The Reddit Q&A Makes Me Nervous

[Graywolves]

Originally Posted by basti

Gray, we are not talking about actual winning. WE talk about some meaningful archivment after hours of battle, like taking a continent.

I do want to take continents and turn the world Red.


I was about to edit my post to say that I agree with most of what he pointed out.


Every time people talk about "victory" condition though, I just get very angry.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by basti

Gray, we are not talking about actual winning. WE talk about some meaningful archivment after hours of battle, like taking a continent.

Yeah I don't think anyone wants a "You win! *world reset*" type of situation. Just some meaningful victories to work toward. In PS1 that was locking a continent or protecting a lock, in PS2 there doesn't seem to be anything to replace that missing element now that the cont lock system is out. Maybe resources, but that's more of a passive benefit.

[ThGlump]

Welcome to game industry. Dumbing games since 2000. Get used to it.

They really want to get as many ppl playing as possible as ppl=money. PS didnt have players, COD/BF have plenty. So they have to cut anything thats unfamiliar to that playerbase, to bring them over, dont scare them with hurdles like lattice (i conquered base why i cant hack it?), drivers (my tank, i kill), sanctuaries (what i do here? i want fight) etc.

We all love Planetside but we have finally accept that this game isnt made for us. Our only hope is that there will be tiny bits left from planetside to keep it interesting and fun for us too.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Yeah I don't think anyone wants a "You win! *world reset*" type of situation. Just some meaningful victories to work toward. In PS1 that was locking a continent or protecting a lock, in PS2 there doesn't seem to be anything to replace that missing element now that the cont lock system is out. Maybe resources, but that's more of a passive benefit.

I like the idea of a victory condition. Having one doesn't make this Battlefield or CoD. Especially since a proper victory condition would be measured in how many times per year it happens...ie, the conditions for it to happen should limit it to 5-10 times per year.

However, I'm not really interested in advocating for that. What I DO want to see is something like reports on community news sites such as :
"Today, Vanu Sovereignty forces wrapped up their battle for Continent X that began several days ago, taking complete control of the continent, completely removing all TR from the area. We spoke to Player X, CR5 for VS, about his thoughts on the campaign..."

And then they could list some other honorable mention outfits and players who helped in the victory.

[ThGlump]

There could be acceptable victory condition, but with one condition: No map reset!
With no resets victory conditions could be dynamic, depending on what the situation is. Oh wait they call it missions now. What else you want?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

There could be acceptable victory condition, but with one condition: No map reset!
With no resets victory conditions could be dynamic, depending on what the situation is. Oh wait they call it missions now. What else you want?

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.

[SniperSteve]

Originally Posted by basti

Do not worry. Most of us share your views, and we will melt faces in beta once it turns out to not work.

Yeah, I am waiting for beta. If PS2 Beta does not have the same massive war feel that PS1 had, we will rage all over the devs until they get it right.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I like the idea of a victory condition. Having one doesn't make this Battlefield or CoD. Especially since a proper victory condition would be measured in how many times per year it happens...ie, the conditions for it to happen should limit it to 5-10 times per year.

However, I'm not really interested in advocating for that. What I DO want to see is something like reports on community news sites such as :
"Today, Vanu Sovereignty forces wrapped up their battle for Continent X that began several days ago, taking complete control of the continent, completely removing all TR from the area. We spoke to Player X, CR5 for VS, about his thoughts on the campaign..."

And then they could list some other honorable mention outfits and players who helped in the victory.

I quite like this idea....

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ringring

I quite like this idea....

Just don't look at me to do it, I'm no journalist, real or virtual...where's the PlanetsideTV guy? He'd be perfect to get this idea to the right people.

[Death2All]

I don't think SOE understands the gem that Planetside was. They're axing A LOT of features from the original without questioning at all whether or not people actually enjoyed them, or whether or not those features are the ones the kept us hooked for so many years.

I've been hearing and seeing a lot of worrying things of the past few months. More and more the game holds a resemblance of BF/CoD and less of a resemblance of the original PS.

As someone else earlier in the thread said, as a company and as a community, certain compromises have to be made in order to keep the game successful/modern enough so people actually play it. But when you take out so many of the original features that everyone liked from the original and instead take the lazy route adding features and mechanics from other games, you get a rabid community foaming at the mouth.



I'm not trying to completely trash the game "SHITTY BF CLONE, SHIT GAME HURR DURR", I'm going withhold my actual judgement of the game until I get my hands on beta. But from an observer's perspective, it definitely looks that they're looking at games like BF3 and seeing how they can take all the features they think are cool from the game, and apply it to theirs. You may argue that all game companies, and it's true. Most do take example of more popular games and try to apply successful features from games. But there's a fine line between taking example of a game and then just directly taking gameplay mechanics and features from a game, then putting them in your game.


I think way too many people at the SOE offices (Higby himself) are way too hung up on Battlefield 3. I'd be severely disappointed if PS2 turns into another mindless shooter with no depth. Please don't screw this up.

[Raymac]

I don't mean to sound rude in saying this, but I feel like you guys have lost your minds. First of all, the overall PS2 "win condition" is almost no different than Planetside 1. The ONLY difference is in PS1 you then got access to TWO F*CKING vehicles from the other empire. That's it. They were still pushed back to their footholds, err, I mean warpgates. I don't understand how you people can make THAT big of a deal over 1 ES tank and 1 ES buggy.

As for the smaller continent locks, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not going to look back at it through rose colored glasses. The continent locks accounted for the largest chunk of boring downtime in the game. The "losing" empire would almost always jump ship for another fight which meant you had 30mins - 1hour at least of mopping up a continent with 90% pop advantage.

Continent locks are hugely overrated. The "wins" in PS2 will come from taking territory and bases and pushing your enemy back to their sactuary warpgate, err, I mean foothold. It is pretty much the same thing except now we do away with the large waste of space Sanctuary zone and stick them in the huge waste of space warpgates.

Sorry for my tone in this post, but I really can't see how you guys see this as some game breaking thing when in my view it is a gameplay improvement from an imperfect Planetside 1.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Raymac

As for the smaller continent locks, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not going to look back at it through rose colored glasses. The continent locks accounted for the largest chunk of boring downtime in the game. The "losing" empire would almost always jump ship for another fight which meant you had 30mins - 1hour at least of mopping up a continent with 90% pop advantage.

I don't see how that's going to change now. If an entire empire decides to up and leave the continent you're still going to be left to mop up territory captures without contest under the new system. If anything that was a problem with the old 15 minute timer capture system in the old Planetside, and I don't think anyone is sad to see that go.

Continent locks are hugely overrated. The "wins" in PS2 will come from taking territory and bases and pushing your enemy back to their sactuary warpgate, err, I mean foothold. It is pretty much the same thing except now we do away with the large waste of space Sanctuary zone and stick them in the huge waste of space warpgates.

Depends on how feasible it is to capture a base that's surrounded by enemy territory. If it's nigh impossible then the fights on a 'locked' continent are always going to start in the same place, right outside the foothold. I don't see how that's an improvement over the old system, where you can start the fight at any of the links you control.

I'll agree that cont locks are overrated, I just don't see any compelling reason to get rid of them. It seems like we replaced a decent victory condition with nothing.

[RodenyC]

After reading this thread it really makes me think.Besides names and massive number of players what did the devs keep from PS1 making it into PS2?

[Degrifter]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Wait til beta, see what works and what doesn't, watch it get changed as the community screams about it.

We are nowhere near launch, large swathes of changes WILL occur during beta, huge amounts. Do not worry too much just yet.

^^ This.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Depends on how feasible it is to capture a base that's surrounded by enemy territory. If it's nigh impossible then the fights on a 'locked' continent are always going to start in the same place, right outside the foothold. I don't see how that's an improvement over the old system, where you can start the fight at any of the links you control.

Well in PS1 you had to start at 1 specific base. In fact you could narrow it down even more and realize that it had to start in 1 very specific spot, the CC of the base the warpgate connects too.

In PS2, from the map we've seen so far, you will have way more than 1 territory adjacent to the foothold to capture and expand from. This would be a huge improvement from PS1.

Originally Posted by RodenyC

After reading this thread it really makes me think.Besides names and massive number of players what did the devs keep from PS1 making it into PS2?

How can you honestly say that? Huge maps; combined arms of infantry, ground vehicles, and air; 3-faction warfare; classes like maxes, light infantry, heavy infantry, and stealth; teamwork of outfits and squads; etc. etc. etc.

That's like saying "Oh this shooter has crosshairs, it's a BF clone"