Winning/Victory in PS2 with statistics

oosik · 2012-03-26, 10:23 AM

Achieving victory or winning in the minds of players through statistics

Expanding on a post I made in another thread, I’d like to put out some ideas on how statistics could help keep people interested in PS2 once the initial glow wears off. I think that by reporting statistics on a regular basis, and then using those statistics in a sorted fashion along with prizes and incentives while building empire/outfit/player recognition in a propaganda- like way, it could help keep player interest from flagging.

For example, let’s say that winners are reported by Empire/outfit/individual on a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly schedule. Winners could be in the category of xp, kills, resources/bases conquered, and k:d ratio. Outfits could be classed by size, as is done in high school sports where schools are broken down into divisions of 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A and sometimes 5A schools by population. Top ten in each category individually by empire, and top outfit in each empire per division. Winners could get station cash, merits or commendations, or other perks, with monthly winners and yearly winners getting better or more stuff. Winners at the individual and outfit levels could be interviewed by the community for bragging rights.

Am extension of this would be to have campaigns. Sony could announce, say, the “Bloodfest Campaign” to run for 10 days or two weeks and winners announced and rewarded at the end of the Campaign. Propaganda could go out to motivate the troops, either from Sony or through the community. This would also help establish bragging rights and give people something to look forward to.
Thus there would be both a history and a future in PS2 for players to think about. Some of this, of course, could be part of a premium subscription, especially material rewards.

If possible, it would also be nice to have winners in such categories as best tank driver/gunner, best fighter pilot, best max, etc. At the least it would be nice for an individual player if he can see his kills based on class and vehicle.

TheDrone · 2012-03-26, 10:31 AM

Interesting idea. I've actually seen it work for more than a few games.

Something for http://planetside-stats.com ? Just a suggestion since for example EVE players tend to put a lot of stock in their killboards, which aren't a real ingame feature.

BTW, Higby said that if you log-in you'll see a small overview of territorial changes since you last logged in. This screen could have some statistics maybe.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 10:36 AM

Those that tend to do things in a clandestine nature wouldn't get much from this but far too much attetnion if they happen to be on a list like this. I don't think that even in some other situations that simply dispalying the "Top 5" is going to keep too many people's interest. This also really only encourages those that play nonstop and have nothing else going on in their lives as most casual players will never really be reported amongst the "best" just because they don't have as much time invested.

The campaign idea in general however is probably the best way to go. Community involvement from Sony and the palyers is the best way to keep the communtiy vibrant and active. If something is done daily, it loses it's significance quickly. If it is done every now and then, it makes for much more distinct memories. Something like EVE's time line (not necessarily written as news) could also be a great way to chronicle such events too.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Interesting idea. I've actually seen it work for more than a few games.

Something for http://planetside-stats.com ? Just a suggestion since for example EVE players tend to put a lot of stock in their killboards, which aren't a real ingame feature.

BTW, Higby said that if you log-in you'll see a small overview of territorial changes since you last logged in. This screen could have some statistics maybe.

EVE is a high risk and reward game thus kill broads are alot more significant than in just about any other style of game by default.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-26, 10:38 AM

I have been preaching campaigns and win conditions for nearly a decade. They do not interrupt persistence and offer a true goal. It's also nice when each campaign ends and the map is refreshed. I do not like hard limits though, let the campaigns run until they are over, no matter how long it takes.

TheDrone · 2012-03-26, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

EVE is a high risk and reward game thus kill broads are alot more significant than in just about any other style of game by default.

Obviously it makes 100% sense to everyone that I'm not saying every kill should be broadcasted.
EVE was named as an example of a concept. Not to be taken literally
The concept being that in stead of having this suggestion be translated to ingame features, outside sites could use feeds (that will be present) and whatnot to provide the information. Thus perhaps freeing up development time.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Obviously it makes 100% sense to everyone that I'm not saying every kill should be broadcasted.
EVE was named as an example of a concept. Not to be taken literally
The concept being that in stead of having this suggestion be translated to ingame features, outside sites could use feeds (that will be present) and whatnot to provide the information. Thus perhaps freeing up development time.

I see.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

I have been preaching campaigns and win conditions for nearly a decade. They do not interrupt persistence and offer a true goal. It's also nice when each campaign ends and the map is refreshed. I do not like hard limits though, let the campaigns run until they are over, no matter how long it takes.

The thing i don't udnerstand is... why does someone else (SOE) have to tell you what you and yours are campaigning for.. whether you won or not, and why must they also then reset the board just to punctuate your vicctory? Why is this not organic to the game already based o nthe rules and circumstances in play?

Mechzz · 2012-03-26, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

The thing i don't udnerstand is... why does someone else (SOE) have to tell you what you and yours are campaigning for..

It doesn't have to be SOE telling us what to do. It could be the CR5's or just put a range of options on what objective should be the next one to each empire's population to vote on after they've zero-based someone or been zero-based.

Doing that would help give people the idea of "being part of something bigger", which is what many of win-condition threads are boiling down to - a desire for there to be "life after a base cap

"

Knocky · 2012-03-26, 11:52 AM

How do the Support classes fit into your "Winners" category?

The Sundy that saved 10 tankers asses?

The Medic standing behind that uber 1337 Heavy gunning down all that stand in his path?

The Engi that kept that Max on his feet?

How do these guys "win"?

EVILPIG · 2012-03-26, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

The thing i don't udnerstand is... why does someone else (SOE) have to tell you what you and yours are campaigning for.. whether you won or not, and why must they also then reset the board just to punctuate your vicctory? Why is this not organic to the game already based o nthe rules and circumstances in play?

The most beautiful part of PS1 was that it was completely driven by the players. The players decided whether they succeeded or failed by their ability to organize and cooperate. It made every victory sweeter and every defeat a lesson. I have quoted that line many times, "Rome is the mob" because that is what PS1 was. My personal experiences involved recognizing, devising and inventing strategies and coordinating with other players to effectively apply them. I did not need a mission system, we decided our mission. We did not need a Platoon System, we created our platoons. We figured out what we wanted to accomplish and then we figured out how to get it done.

However, when it comes to an overall victory condition, I experienced a system with WWII Online that was very satisfying. It was simple, fight to the last city and win the war. The map would reset and the next campaign would begin. Accomplishing this usually took months, so it wasn't an easy task. So, for all of my feelings about leaving a game wide open, having a way to ultimately win was something that I would support, because I experienced it in a way that felt right for such an environment.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-26, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Knocky

How do the Support classes fit into your "Winners" category?

The Sundy that saved 10 tankers asses?

The Medic standing behind that uber 1337 Heavy gunning down all that stand in his path?

The Engi that kept that Max on his feet?

How do these guys "win"?

Not sure if you're joking or not? Support classes "support" the effort. The fight towards ultimate victory.

Lokster · 2012-03-26, 12:07 PM

I'm sure this has already been thought about and probably already going to be added. PS2 says it will be big on player and outfit stats. A leaderboard and whatnot will undoubtedly be in the game.

The daily, weekly, monthly winners and competitions (if in the game) won't mean squat to a casual player, as anyone with a life won't win anything. But, this will however keep the "hardcore gamers" (those without jobs living in parent's basements) something to do.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

The most beautiful part of PS1 was that it was completely driven by the players. The players decided whether they succeeded or failed by their ability to organize and cooperate. It made every victory sweeter and every defeat a lesson. I have quoted that line many times, "Rome is the mob" because that is what PS1 was. My personal experiences involved recognizing, devising and inventing strategies and coordinating with other players to effectively apply them. I did not need a mission system, we decided our mission. We did not need a Platoon System, we created our platoons. We figured out what we wanted to accomplish and then we figured out how to get it done.

However, when it comes to an overall victory condition, I experienced a system with WWII Online that was very satisfying. It was simple, fight to the last city and win the war. The map would reset and the next campaign would begin. Accomplishing this usually took months, so it wasn't an easy task. So, for all of my feelings about leaving a game wide open, having a way to ultimately win was something that I would support, because I experienced it in a way that felt right for such an environment.

I had similair experiences with the Air Warrior series. 3 factions, 99% air combat though, but the camapign would reset and the objective was to win the map. So i understand how you feel there. However... both of the games we talk aobut that being based on are based on wars that have a time period and span that is not all organzied around the idea of "Immortal Combat". Resetting PS is... canonically and functionally weird at the moment. For your idea to work, many other things woudl have to change to accomodate the fact that this war /can/ be won in the first place even if fro mthe palyer perspective it would technically be just as persistant.

However, your explination definitely helps me to understand your point of view much more clearly.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

It doesn't have to be SOE telling us what to do. It could be the CR5's or just put a range of options on what objective should be the next one to each empire's population to vote on after they've zero-based someone or been zero-based.

Doing that would help give people the idea of "being part of something bigger", which is what many of win-condition threads are boiling down to - a desire for there to be "life after a base cap

"

Remember that ther are different levels of mission in the game from different levels of officer. This sounds like it may already be covered without a hard coded system to mitigate it.