A Winnable PS? Dev Discussion read inside. - Page 2

sYn pHrEAk · 2002-11-27, 08:57 PM

hrm... ok...

i just don't like the start over thing... i want extreme persistence....

would declaring winner as whoever controlled the most stuff at 11:59PM on the last day of the month the winner for that month be defined enough? and then they not reset anything it just keeps going....

�io · 2002-11-27, 08:57 PM

Oh yeah btw EQ is not a good example. That is a MMORPG.

It's not simply killing the enemy, there is leveling, many different classes, spells, weapons, enemies,mazes,etc.

Tobias · 2002-11-27, 09:01 PM

but in the end game each class has its roles, and they nerfed mod rods so now mages just summon people who get there late....and druids (thats me) just get people there. Oh and i back up heal if its needed and not just CH rotation. That 2250 or what ever partal CH for loads of manna was a slap in the face...am i ranting about eq again?

and there are not really mazes, us die hard players have maps to every zone in the game that we could ever visit. I even know doga and nurga by heart from when i farmed them in my low 50's. *snif* those were the days. I guess some lowbies still go into befallen and get lost now and again though.

sYn pHrEAk · 2002-11-27, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Dio
EQ is not a good example.

yah i know thats why i didn't go too far into it

Tobias · 2002-11-27, 09:12 PM

*twitch* *twitch*

Ginzue · 2002-11-27, 10:43 PM

What server do u play on as you druid?

m0rphiu5 · 2002-11-28, 12:03 AM

i would have to say that someone must win, a time limit would be shite, but possibly some near impossible vitory condition, the only problem i foresee is what to do with the eliminated players......

posssibly, once the a team is eliminated the players become 'ghosts', unseen or seen it makes little difference..... they could go to places and basically whatch the action. Also i propose that once a team is eliminated a time limit should be put on the fight between the remaining two empires (a week or so), that way once it hs ended the server is reset and everyone gets back to fighting normally...

as i see it this situation is extremely unlikely, but it would be if nothing else an attainable goal to destroy an empire

Sytadel · 2002-11-28, 12:38 AM

How about this?

As we all know there is ten continents. Essentially for it to be over for any player or team, ALL ten contienents must be taken. Why reset the entire server when we can just reset one continent? Say Vanu is sorrounded, they're basically dead. New Conglomerate has 6 bases, and Terran have the other 4. In order to balance the game, suddenly, a continent with the best NC:Terran unit ratio (6:4 in this case) is 'wiped'. All players on it are ordered to go to the nearest warp gate and evacuate the country - or possibly a dialog pops up that allows them to warp to any of the other continents. Afterwards, the whole continent is given to the near-dead Vanu. While they're weak and have suffered considerably, they're in a position where with decent tactics they'll be able to try and reclaim some more bases on other continents.

This would be a good compromise - the game would still be endless, but there would be a sense of 'victory' by forcing the players to get a free-continent. You could even count how often this happens.

Anyway... yeah, that's my idea. I certainly think that a time limit (whether it be 5 minutes, 5 months, or 5 years) would be a bad idea.

Incompetent · 2002-11-28, 03:03 AM

The fight continues. Hard work is waged by each side, but the TR just can't keep defending. Finally, they are down to their final sanctuary. They are trapped inside the building, which is ringed by thousands of Vanu and NC troops. Defeat is certain. Except that defeat is impossible, because of game design...wouldn't this be frustrating?

I just want to comment on this arguement, even if it were possible to get into this situation, SOMEONE would clip an ally, and then it would escalate and give the TR a MASSIVE advantage. Also, i think we need to take drop pods into account. If everyone on the server is assualting a home base, the defenders are going to be dropping all over their undefenced bases. Not to mention more then a few would probably try to use there pods as bombs, bombarding the immediate area outside there base.

Anyways i don't want there to be the possibility for total victory, all the motivation i need is the person shooting at me, and i would hate to be the odd man out for a month while the Vanu and NC finish the fight.

Meckon · 2002-11-28, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Incompetent

I Also, i think we need to take drop pods into account. If everyone on the server is assualting a home base, the defenders are going to be dropping all over their undefenced bases. Not to mention more then a few would probably try to use there pods as bombs, bombarding the immediate area outside there base.

You can't drop in to someones "Area of Control" I think its called... so you'd have to drop at least a km away and assualt from there...

As for the game persistency... It wasn't looking to good for the Allies in the second world war there for a bit... but they came back (yay), to have the war end at a specific time regardless of conditions is stupid, as it doesn't give a side to mount an epic comeback. Also, I would think it really horrible to have one empire finally start to gain the upper hand and then have the server reset...

As for players whose empire get eliminated, well, you'll probably hate one empire more then another, so join the one that will give you a chance to extract some vengence! Don't like being on a team you weren't on to begin with,? well fight harder next time.

I'll play no matter what, but this will be the biggest Vietnam "what are we fighting for" game ever if it has a time limit or other mode other then apsolute conquest...

I would be in favour of differnent servers having different gametypes...that would seem to be the best most obvious solution

Incompetent · 2002-11-28, 05:26 AM

Someone elses base, nothing says you can't drop in your own

Mtx · 2002-11-28, 06:29 AM

Just like in CS, I'll play PlanetSide for the stats.

IMO when you know there can never be an absolute victory you tend to relax and have a bit more fun.

If I want to play some hardcore competition I'll play CS. If I want to go into battle with hundreds of other people and take part in WW3.. I'll play PS.

MrVicchio · 2002-11-28, 07:45 AM

Wow, contentiosu issue!
A winnable PS should be implimented, if they can find the right formulea. But, time limits is the worst option IMHO, I wouldn't buy the game if they did that.

Tobias · 2002-11-28, 11:25 AM

a winnable one will get real old real fast with the Vanu winning all the time.

SandTrout · 2002-11-28, 01:51 PM

Lets just not have elimination of one empire at a time.

Say the VS and NC have the TR pushed back to one base that cannot be taken.

Then the NC breaks the triety with VS and atacks them, forceing them back to their 1, untakeable base.

Durring this offencive, the TR has a chance to atack from their one untakeable base.

For this sceneario, lets just say they cant break the NC blockade of their base.

Once the NC controls all the outposts on all the Continents except the untakeable bases of the other 2 empires, victory is declared, and the server resets.

Certs/implants are carried over, but the war begins anew. This kind of victory would be extreamly hard to accomplish, because you have to keep an entire empire inside of one base, while tying to beat down the other.

This kind of victory would also most likely only occur on a server with horable population imbalances. It would be pretty much imposslible for an empire to win, but it gives a goal to work towards.