Whats the purpose in this game?

[Levente]

Ps1 had a purpose to play, the goal was for each empire to take over continents and dominate. Whats the purpose in ps2? you cant take over a continent, you just fight over the same bases over and over wtihout any sense of achiving something.

[headcrab13]

Though there will be many new things to do besides just capping continents, you'll still be able to take over a continent in PS2. I suspect the satisfaction will come from pushing your enemy all the way back to their foothold until they're virtually forced to leave.

They won't truly be "locked out" of the continent, but the bulk of their forces will give up and move elsewhere, which is just as much of a win in my book.

[Levente]

what you are talkin about is called baserape. i dont know about you but seeing 500 people attacking an enemy foothold for a week, that will be very frustrating for the other team i dont think thats fun. There should be 3 seperate small islands for each empire which are non capable and 3 other continents which are capable.

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by headcrab13

They won't truly be "locked out" of the continent, but the bulk of their forces will give up and move elsewhere, which is just as much of a win in my book.

I think it won't be the same at all, but I guess we'll see if something else replaces it. I just can't see it feeling like a win if they still have spawn points and a place to pull vehicles on the continent, because as soon as you leave or move to fight the third empire on the other side of the cont the one you 'locked out' will be right back taking territory.

It's basically setting up a permanent stalemate between 3 sides, while the front lines may shift a little each day the battle on a continent will never end. I guess this is by design since we're only starting with 3 conts, but it might get tiring after a while. I hope they reconsider once we have a few more conts in the game.

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by Levente

what you are talkin about is called baserape. i dont know about you but seeing 500 people attacking an enemy foothold for a week, that will be very frustrating for the other team i dont think thats fun. There should be 3 seperate small islands for each empire which are non capable and 3 other continents which are capable.

It's only spawn camping if the enemy continues to spawn there. When you push an enemy empire back to their foothold, you'll likely have a few holdouts that try to resist for a while, but the vast majority of their forces will go to a new continent and do something more productive.

I'd say reducing 600-700 enemy players to just a handful is a pretty satisfying win.

[Thoreaux]

If you want combat divided up into discrete "rounds", with a clear winner and loser at the end of each: base captures, same as in PS1.

As for the talk about Planetside not having a point, I always thought that was a bit unfair. No video game has a point. Does TF2? BF3? Sure you win the round, but then it gets reset and you're fighting over the same territory all over again.

What was the point? There wasn't one. Why did you do it then? Because it was fun, simple as that. You keep coming back to a game because of the fun moment-to-moment gameplay

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I think it won't be the same at all, but I guess we'll see if something else replaces it. I just can't see it feeling like a win if they still have spawn points and a place to pull vehicles on the continent, because as soon as you leave or move to fight the third empire on the other side of the cont the one you 'locked out' will be right back taking territory.

It's basically setting up a permanent stalemate between 3 sides, while the front lines may shift a little each day the battle on a continent will never end. I guess this is by design since we're only starting with 3 conts, but it might get tiring after a while. I hope they reconsider once we have a few more conts in the game.

I definitely tend to agree with you, and I did really enjoy the continent capping system from Planetside. I think the main issue is that we don't want to work for days or weeks to finally cap a continent, and see it suddenly taken back all in a matter of hours.

At the very least, I'd like to see the losing empire have some incentive to leave and go elsewhere rather than just waiting for the attackers to dissipate.

[SKYeXile]

ps1 had a purpose? what?

[Sabot]

the purpose? I'm just here to shot NC and TR scum in the face with high velocity energy weapons... and eat some cake while I do it.

[basti]

Expect those footholds to be removed and replaced by sanctuarys during beta. Simply because we will break the stuff very fast.

[Bravic]

When I play COD, I don't care if I when the match in a team battle. All I care about is if I kicked some ass and my kill ratio stays in the positive. I can't control my teamates, but my personal reasons for fighting are what keep me going despite losing the round.

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

As for the talk about Planetside not having a point, I always thought that was a bit unfair. No video game has a point. Does TF2? BF3? Sure you win the round, but then it gets reset and you're fighting over the same territory all over again.

What was the point? There wasn't one. Why did you do it then? Because it was fun, simple as that. You keep coming back to a game because of the fun moment-to-moment gameplay

Well said. That sums up the whole argument perfectly.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by basti

Expect those footholds to be removed and replaced by sanctuarys during beta. Simply because we will break the stuff very fast.

I hope so, at least if it is as I imagined. You never know it may work.

Part of the reason I thought we should have more than 3 continents is that it is more space to expand into. If continent 'A' is full of war and is stalemated you go and attack a different one owned by another empire, that empire goes to defend their territory and hey presto, a non stalemeted fight on cont 'B' plus the change balance of force means a non stalemated fight on cont 'A' too.

It all depend on how many people play per server and whether there is empty territory to perform grand flanking movements.

ps: disappointed to hear Higby say on recent interviews that new continents won't be arriving soon.

[Levente]

Originally Posted by Thoreaux

If you want combat divided up into discrete "rounds", with a clear winner and loser at the end of each: base captures, same as in PS1.

As for the talk about Planetside not having a point, I always thought that was a bit unfair. No video game has a point. Does TF2? BF3? Sure you win the round, but then it gets reset and you're fighting over the same territory all over again.

What was the point? There wasn't one. Why did you do it then? Because it was fun, simple as that. You keep coming back to a game because of the fun moment-to-moment gameplay

Yes you felt good if you won a round in BF3 or in TF2, the fact that you WON that round made you feel good about it. I dont ask for end game win in Ps2 but i expect something to fight for. The fact that you cannot take over a continent is just takes away a big part of the immersion.

[JPalmer]

Getting resources, having fun, and each base you capture will feel like you just beat a game on a hardmode because there are going to be so many people in battles that are going to last a long time.