End Game

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

That is, you fight like hell for some place, and then just an hour later, it's back-hacked and your work was all but forgotten.

You fight like hell for some place, and then just an hour later, it resets and your work was all but forgotten.

I can prevent or go back and fix back hack, but i cant prevent reseting it, so its more loss for me.
Other thing is that conquering and then reseting continent breaks flow of battle, if you have to spend 2 hours of hacking unconquered continent just so you can meet other empires who is doing the same from other side, so fight can start again.
Ill take continuous fighting over "rounded" anytime.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

You fight like hell for some place, and then just an hour later, it resets and your work was all but forgotten.

Resets in WWIIOL (the only other MMOFPS for comparison) happened every few weeks or even months. You'd never run into the situation you described.

[Shogun]

i dont understand...

if after the fight is won the world resets, where is the advantage in terms of "battle is forgotten the next day"

in my opinion a battle matters even less, if the world is resetted afterwards.
a persistant battlezone is so much more rewarding because if your side keeps on fighting good while you are gone, your victory of the last day holds it value.

if the world resets, the victory is reduced to a number on a spreadsheet and all starts from zero.
i simply cant see the advantage because i´m sure the spreadsheet part will be in ps2 as well. the devs already promised to give us a lot of data for leaderbords, so the only difference to oldschool fps matches is, that if you want a reset, you have to take it by force.
winner of the day was already a feature of early ps1

[ThGlump]

So whats the change? If it happens once a month how it change your scenario that something you fought for is taken back hour later? Or you will be nonstop online for a month to be sure anybody cant take it back so you can win? Or change design of game that it cant be taken back?
As they says conquering whole continent would be almost impossible it will happen. But then they have to fight to get it back. I just dont like some kind of resets, it makes conquering that continent pointless.

[acosmo]

end game is becoming an operative in an elite outfit that is cohesive, coordinated, mature, and most of all, victorious in all their endeavors.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

So whats the change? If it happens once a month how it change your scenario that something you fought for is taken back hour later? Or you will be nonstop online for a month to be sure anybody cant take it back so you can win? Or change design of game that it cant be taken back?
As they says conquering whole continent would be almost impossible it will happen. But then they have to fight to get it back. I just dont like some kind of resets, it makes conquering that continent pointless.

The suggested idea of resets is only for if one empire captures every single continent. It would count as a "Total Victory" kind of scenario for that side, with them having won the war or whatever, and then it would reset and the war would start all over again.

Nobody is suggesting that every day, or week, or month, the game just arbitrarily resets. This isn't a suggestion that a continent go neutral after one side finishes capturing it.

The persistence would still be there.

One side locking the entire world doesn't generally last for long and if it does last long, that's going to turn a lot of players off. It actually isn't a terrible idea to have the world reset when that happens. The empire could even get extra bragging rights beyond just taking screenshots of the world map. You could keep a running tally of how many times each empire had locked the world.

It was also suggested, here or in another thread, that you could use some sort of world event, like an AI monster invasion to reset the world once one side locked all continents. This could make it a little more fun than just one side winning and then instantly losing it all. That's one idea, but there could be other ways of making it more interesting than just a simple reset button.

The game should always be persistent, but part of that persistence is that it's also always changing. Even though it persists, it's rare that the battlefield will be exactly the same as last time when you log in. The differences may be small, or extreme, but it will almost always be different. Even if it's exactly the same, there were still probably some changes in the meanwhile, that just happened to revert back to looking the same as when you logged out.

The point being that the map is never static. Changes will happen. If the only resets are when you lock the entire world, it won't really ruin the persistence. It was going to change anyways, otherwise you'd have a pretty boring game.

I'm not really for or against having those kinds of win scenarios or global resets. I just don't think it would be that big a deal either way.

[ThGlump]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

One side locking the entire world doesn't generally last for long and if it does last long, that's going to turn a lot of players off.

You know what would drive a lot players off? Being yelled at by every "cr5" (or whatever there will be), to not to fight for that last few territories and wait an half an hour till enemy conquer it so it resets and they have whole 1/3 world instead that last 2 territories.
No resets! Fight till the end! Fight to get map back!

And ai should not have part in PS. Killing tons of mindless npc is boring when you have opportunity to kill tons of players.

[GuvNuh]

It's kinda hard for me to imagine what sort of endgame content would be appropriate for a game like PS2, it seems contradictory to the persistent world that the team is trying to create.

The best i could think of is the amount of information about the battle around you that you can possess. People like that "all-knowing, all-powerful" feeling that comes from topping out in many MMO's out there. So being able to be in command of a vast amount of tactical data from a number of different sources(satellites, base defense systems, individual troopers, remote sensors and relays, things of that nature) would be a good way to instill that. being able to see the enemy on radar, satellite images, and all that on a comprehensive overlay to better track and predict the enemy's moves would do a good job of instilling that omnipotence that a lot of players look for.

I'm not opposed to the idea of endgame content for PS2, i just have a hard time visualizing what it would be....

[sylphaen]

@Quovatis:

Assuming a victory system is put in place:
1- how would you deal with one side being wiped-out ?
2- if one side if wiped out and you have to choose between the 2 empires left, how do you deal with the player population rebalance/implosion of player groups (i.e. outfits)/frustration of players ? Would you suggest that players from that side stop playing altogether as a punishment for losing ?
3- How would you rebuild the player population of the empire that got wiped out and received the stigma ? I assume that a lot players defects to the winners and bail out of losing teams because some people just care to be on the winning side.
4- Should all player character progression be reset to zero at the start of a round ? Or should there be some carry forward ? (weapon unlocks ala BF3? Resource system ala Counterstrike ?)


Saying there should be a reset has a lot of conceptual ramifications to the game. Planetside is very different from WW2O and the key difference is 3 teams instead of 2.

In Planetside, to wipe out a team , there needed to be some significant event like a technical issue, nobody online or for the game to turn into a 2 vs 1 (i.e. 66% vs. 33%). I don't know about you but the game turning into a 2v1 to your team's disadvantage was never fun. Worse, as people wondering how coold it would be to sanc-lock an empire, things got worse.

If the empire being double-teamed was 50% vs. 25%+25%, things would be even. The rules of PS made it only possible for 66% vs. 33% in the worst cases.

WW2O had only 2 sides. The equation was a lot simpler.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

You know what would drive a lot players off? Being yelled at by every "cr5" (or whatever there will be), to not to fight for that last few territories and wait an half an hour till enemy conquer it so it resets and they have whole 1/3 world instead that last 2 territories.
No resets! Fight till the end! Fight to get map back!

I wouldn't be surprised if the simple act of giving a win tally removed that from happening. A TR CR5 may be more hesitant to object to capping the world if the they only have 3 global wins under their belt while the VS and NC have 5 each.

Besides, there would still be situations where one empire is sanc locked (or PS2's equivalent), but the world isn't resetting because the other two empires are still fighting it out.

Maybe there could be a timer on it. If one side is able to cap the entire world and hold it, without any territory being lost, for x amount of hours, then they get a win and the world resets.

That would make getting a global win that much harder, while also still providing plenty of time for fighting to take back the world.

I'm not saying the game needs those kinds of resets or global win scenarios, just that if done right, they really wouldn't hurt the gameplay or persistence of the game in any meaningful way.

Hell, if an empire had to hold on to all territories for something like 6 hours for them to "win" and have the world reset, you would probably end up having the entire server reset for technical reasons more often.

Originally Posted by ThGlump

And ai should not have part in PS. Killing tons of mindless npc is boring when you have opportunity to kill tons of players.

My point was less about ai and more about the fact that it doesn't have to just be a simple reset button scenario. But then, I don't have any problem with the inclusion of ai enemies either, as long as they offer no reward for killing them and are more of an environmental hazard than a primary enemy.

[Crator]

*DELETE*

[Raka Maru]

Base gets captured = victory movie = ganked by cloaker

[Quovatis]

Yes, I can't think of a way to do it properly with 3 sides. That's the problem. That's not to say there isn't a good solution though. Like I said, I think the territory system will help things a lot in PS2, so I'm looking forward to see how it plays out.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Yes, I can't think of a way to do it properly with 3 sides. That's the problem. That's not to say there isn't a good solution though. Like I said, I think the territory system will help things a lot in PS2, so I'm looking forward to see how it plays out.

I think it could work pretty similar to like in PS1. If one side gets pushed back to their sanctuary/beach heads, they have to fight their way out, but they haven't quite lost yet. If two empires get pushed back to their beach heads, then the third empire wins (possibly having to hold it for a certain amount of time first).

You'd never end up with one side missing from the battlefield because an empire would have to beat back both other empires at once to claim victory.

Holding on to the entire world for a prolonged period would be a pretty tall order anyways. Resets could be extremely rare.

The game should never be played with just two of the empire able to fight though. The game is designed to have three empires fighting and you also don't want to cut off a third of the players from their characters.

Just make it some part of the backstory that has some hand wavy explanation for why holding every piece of territory for x amount of hours allows one side to wipe out the other two.

Or just leave it as it is in Planetside and have no real end game scenario. I really don't think it hurt gameplay or player involvement that much.

Nobody ever stopped playing any regular multi player shooter because they never achieved total victory. I know Planetside is inherently different, but to a shooter fan, it shouldn't be THAT important.

This is one of those matters where I see both ways working fine, so I'm mostly just arguing that I don't think either way would be a bad way of handling it.

[Canaris]

The whole point of having three side negates the necessity of having a world reset.

Honestly if you want that territory back. EARN IT!