Disappointed in what Planetside 2 has to offer

Valcron · 2012-03-09, 10:32 AM

I know this post might rattle the fan boy's here, but I have to admit that I'm overall disappointed in the persistent elements in the game.

My argument is this- the game is hardly persistent at all. It's one giant battle over the same bases over and over again. One's argument might be "You gain resources when you take bases and outposts". That's great, but as soon as your empire leaves that continent for a different map/area of the game, someone is going to sweep it away from you.

There needs to be some long term benefits battling over the same bases over and over again. For instance, I have taken over the main base on Cyssor in Planetside 1 100's of different times, but there was never a feel of persistence to it. This has always been my biggest issue with Planetside, there are no long term MMOG's goals to the game, it's the same thing *Over* and *Over* and *Over* again.

I want the long term battles to mean something, if I take over a base for the 10th time this week, I want there to be some sort of empire wide rewards for this.

Planetside 2 looks very good, I just don't want to run into the monotony that Planetside 1 had over the course of the game.

Maybe new content will help with this? I really want the developers to be self-aware that this could be a problem.

Hamma · 2012-03-09, 10:34 AM

Well what you described is by it's very definition persistent. The map doesn't reset after team Y reaches X score.

**RadarX** · 2012-03-09, 10:36 AM

What type of long term rewards would you be interested in? Do you feel an entire faction should receive rewards for the efforts of some? Ultimately what motivates your participation in a large scale conflict?

TacosWLove · 2012-03-09, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Well what you described is by it's very definition persistent. The map doesn't reset after team Y reaches X score.

This^^ . Yes Please go try and describe the same with BF3 or COD. Then go play planetside 2 when it comes out and tell me which of the 3 are persistent...

Edit: For got to add Hammas quote for truth!

EVILPIG · 2012-03-09, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by RadarX

What type of long term rewards would you be interested in? Do you feel an entire faction should receive rewards for the efforts of some? Ultimately what motivates your participation in a large scale conflict?

I have always wanted End Game. WWII Online did this well. It was persistent and the wars would last weeks or months, usually the latter. It was beautiful and felt very rewarding. Once the war was won, it would reset.

Pozidriv · 2012-03-09, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Hamma

Well what you described is by it's very definition persistent. The map doesn't reset after team Y reaches X score.

What this man said. Can't really get much more persistent. Only thing that i can imagine that you could add is a DAOC relic type of mechanic to the game. Hard to get benefits for the whole empire.

Mastachief · 2012-03-09, 10:44 AM

Just add benefits to owning the continents ala planetside 1.

The oshur benefit is the perfect example with locking oshur giving you repair facilities in all bases.

Not a fan on any sort of end game.

What the op describes is the definition of persistent warfare i dont get his point.

Valcron · 2012-03-09, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by RadarX

What type of long term rewards would you be interested in? Do you feel an entire faction should receive rewards for the efforts of some? Ultimately what motivates your participation in a large scale conflict?

Radar,

Trying to keep this as realistic as possible, if there is an empire that has held, or recaptured the same base(s) a number of specific times, I feel these bases should get stronger over time.

For instance, using old Cyssor as an example if the NC have captured and held that main base (Forget the name of it in the middle of the map) for a specific amount of time, there should be greater base rewards. For instance, it spawns new Turrets, it has stronger force fields, it heals players 1% faster within it's sphere of influence. As an example....

This will rewards players and the empire for actually holding bases. What I always envisioned and thought would be amazing is if 2 empires were trying to take down a base that the opposing empire had held for 2 weeks straight. That would be pretty amazing.

Ideas like this would help break up the monotony of just mowing over the same bases that give you the same benefits as they did last week when you captured it.

Mastachief · 2012-03-09, 10:48 AM

Gunuku

What if captures yielded modules like the current cave ones that you can install in you bases to boost painfield etc just make them stack to a limit.

Wakken · 2012-03-09, 10:48 AM

i actually kinda like that idea...

Valcron · 2012-03-09, 10:49 AM

I am not asking for some sort of endgame here, I am asking for different types of gameplay other then the same thing over and over again.

Crator · 2012-03-09, 10:52 AM

OP, can you define what you think persistence is? You stated that persistence is lost because after you take a base another faction comes in not long after and takes it back. In the same breath you stated to fix this issue you would like empire wide rewards.

How does empire wide rewards help with the persistence of the game?

bennybikerboy · 2012-03-09, 10:52 AM

I definitely think it'd be cool if they implemented an end game where it would reset. Gives me drive.

Canaris · 2012-03-09, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Valcron

I am not asking for some sort of endgame here, I am asking for different types of gameplay other then the same thing over and over again.

could you maybe elaborate some ideas, I for one don't find that many battle stagnate in PS1 even now. If it feels like I'm doing the same old over I just switch up roles and go do something fresh.
With what I've seen from PS2 so far it will be way easier to swap around different combat roles.

Today I want to be a pilot, tomorrow a tank commander, next week an engineer, so on. They've already given us plenty of tools to keep thing different.

Mod · 2012-03-09, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Valcron

Radar,

Trying to keep this as realistic as possible, if there is an empire that has held, or recaptured the same base(s) a number of specific times, I feel these bases should get stronger over time.

For instance, using old Cyssor as an example if the NC have captured and held that main base (Forget the name of it in the middle of the map) for a specific amount of time, there should be greater base rewards. For instance, it spawns new Turrets, it has stronger force fields, it heals players 1% faster within it's sphere of influence. As an example....

This will rewards players and the empire for actually holding bases. What I always envisioned and thought would be amazing is if 2 empires were trying to take down a base that the opposing empire had held for 2 weeks straight. That would be pretty amazing.

Ideas like this would help break up the monotony of just mowing over the same bases that give you the same benefits as they did last week when you captured it.

I think in reality all this is likely to do is force one side into purposefully losing the base because they know that the next time they get it back, it will be better for them.

A true endgame is a bad idea as it breaks the very essence of persistance, but I believe there has already been a long thread on this so probably shouldn't go into it more.

Maybe a bonus of, the longer you hold a capture point, the bonuses/resources it does give you every period of time (sec/min/hour) are increased, up to an upper limit of course that isn't game breaking.