and the game goes on. Nobody ever wins, nobody ever loses. How much less fun would football be if you simply ran around the field with the ball for two hours and then went home? ...

No, it isn't more appropriate. Although we were playing on the same pitch, often with the same teams, played the same game by the same rules, and we kept score. It felt good to score, it felt even better to win that day - just like in Planetside.

Although the game won't ever state that you are victorious, you can still feel good or bad after a session. Victory comes in a personal level - you set your own goals and try to achieve them. You can call it k/d, you can call it more captures and resecures than loosing bases, you can call it good fun with your mates... The victory is all but yours.

This is a sandbox game. Sandboxes don't have rules carved on the plank about how to play or who will win. The rules are up to the toddlers in the pit. They may decide to build a great fort, or one could decide to ruin everyone else's forts (and will cry when he gets owned by the others in exchange...) - and the girls will play a five o'clock tee with their puppys. Everyone is having fun, everyone has a purpose why he plays in the sandbox and as long as he can have fun, he will stay.