Victory

[WiteBeam]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

wait a second, if I had played PS1 I would know this but I didn't so...if there was no victory condition, what happened when one team got backed up to their sanctuary? Did the devs have to step in and reset it anyway? And if so, did that happen often?

When one faction got double teamed to the point that they got bumped back to the sanctuary, it wasn't to hard for them to regroup and take a base back on another continent. The great design PS has of the 3 factions usually allows for two weaker sides to gang up on the stronger one if they choose.

[sylphaen]

What annoys me with this poll is how the term "victory" is used. Someone might think Planetside is a boring game where no one wins.

Quite the contrary: victories occured everywhere.

Every unit destroyed was a victory.
Every bridge taken was a victory.
Every base captured was a victory.
Every inch made ours was a victory.

And when your empire got steamrolled on a continent in less than an hour... Would anyone not feel defeated ?

[ThGlump]

Yea. Victory is where players make their personal or empire victory conditions. Why there must be something ingame that means it will end, congratulations to winners, all is forgotten, here is new map and start again.

[Kipper]

The idea of the titles would be that they're non-permanent, and you can only have one at a time - even if you were the most kills and best KD ratio, one of these awards would go to another player.

While you're off winning the most kills or best streak award because thats your thing, other people might be going for most revives, shield hacks, base captures, tank kills with rockets, or anything else you can dream up.

Thus the players all get a chance to achieve something by doing what they like, because not everyone is uber at killing. And if there are 50 awards between 1000 active players per faction, then I like the odds of getting one much more than if there was just a single trophy.

[Skitrel]

Resources earned from sectors in Planetside 2 are going to change dynamically. That sector you currently own that's high value might be worth nothing in 30 minutes. This is going to force constantly evolving strategy around controlling the important sectors.

My bet is that this won't be a random thing, it's going to be something the GMs control, so when they need to rebalance the game they'll change the resource values of various sectors and manipulate play knowing full well exactly how gameplay patterns in the world react around such changes. It'll be interesting.

Given that, even if there were an end game, I don't think we'd see it. Not unless the two losing factions were so retarded they didn't join together to defeat the winning faction.

[Sifer2]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

What annoys me with this poll is how the term "victory" is used. Someone might think Planetside is a boring game where no one wins.

Quite the contrary: victories occured everywhere.

Every unit destroyed was a victory.
Every bridge taken was a victory.
Every base captured was a victory.
Every inch made ours was a victory.

And when your empire got steamrolled on a continent in less than an hour... Would anyone not feel defeated ?

Yes but the problem was those places switched back to enemy control probably by nightfall much of the time. Leaving people feeling like nothing they did really mattered. That there was no lasting impact. Take EVE for example where the outcome of a players small war might have long lasting effects. I think that is sort of what some people want that Planetside couldn't really offer.

In Planetside 2 so far the only thing they have offered is that you get resources this time for holding territory. That's an improvement as it provides a bit more of a feeling that maybe what you did the other day still mattered since now you got more materials. But in the long run they need to do more. Or people will just get burned out in a few months of trading the same ground back an forth like last time.

I don't think it should be possible to wipe an empire out for good. But stuff like being able to take over continents completely or even the whole Planet would be cool. It would need to be hard of course. With like Foothold bases that gave a lot of advantage to the defending side so you really had to overwhelm them. I think they should bring back something like the Sanctuary but this time have it be on large space ships in Orbit. If you lost all territory Planetside all you could do is launch small invasions by drop pod.

[SUBARU]

If you need somebody to tell you ,that you won,maybe this game isnt for you.
There are alot of things in PS2 ,I wish were more like PS1.I can sit here and cry about it ,or i can except the game for what it is,and just enjoy it.This game is an MMOFPS,with a persistence world.If you cant handle that,if you need a match to tell you that you won ,your looking at the wrong game.

[megamold]

maybe its just me but i rarely had the feeling i "won" a game of BF3 just because we had some tickets left.
then you could also say you "win" in ps2 by capturing a base

the only time i ever got the feeling that i "won" anything was when i played clanbased counterstrike

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by megamold

maybe its just me but i rarely had the feeling i "won" a game of BF3 just because we had some tickets left.
then you could also say you "win" in ps2 by capturing a base

the only time i ever got the feeling that i "won" anything was when i played clanbased counterstrike

So many people on both teams in BF play for KDR only, that you often seriously have to wonder whether or not victory means anything. After all, the winner could simply be the team who happened to have the least snipers not capping flags, not the most skilled team.

One way you can tell this is in the attitudes toward attacking uncappable bases. This is a completely valid tactic but a lot of people cry about it. Why? Because they care more about preserving their personal KDR than being able to do what's necessary to help your team win.

[Coreldan]

I voted yes, but probably in a way different manner than what the OP planned.

I wouldn't mind something like... 30 mins of impossible for the opposing faction to leave that continents foothold/sanctuary, if one factions manages to completely take over a continent. 30 mins just to sort of be able to "ok, we took over the whole continent". With no "grade period" of any kind, the enemy can just keep pushing and pushing from the foothold that can't be taken and you might never feel like you managed to take over the whole continent. The 30 mins would probably make the resistance leave for another continent at least for a while, so you could at least get a moment of the feeling that you captured it.

Anything longer/bigger/more impacting victory condition I wouldn't want.

As for winning in BF3, I agree. Winning or losing has no feeling to me unless it's a steamroll-kinda win or loss, during which I mostly just have negative feelings. It's so random whether you win or lose that I dont even consider the win/loss ratio as anything. I only play 64 man public hardcore games, so whether we win or lose really isnt up to me. I can often be easily the best player in the server either by scores or by K/D or even both, but we still may have had no chance to win the game due to others being too useless.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

No