Why fight for territory?

[FuzzyandBlue]

Originally Posted by sagolsun

Read this please:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008...netside-the-1/

It appears that other PS1 veterans are disagreeing with you there. They're claiming the locked sanctuary bug, essentially a win condition, turned out to be the most epic, unforgettable and momentous event of the game. It even led to a temporary NC/VS alliance.

If that chance to win was always there this story never would have happened. It was unforgettable and momentous because it was a once in a lifetime thing. The more common something is the less appreciated it will be.

I see a lot of people focusing on cont locking. From what I've read(not a PS1 vet) it gave a great sense of accomplishment. I can understand why. You take base after base and finally push the other empires of the continent entirely. You then get to look at the map and see you control the continent.

As the Meta game of PS2 develops you will see outfits organize to take a series of hexes as their campaign rather than trying to lock a continent. As far as I know the continents in PS2 will be far larger than those in PS1 with more points that would need to be held. This alone makes a cont lock more difficult, even if we don't factor in footholds.

[Sunrock]

Just like to throw in my 2 cent here...

The only way to make a meaningful PvP game is to fight over territory and resources. Any other reason and you will eventually stop care about the fight. And when you stop care about the fight you will get bored and when you get bored you quit playing.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Originally Posted by FuzzyandBlue

As far as I know the continents in PS2 will be far larger than those in PS1

They actually seem a little smaller. Maybe about the same size, but you can get from 1 side to the other a lot faster than you could in PS1.

with more points that would need to be held.

It's about the same. The outposts just take a little longer to cap than the towers in PS1, and do have more meaning to them though. The random tower in the middle of nowhere in PS1 could be left unhacked, but you will want every last outpost because of the influence/resources you get from owning hexes.

This alone makes a cont lock more difficult, even if we don't factor in footholds.

Not really. Bases flip quickly now, 10 minute BF match instead of a long siege with a 15 minute hack and hold. It also looked like most of the small outposts only had 1 or 2 points and flipped in under 2 minutes, were as a PS1 tower could be flipped instantly or could take a LONG time if it had a lot of people defending it.


What does look like it will make cont locking more difficult is the hex system with a lack of a lattice. People can go anywhere and hack anything at anytime. With the small outposts only taking under 2 minutes they can just keep back hacking those to annoy you.

[Kipper]

I'm assuming that while its in beta, everything is up for grabs in terms of game mechanics?

If large scale testing shows that bases are being flipped too quickly or too slowly, they can alter the global capture times until its right, or the design of any troublesome facilities if its just one area that has a problem.

If it shows that backhacking is so rampant that it makes the map completely random, they can (without removing the option to operate in enemy territory) simply make it more difficult to do - longer capture times for disconnected facilities, automatic alerts when enemies are in a base they aren't connected by at least one hex to, etc?

What I'm saying is - I got the impression so far that there is nothing about the gameplay they won't change if they think its nescessary to.

As for the argument about win/lose - I definitely don't see how PS2 can be less meaningful than any area shooter - in which winning and losing are things you don't really control anyway? Take a game of WoT for example - 15 people per side and no respawn, all random people - I've had games where I've been the first to die and the team went on to win. I've had games where I've personally and single handedly destroyed 5 (thats ONE THIRD) of the enemy and the team still went on to lose, and I've had games that fall anywhere between those two extremes. This isn't satisfying - you can play badly and end up with a good score because your team won and you got a multiplier. You can play awesomely and your score will be wrecked because your side went on to lose anyway (which is annoying, because you end up being punished for something that wasn't your fault, or rewarded for something you didn't really do).

Not only do I think arena shooters (as fun as they can be) have no real persistence other than your kill stats, but I really don't think that people have as much influence over winning or losing them as they think they do.

[DiabloTigerSix]

Originally Posted by RoninOni

THE POINT OF THE GAME IS THE GAME ITSELF

This. It seems that the modern generation of "gamers" has hard time understanding the true essence of games. If you can't enjoy a game without it telling you how awesome you are and constantly rewarding you every 5 seconds with meaningless gimmicks, then you're not a gamer. You're just addicted to stupid fake mechanics, just like a gambler.

Thank easy-to-get-into dumbed down modern mainstream shooters full of gambling elements for luring in rivers people who would've never got into "gaming" otherwise.

[sagolsun]

Originally Posted by DiabloTigerSix

This. It seems that the modern generation of "gamers" has hard time understanding the true essence of games. If you can't enjoy a game without it telling you how awesome you are and constantly rewarding you every 5 seconds with meaningless gimmicks, then you're not a gamer. You're just addicted to stupid fake mechanics, just like a gambler.

Thank easy-to-get-into dumb down modern mainstream shooters full of gambling elements for luring in rivers people who would've never got into "gaming" otherwise.

Well I'm not a gamer then. Even though I remember going to game conferences and gawking at a Hexen demo or scraping cash because my 386 couldn't run Doom. Even though I made a few games myself I'm apparently not a true gamer, just a gambler falling for cheap gimmicks.

Thanks for letting me know.

[Pancake]

Honestly, from what I have seen (Higby vids so no NDA) it is very easy to capture a base/point. However, it is extremely difficult to hold onto it unless you have a dedicated defensive force.

When beta goes open, I would hope to see outfits assign individual squads specific bases to defend. That would make attacking a base a real challenge and create a better gameplay atmosphere.

[Zeruel]

The answer to the Question is quite simple:

Fun.

Otherwise you could also argument with any other game what the case of playing it would be. Whats the use of playing WoW? Whats the use of playing Solitair? Whats the use of Breathing? Whats the use of Life?

[Piper]

Originally Posted by DiabloTigerSix

This. It seems that the modern generation of "gamers" has hard time understanding the true essence of games. If you can't enjoy a game without it telling you how awesome you are and constantly rewarding you every 5 seconds with meaningless gimmicks, then you're not a gamer. You're just addicted to stupid fake mechanics, just like a gambler.

Thank easy-to-get-into dumb down modern mainstream shooters full of gambling elements for luring in rivers people who would've never got into "gaming" otherwise.

Indeed.

Gaming also got bitten by the inherent consumerism bug frankly. It's not really a new thing in online gaming of course, RE: "bank sitters" posing in UO way back when. However somewhere down the line gamers, that is I want to say, more modern gamers have started to equate "owning" virtual pixel crap with gameplay.

Developers, keen to sell people stuff to "own" on accounts that aren't actually theirs in the first place, (and because it's much easier to create a piece of pixel fluff with a slightly different texture to flog to said modern gamers rather than code something different to do in game) have only fueled this fire.

It is yet another reason why PS1 stood out at the time of launch, and did for quite sometime (up until the cruddy Achievement system patch which was an unmitigated waste of code/time/energy). We were there to play the game, to do stuff, to hope to do stuff better than our adversaries. Be it as an individual, a squad, an outfit or an empire. A close run hack 'n' hold in PS1 that went down the wire where you didn't even get the base in the end was still enjoyable and no one in sight was trying to sell me a gimmicky reskin.


In short, too much owning of virtual crap in games today, too little raw, no frills, competition wherein the enjoyment comes just from that.

It's all rather depressing.

[Kipper]

Originally Posted by Piper

In short, too much owning of virtual crap in games today, too little raw, no frills, competition wherein the enjoyment comes just from that.

Its a perfect extension of the current system of real world consumer capitalism - we've been told that we're better and more successful if we have more, expensive stuff than other people. Games companies are just applying real world mechanics to their games.

Also a trend I've noticed in a few games - it used to be that you'd buy a game for £30 and play it till you were bored or finished it, and that was it. Only if you went to an amusement arcade did you have to keep paying to play something - which was fine because they used to be way better games than you could get at home.

Now I've noticed that with free to play, some (not all) games are trying to get you to pay constantly to play the game, either by making it so you simply can't play if you don't *keep* paying - or making it so that if you're playing for free, you will NEVER, EVER get anywhere.

I hope PS2 goes down the middle and gives you enough reward to mean that you can play for free and feel like you can get somewhere, but pay occasionally if you want to advance quicker. I don't mind F2P being slower to unlock things, but I do mind it if its completely gimped with stuff removed that makes you less competitive and feel like you have to pay to be able to do anything with it.

[Cheetah]

When I posted this thread, I hadn't really any specific notions myself other than flying around with a coordinated outfit. I was merely curious to see how other players felt about a never ending battle. Now from reading through the various perspectives and opinions, I've reached a personal conclusion on the matter:

In round-based FPS's you play to win that single round. In PS a base-capture and expanding territory are what mostly correspond to that 'win-condition'. So in that perspective PS is not lacking any general elements that round-based FPS's have. However, with the quite unique persistent battle that PS is the epitome of, game itself have the possibility to take it even further than that territory conquering feel, and create something of a VERY grand finale. This could simply be the potential annihalition of one or both other factions on a continent. It seems to be a thrilling experience for both the loosing and winning side, and it won't hinder any of the other 'focused-on-the-gameplay-itself' perspectives.

Granting the lock down possibility seems really to satisfy all perspectives. You have an ultimate win condition, but to get there you most likely have a never-ending battle to go through. Still, just having the possibility to kick out a faction from a continent, or the other way, to see one's faction get kicked out from a continent, can only add to the excitement of and motivation for the game as a whole. The only real job for the devs would be to figure out the details how a faction re-enter. And assuming it would happen extremly rarely, it's really not much of a job at all.

This seems to be my conclusion...

[Piper]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

This seems to be my conclusion...

And it's a good one (quote snipped for quote brevity). From what I can see of PS2 that is in public domain* there might be a bit of a lack of a BIG thing for collectives of players from squads through outfits to "empires" (the " " because of fourth empiring) to aim at.

Zero basing, Sanc' locking, Warpgate camping were perhaps negative outcomes of a desire by collectives to achieve the positive goal of global domination in PS1. But having the a big, rare to see, goal to aim at would only help PS2 I would like to think.



*NDANDANDANDANDANDANDNANDANDAN