News: Firing Line PlanetSide 2 Concerns - Page 7

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I am not sure I understand what you mean since I agree with what you say.

What I am understanding is that you say most players will still need something meaningful that happens more often than a "victory" which would never materialize.

From that understanding, we are well into the realm of offering a stats summary pop-up every time a base battle concludes to players who participated in that battle.

It's not long-term, it happens often, is entertaining/interesting to look at and would be as meaningful as in a round-based FPS.

If people are motivated by that, by all means, we can forgo the "overall long-term goal motivating objective" headache.

I'm saying the long term goal should be progression, rather than a "win condition". A progression of the story, a progression of content, a progression of the environment, a progression of aesthetics etc.

The amount of things that could trigger that progression is endless. You could have a "progression battle" trigger it, you could have campaigns trigger it, you could have a certain number of hex-captures trigger it, you could have resource capturing trigger it, you could have killing a certain empire more than the other by X date trigger it...You get the idea.

Those are your "wins" and the persistent progression of the war is your meaningfulness...The war doesn't need a "win condition".

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

OK, but let me ask the question, then. Are you opposed to them running a "Test" server? They could use it to test patches, just like Everquest uses its test server, but also, it could test, on a long term basis, victory condition ideas. Two birds with one stone.

I think that they might find the demand to be on the test server to be high, despite occasional resets in order to get fresh test scenarios. And I just had a thought- game world resets do not mean stat resets, in case anyone was afraid of that.

Okay, I'm going to make an important distinction. Battles have win conditions. A battle over a base is won by taking the base, a battle over a continent is won by taking the continent, but the battles are separate to "the war", and "the war" shouldn't have a win condition (I see no reason that this would add the "meaningfulness" that causes people to get bored of other MMOs).

Read my post above, then tell me whether you agree that persistent progression is more meaningful than a "victory condition" that exists for all of a second.

As far as resets, what is the point of a persistent world if it's reset, or never changes? The advantage of a persistent world over rounds is the inexorable change of said world, which is something that "rounds" aren't capable of.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Okay, I'm going to make an important distinction. Battles have win conditions. A battle over a base is won by taking the base, a battle over a continent is won by taking the continent, but the battles are separate to "the war", and "the war" shouldn't have a win condition (I see no reason that this would add the "meaningfulness" that causes people to get bored of other MMOs).

As far as resets, what is the point of a persistent world if it's reset, or never changes? The advantage of a persistent world over rounds is the inexorable change of said world...Something "rounds" aren't capable of.

I was mentioning reset in this case ONLY in the context of a TEST server. But, to address the question, again, people use "persistent world" as a defense against server resets. Every single MMORPG that exists, as far as I know, is automatically reset. You kill a mob? It respawns later. Complete an instanced raid event? You're locked out for a week and you do it again a week later. All MMORPG games like that are also described as "persistent worlds". So should mobs stay dead once killed, should your guild never be able to do that raid again once it has been completed,or should these things reset so that you can?

Now, obviously, this is an MMOFPS, not MMORPG, but "persistent world" is something that crosses those boundaries and applies to both. The other thing is, not all victory condition ideas include "resets".

So, that said, all I'm seeing you say is that there should only be micro victories, not macro victories. As I've said many times, I would be happy if there was just some kind of player run news that could track these micro battles. But I'm really not seeing any good arguments against an overall victory condition. I'm especially not seeing any arguments against having a Victory Condition Server that people can choose to play on, while all other servers are "persistent" as you say.

As far as I know, Planetside 1 never had any victory conditions, and therefore PS1 vets have never experienced it, so who knows? A victory server running tests on various victory methods might actually come up with something that works for the whole playerbase.

Boomzor · 2012-03-26, 02:43 PM

What I'm trying to get at is probably this:

Asking for a meaning in a big, multi-layerd persistent world is about as useful as asking the meaning of life. It's a matter of scale, perspective and "then what?".

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

So, that said, all I'm seeing you say is that there should only be micro victories, not macro victories. As I've said many times, I would be happy if there was just some kind of player run news that could track these micro battles. But I'm really not seeing any good arguments against an overall victory condition. I'm especially not seeing any arguments against having a Victory Condition Server that people can choose to play on, while all other servers are "persistent" as you say.

Okay, I think this is where we conflict. I'm not arguing against victory conditions in general, I'm arguing for a sense of meaningfulness, as that is the problem highlighted at the start of the thread.

I don't really know how I feel about victory conditions in general, but that's not what I'm considering...That's not what anyone should be considering in this thread really. My concern is how to make things feel meaningful for the majority of players in the long run and so far persistent progression seems like it'd achieve that, whereas a victory condition for the war most assuredly doesn't.

Originally Posted by Boomzor

What I'm trying to get at is probably this:

Asking for a meaning in a big, multi-layerd persistent world is about as useful as asking the meaning of life. It's a matter of scale, perspective and "then what?".

Well I'm afraid you'll need to explain why, especially in the face of the suggestions I've made so far.

Scythan · 2012-03-26, 04:07 PM

I never comment on these things - check my post count there - I am mostly anti-confrontation but that said I think many of these theories and concerns are unfounded and one in particular is just wrong

PlanetSide prime was very dear to me and gave me that 'Perfect Game' feel Higby mentioned at GDC. I like to think the PS universe (beyond this site) has a personal effect on me.

My point: I don't want to bore you all with a long winded pseudo-intellectual rant so I will say my piece and be done: to me it seems obvious that several focus groups were held at SOE and one of the primary goals was the "Lack of Long Term Goals". I feel someone said strongly "what was wrong with PS' and what can we do to fix this?" and long term goals was a major concern. I honestly believe not enough information exists yet to make such an accusation and that the new 3-resource model was created to exactly address the concerns of 'goals' and 'why are we fighting'. Appreciative that the "plot" is nebulous and not concrete as the previous game made little sense this system of resource control clearly states, to me, why I am fighting.

My 2 Cents.

Tasorin · 2012-03-26, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Without a long term goal, why shouldn't people just play Battlefield?

However, Planetside DOES have long term goals already...pushing from one continent to another is something BAttlefield doesn't have. For me, the goal would be to drive one of the enemy empires so far back into their own territory that whatever protections from the "rich getting richer" debate are invoked to let them come back. My goal, were I someone in command rank for my empire, would be to make that happen as often as possible.

And then you go to sleep, go to work and then come home to find every piece of map you took in last nights session has been flipped by an opposing faction. That was part of the problem with PS1 and why it lacked any real endgame other then full blown Conan and actually being able to hold someone down in a Sanctuary lock during your server and factions off hours. Other then that the end game was BR and CR progression and unlocking new certifications.

The hope is that with the implementation of resources and resource nodes that PS2 won't fall into the same repetition of the "Hamburger Hill" take base, hold base, loose base, take back base reality that PS1 turned into.

Until we see more though in an actual beta and get an idea on how quickly the battle lines move and what is and isn't worth fighting for, there isn't much to comment on for the end game.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by Tasorin

And then you go to sleep, go to work and then come home to find every piece of map you took in last nights session has been flipped by an opposing faction. That was part of the problem with PS1 and why it lacked any real endgame other then full blown Conan and actually being able to hold someone down in a Sanctuary lock during your server and factions off hours. Other then that the end game was BR and CR progression and unlocking new certifications.

The hope is that with the implementation of resources and resource nodes that PS2 won't fall into the same repetition of the "Hamburger Hill" take base, hold base, loose base, take back base reality that PS1 turned into.

Until we see more though in an actual beta and get an idea on how quickly the battle lines move and what is and isn't worth fighting for, there isn't much to comment on for the end game.

Well, if the "lose your gains while you sleep" is an insurmountable problem, then I guess we need to forget about victory in the main game itself and focus on asking SOE to find a way that there can be plenty of 12,24, 48 hour focused weekend events, that way people can at least be online for most of it.

Although, what if we could find a way to slow the 3AM offensives? I've been pushing an idea no one likes, about limiting the number of people that can spawn per base so that it creates a sort of supply line.

But also, what if, a year from now when they can do AI, what if all bases could have a sort of minimum AI defensive force, that would prevent small groups from capturing lots of territory while everyone's asleep? It wouldn't totally prevent it, I mean, people could still log on en masse and do it on purpose, but it would at least provide a limitation.

sylphaen · 2012-03-26, 06:22 PM

Without a long term goal, why shouldn't people just play Battlefield?

Because Battlefield does not offer what Planetside has and it does not involve a "long term goal".

Star, you should really try PS1. It is only a mere shadow of what it used to be with tons of players but maybe, on a good night, you could get a glimpse of what large-scale offers.

NewSith · 2012-03-26, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Because Battlefield does not offer what Planetside has and it does not involve a "long term goal".

Star, you should really try PS1. It is only a mere shadow of what it used to be with tons of players but maybe, on a good night, you could get a glimpse of what large-scale offers.

The question is - why did all those people left? "Old graphics" were never the answer. I for one agree with Figgy's point. With no (even shady) victory condition, there's no real goal in avoiding stalemates (for the zerg).

sylphaen · 2012-03-26, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

The question is - why did all those people left? "Old graphics" were never the answer. I for one agree with Figgy's point. With no (even shady) victory condition, there's no real goal in avoiding stalemates (for the zerg).

Look at my post history Sith, I wouldn't mind victory conditions and I even proposed ideas to make one which would offer fair conditions.

What I meant to say to Stardouser is that scale itself makes a lot of things possible from number of players and size of maps. Planetside, in its better days, offered something that Battlefield never offered.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

The question is - why did all those people left? "Old graphics" were never the answer. I for one agree with Figgy's point. With no (even shady) victory condition, there's no real goal in avoiding stalemates (for the zerg).

I do think that over time, people do want to play the new games, new maps, new challenges, but they want the old gameplay. Even I am tempted to play BF3 just for the graphics and to use cool new things like mortars, but every time I do play it, I just can't get past the Robin Hood features like 3D spotting, audio spotting, and killcam, or the irritating features like vehicle disabling and so many no skill lockon weapons.

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Look at my post history Sith, I wouldn't mind victory conditions and I even proposed ideas to make one which would offer fair conditions.

What I meant to say to Stardouser is that scale itself makes a lot of things possible from number of players and size of maps. Planetside, in its better days, offered something that Battlefield never offered.

You're right...I think, ultimately, no matter whether we get victory conditions or not, I will be in candyland compared to Battlefield.

But I am addicted to idea of, after a 2 month fight, finally knocking the enemy out for good and starting over. The only real argument against it I see is the argument about losing ground in the middle of the night. And as I say, I guess focusing on weekend war events is the only way around that problem.

sylphaen · 2012-03-26, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

But I am addicted to idea of, after a 2 month fight, finally knocking the enemy out for good and starting over. The only real argument against it I see is the argument about losing ground in the middle of the night. And as I say, I guess focusing on weekend war events is the only way around that problem.

We have all been addicted to that idea but it just does not happen in a balanced 3-factions game unless unfair conditions are present.

"Unfair" conditions would be:
- low population (e.g at night or after server restart for maintenance) (i.e. game not working under intended conditions)
- uneven populations (i.e. game not working under intended conditions)
- permanent double-team vs. one empire (i.e. human factor making the game a 33% vs. 66% until your empire is contlocked and/or people start logging out feeding the uneven and low pops issues)
- significant hacker problems (i.e. not working as intended)

When you say "knocking out the enemy for good and starting over", I am not sure you realize what it technically implies. If the game is balanced at all, it means you will have 66% of player population (the 2 other empires) stacking on your to wipe you out as soon as the game restarts. And then the question is: should the game restart as soon as the 66% have eliminated 33% pop or should it stay 50% vs. 50% until one of the two empires left wins ?

Then there is the "unfair" conditions. How would you feel if your empire was wiped out during one of those and you can't play anymore ?

Events are one way to give a clear "goal" and a clear "winner", a game in the game. "Victory conditions" (what definition may be understood by that expression) are another.

I believe PS should have mechanisms in place so that you can pound an empire to the ground without breaking the game. It's like bending a material that takes back its shape: it takes a lot of energy, skill, effort and most importantly, it can be done. But in the end, everything returns to equilibrium naturally through the natural 3-factions gameplay (even if it went through "unfair" conditions).

That would be the real beauty of Planetside.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

We have all been addicted to that idea but it just does not happen in a balanced 3-factions game unless unfair conditions are present.

"Unfair" conditions would be:
- low population (e.g at night or after server restart for maintenance) (i.e. game not working under intended conditions)
- uneven populations (i.e. game not working under intended conditions)
- permanent double-team vs. one empire (i.e. human factor making the game a 33% vs. 66% until your empire is contlocked and/or people start logging out feeding the uneven and low pops issues)
- significant hacker problems (i.e. not working as intended)

When you say "knocking out the enemy for good and starting over", I am not sure you realize what it technically implies. If the game is balanced at all, it means you will have 66% of player population (the 2 other empires) stacking on your to wipe you out as soon as the game restarts. And then the question is: should the game restart as soon as the 66% have eliminated 33% pop or should it stay 50% vs. 50% until one of the two empires left wins ?

Then there is the "unfair" conditions. How would you feel if your empire was wiped out during one of those and you can't play anymore ?

Events are one way to give a clear "goal" and a clear "winner", a game in the game. "Victory conditions" (what definition may be understood by that expression) are another.

I believe PS should have mechanisms in place so that you can pound an empire to the ground without breaking the game. It's like bending a material that takes back its shape: it takes a lot of energy, skill, effort and most importantly, it can be done. But in the end, everything returns to equilibrium naturally through the natural 3-factions gameplay (even if it went through "unfair" conditions).

That would be the real beauty of Planetside.

I didn't intend to mean a literal knockout nor for starting over to mean a literal reset...victory condition for me would be as simple as reducing one of the enemy empires to less than 10% of the hexes on the map, at which point the game will kick in and give them temporary help to turn it around.

The game may not say "You Won", instead it may say "enemy has been reinforced by unknown allies!" or something.

It's like you said "PS should have mechanisms in place so that you can pound an empire to the ground without breaking the game". When it becomes obvious that we are pounding someone into the ground, that's a victory, even if the game doesn't end and reset.